This paper deals with the sentence feasibility with a special focus on electronic monitoring. The purposes of this research were first to test the ‘six month limit’ idea amongst practitioners, before the Prison Law was implemented; second to determine whether they tailored their decisions accordingly; third, how they initially welcomed the reform and in particular whether they thought that a two years ‘mesure sous écrou’ was feasible; lastly, whether they had actually implemented the new two year limit and whether this had had an effect on how they perceived the six month absolute maximum. The conclusions put forward some reasons for this limit from the professional's point of view.
AncelM. (1954), La Défense sociale nouvelle, un mouvement de politique criminelle humaniste, 3e édition, Paris, Cujas.
2.
AncelM. (1927), La « Common Law » d'Angleterre, PhD thesis.
3.
BalesW.MannK.BlombergT.GaesG.BarrickK.DhunganaK.McManusB., (2010), A Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Electronic Monitoring, Report submitted to the Office of Justice Program, National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, Florida State University, January.
4.
BernardM.GoulianD.HamonT.Le FlochE.RoyerY. (2009), ‘Les placements à l'extérieur dans le Morbihan’, SPIP Info, n° 56 (1), October.
5.
BeyensK.ScheirsV. (2010), ‘Les juges belges face à l'(in)exécution des peines, Déviance et Société, Vol. 34, n° 3: 401–424.
6.
BottomsA.E. (2001), ‘Compliance and community penalties’, in BottomsA.GelsthorpeL.RexS. (eds.), Community Penalties: Change or Challenges: 87–116.
7.
BraithwaiteJ. (2002), ‘Rewards and Regulation’, Journal of Law and Society, n° 29 (1); 12–26.
8.
BurkeL. (2011), ‘Introducing the special edition on occupational culture and skills in probation practice’, EJprob, n° 3(3): 1–14.
9.
ButterR.HermannsJ. (2011), ‘Impact of experienced professionalism on professional culture in probation’, Ejprob n° 3 (3): 31–42.
10.
CantonR.EadieT. (2008), ‘Accountability, legitimacy and discretion: Applying criminology in a professional practice’, in StoutB.YatesJ.WilliamsB., Applied Criminology, Sage.
11.
CardetC.FrénotC.PottierPh. (2003), Le placement sous surveillance électronique: quelles nouvelles pratiques, quelles nouvelles compétences pour les personnels de l'administration pénitentiaire, Centre interdisciplinaire de recherche appliquée au champ pénitentiaire, ENAP.
12.
CarlenP. (1989), ‘Crime, inequality and sentencing’, in CarlenP.CookD. (eds.), Paying for Crime, Open University Press: 8–28.
13.
CarlenP.TombsJ. (2006), ‘Reconfigurations of penalty. The ongoing case of the women's imprisonment and reintegration industries’, Theoretical Criminology, n° 10(3): 337–360.
14.
CasadamontG. (2009), ‘Placement sous surveillance électronique: Propos croisés, (in)certides, constats’, Cahiers d'études pénitentiaires et criminologiques, Direction de l'administration pénitentiaire, Ministère de la Justice, May, n° 3.
15.
CastelP. (2001), ‘La diversité du placement à l'extérieur. Etude sur une mesure d'aménagement de la peine’, Déviance et Société, n° 25(1): 53–73.
16.
ConnollyM.WartT. (2008), Morals, rights and practice in the human services: Effective and fair decision-making in health, social care and criminal justice, Jessica Kingsley.
17.
CNCDH (2007), Les prisons en France. Volume 2. Alternatives à la détention: du contrôle judiciaire à la détention, Sudy by Sarah Dindo, La Documentation Française.
18.
DeeringJ. (2011), Probation Practice and the New Penology: Practitioner reflections, Ashgate.
19.
DindoS. (2011), Sursis avec mise à l'épreuve. La peine méconnue. Une analyse des pratiques de probation en France, Direction de l'administration pénitentiaire, PMJ1.
20.
DurnescuI (2010), ‘Pains of Probation: Effective Practice and Human Rights’, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, Vol. 20 (10): 11–16.
21.
EmeryY.MartinN. (2010), Le service public au XXIième siècle: Identités et motivations au sein de l'après-fonctionnariat, Paris, L'Harmattan.
22.
FenechG. (2005), Le placement sous surveillance électronique mobile, Rapport de mission, April.
23.
GassinR. (1996), ‘Les fondements juridiques de la réinsertion des délinquants en droit positif français’, Revue de sciences criminelles et de droit pénal comparé: 155–182 and 443–460.
24.
Herzog-EvansM. (2010), ‘Safety Measures in France’, in Herzog-EvansM. (ed.), Transnational Criminology Manual, Nijmegen, Wolf Legal Publishers, volume III: 423–438.
25.
Herzog-EvansM. (2011a), ‘Desisting in France: What probation officers know and do. A first approach’, EJprob, Vol. 3, n° 2, pp. 29–46.
