Before 2009, the main rationales of the French early release system were reinsertion and resocialisation; the prevention of reoffending, the interests of society; and the rights of victims. With the chronic prison overcrowding and the cost for public finances a radical change occurred with three law reforms (2009, 2014, 2019). The new main – if not unique – objective is to free as many prisoners as possible, this, as quickly as possible, without through the gate programmes that address prisoners’ release needs. As a research conducted from 2014 to 2016 shows ‘bad fast’ procedures are rejected by both reentry judges (they lack ‘moral alignment’) and with prisoners (they are perceived as unfair and unsupportive). This article will deal with these subjects by drawing upon theories of innovation diffusion and legitimacy of justice.
BarrettSFudgeC (1981) Policy and Action: Essays on the Implementation of Public Policy. London: Methuen.
2.
BontaJAndrewsDA (2017) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 6th edn.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
3.
BooneMMMaguireN (eds) (2017) The Enforcement of Offender Supervision in Europe. Understanding Breach Processes. London: Routledge.
4.
BottomsAE (1980) An introduction to ‘the coming crisis’. In: BottomsAEPrestonRD (eds) The Coming Penal Crisis: A Criminological and Theological Exploration. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, pp. 1–24.
5.
De MesmaeckerV (2014) Perceptions of Criminal Justice. Abingdon: Routledge.
6.
DeciEL (1971) Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology18(1): 105–115.
7.
DelbosV (2016) Rapport sur la mise en œuvre de la loi du 15 août 2014 relative à l’individualisation des peines et renforçant l’efficacité des sanctions pénales. Rapport au Ministre de la Justice [Report to the Ministry of Justice – regarding the implementation of the law of August 15, 2014, pertaining to the individualisation of sentences and reinforcing the efficacy of sentences].
8.
Direction de l’administration pénitentiaire [French Prison Services] (2018) Pratiques opérationnelles [Professional guidelines]. Paris: French Ministry of Justice.
9.
DubourgE (2015) Les services pénitentiaires d’insertion et de probation, évolution, évaluation et avenir [Probation services: evolution, assessment and future]. PhD dissertation, Criminal law, University of Nantes, Nantes.
10.
FinchaboyJ (2019) Le sens et l’efficacité des peines dans la loi de programmation 2018-2022 et de réforme pour la justice. Actualité Juridique Pénal, April, 198–201.
11.
FullerBERieckmannTNunesEV, et al. (2007) Organizational readiness for change and opinions toward treatment innovation. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment33: 183–192.
12.
GentiliniA (2014) Le juge de l’application des peines: vers une disparition? [The sentence implication judge: towards disappearance?] In: GhelfiF (ed.) Le droit de l’exécution des peines. Espoirs ou désillusion. Paris: l’Harmattan, pp. 107–120.
13.
GiordanoP (2017) A relational perspective on agency and the desistance process. In: BloklandAvan der GeestV (eds) Routledge International Handbook of Life-Course Criminology. New York: Routledge, pp. 43–49.
14.
GuglielmiG (1991) Le juge de l’application des peines est-il un chiroptère? [Is the sentences’ implementation judge a chiropterans ?] Revue de Sciences Criminelles et de Droit Pénal Comparé3: 622–635.
15.
Herzog-EvansM (1999) Le juge de l’application des peines, juridiction de premier degré [The sentences’ implementation judge: a first instance court]. Revue de Sciences Criminelles et de Droit Pénal Comparé2 : 289–301.
16.
Herzog-EvansM (2014) French reentry courts and rehabilitation: Mister Jourdain of desistance. Paris: L’harmattan.
17.
Herzog-EvansM (2015) Is the French juge de l’application des peines a problem-solving court? In: Herzog-EvansM (ed.) Offender Release and supervision: The Role of Courts and the Use of Discretion. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers, pp. 409–445.
18.
Herzog-EvansM (2016a) Law as an extrinsic responsivity factor: What’s just is what works!European Journal of Probation8(3): 146–169.
19.
Herzog-EvansM (2016b) Release and supervision: relationships and support from classic and holistic attorneys. International Journal of Therapeutic Jurisprudence1(1): 23–58.
20.
Herzog-EvansM (2017a) Droit de l’exécution des peines, 5th edn. [Law on implmentation of sentences]. Paris: Dalloz.
21.
Herzog-EvansM (2017b) La libération sous contrainte dans le Nord-est de la France. Rapport pour la Mission Droit et Justice [Liberation under constraint in the North-East of France. A report to the Law and Justice Mission). Reims.
22.
Herzog-EvansM (2018) RNR, Evidence diversity and integrative theory. In: UgwudikePRaynorPAnnisonJ (eds) Evidence-based Skills in Criminal Justice. International Research Supporting Rehabilitation and Desistance. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 99–126.
23.
Herzog-EvansM (2019a) Bifurcation and redemption. In: MeijerSAnnisonHO’LoughlinA (eds) Fundamental Rights and Legal Consequences of Criminal Conviction. Oxford: Hart Publishing and Oñati International Series in Law and Society, pp. 209–226.
24.
Herzog-EvansM (2019b) A LJ-PJ-TJ-EBP model in offender release and supervision. In: StobbsNBartelsLVolsM (eds) The Methodology and Practice of Therapeutic JurisprudenceDurham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, pp. 197–225.
25.
KingS (2013) Transformative agency and desistance from crime. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 13(3): 317–335.
26.
LevasseurG (1983) Aperçu sur la judiciarisation de l’exécution des sanctions répressives [An overview of the judicialisation of penal sanctions’ implementation]. Revue Pénitentiaire4(4): 327–339.
27.
LeventhalGS (1980) What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In: GergenKGreenbergMWillisR (eds) Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 27–55.
28.
McNeillF (2012) Four forms of ‘offender rehabilitation’: Towards an interdisciplinary perspective. Legal and Criminological Psychology17(1): 18–36.
29.
MarshDRhodesRAW (1992) The implementation gap: Explaining policy change and continuity. In: MarshDRhodesRAW (eds) Implementing Thatcherite policies. Audit of an era. Buckingham: Open University Press, pp. 170–206.
30.
MazmanianDSabatierP (1983) Implementation and Public Policy. Glenview: Scott, Foresman.
31.
OstermannM (2013) Active supervision and its impact upon parolee recidivism rates. Crime & Delinquency59(4): 487–509.
32.
PadfieldN (2016) Book reviews of Droit de l’exécution des peines. European Journal of Probation9(2): 192–196.
33.
PadfieldNvan Zyl SmitDDünkelF (eds) (2010) Release from Prison. European Policy and Practice. Collumpton: Willan Publishing.
34.
RitzerG (2015) The McDonaldization of Society, 8th edn.London: SAGE Publications.
35.
RobinsonGMcNeillF (2008) Exploring the dynamics of compliance with community penalties. Theoretical Criminology12(4): 431–449.
36.
RogersE (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edn.New York, NY: Free Press.
37.
RyanRMDeciEL (2017) Self-determination Theory. Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. London: Guilford Press.
38.
SiporinM (1984) Have you heard the one about social work humour?Social Casework68(8): 459–464.
39.
SnackenSBeyensKBeernaertMA (2010) Belgium. In: PadfieldNvan Zyl SmitDDünkelF (eds) Release from Prison. European Policy and Practice. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, pp. 70–103.
40.
StrackFMussweilerT (1997) Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology73(3): 437–446.
41.
SuggettD (2011) The implementation challenge: Strategy is only as good as its execution. Occasional paper n° 15: State Services Authority and The Australia and New Zealand School of Government.
42.
StraussAJulietC (1994) Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In: DenzinNLincolnY (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, 5th