26.
Herzog-EvansM. (2011b), Droit de l'exécution des peines, Paris, Dalloz.
27.
Herzog-EvansM. (2011c), ‘Probation in France: Some things old, some things new, some things borrowed and often blue’, Probation Journal.
28.
Herzog-EvansM. (2012), ‘Treatment of non-compliance in France: A human approach and a hair splitting legal system’, Probation Journal..
29.
Herzog-EvansM. (2011–2012), Droit de l'exécution des peines, Paris, Dalloz, 4th ed.
30.
HucklesbyA. (2008), ‘Vehicles of desistance? The impact of electronically monitored curfew orders, Criminology and Criminal Justice, n° 8(1): 51–71.
31.
HucklesbyA. (2009), ‘Understanding Offenders' Compliance: A Case Study of Electronically Monitored Curfew Orders’, Journal of Law and Society, n° 36(2): 248–271.
32.
HucklesbyA. (2011), ‘The working life of electronic monitoring officers’, Criminology and Criminal Justice, n° 11(1): 59–76.
33.
JacobsJ.B.LarrauriE. (2012), ‘Are criminal convictions a public matter? The USA and Spain’, Punishment and Society, n° 14(1): 3–28.
34.
KenseyA.PitounA.LévyR.TournierP. V. (2003), Sous surveillance électronique. La mise en place du “bracelet électronique” en France, October 2000- May 2002, Ministère de la Justice, Direction de l'Administration pénitentiaire.
35.
KilgoreJ. (2012), ‘Would You Like An Ankle Bracelet With That? Winners and Losers in Electronic Monitoring’, Dissent, Winter: 66–71.
36.
LevasseurG. (1991), ‘L'influence de Marc Ancel sur la législation répressive contemporaine’, Revue de sciences criminelles et de droit pénal comparé, 9–24.
37.
LieblingA. (2004), Prisons and their Moral Performance: A Study of Values, Quality and Prison Life, Oxford University Press.
38.
LhuilierD. (2007), Changements et construction des identités professionnelles: les travailleurs sociaux pénitentiaires, Rapport final.
39.
MairGNeeC (1990) Electronic Monitoring: the trials and their results, Home Office Research Study 120. London: Home Office.
40.
MairGMortimerE (1996) Curfew Orders with Electronic Monitoring, Home Office Research Study 163. London Home Office.
41.
MayD.C.WoodP. B. (2010), Ranking Correctional Punishments. Views from Offenders, Practitioners, and the Public, Carolina Academic Press.
42.
McNeillF., (2009), ‘What Works and What's Just?’, EJprob, n° 1(1): 21–40.
43.
McNeillF.BurnsN.HallidayS.HuttonN.TataC. (2009) ‘Risk, responsibility and reconfiguration’, Punishment and Society, n° 11(4): 419–442.
44.
NellisN. (2009), ‘Surveillance and Confinement: Explaining and Understanding the Experience of Electronically Monitored Curfews’, Ejprob, n° 1(1): 41–65.
45.
PadfieldN.van Zyl SmitD.DünkelF. (eds.) (2010), Release from prison in Europe, Cullompton, Willan publishing.
46.
PayneB. K.GaineyR.R., (2004), ‘The electronic monitoring of offenders release from jail or prison: Safety, control and comparisons to the incarceration experience’, The Prison Journal, n° 84(4): 413–435.
47.
PayneB.K.DeMicheleM.OkafoN. (2009), ‘Attitudes about electronic monitoring: Minority and majority racial group differences’, Journal of Criminal Justice, n° 37(2): 155–162.
48.
PerettiM. (2007), ‘Le bracelet électronique: “boulet moderne” ou outil d'insertion?’, AJ pénal: 468–470.
49.
PitounA.TournierP.V.LevyR. (2004), Sous surveillance électronique… La mise en place du “bracelet électronique” en France, Rapport CESDIP.
50.
RobinsonG.McNeillF. (2008), ‘Exploring the dynamics of compliance with community penalties’, Theoretical Criminology, n° 12: 431–450.
51.
RobinsonG.McNeillF. (2010), ‘The dynamics of compliance with offender supervision’, in McNeillF.RaynorP.TrotterC., Offender Supervision. New directions in theory, research and practice, Cullompton, Willan Publishing: 367–383.
52.
SalleillesR. (1898), L'individualisation de la peine. étude de criminalité sociale, Paris, Germer Baillière et Cie, Félix Alcan.
53.
TeagueM. (2011) ‘Probation in America: Armed, private and unaffordable?’, Probation Journal, n° 58(4): 317–332.
54.
WilliamsA.MayD.C.WoodP.B. (2008), ‘The lesser of two evils? A qualitative study of offenders' preferences for prison compared to alternative sanctions’, Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 46 (3, 4): 71–90.
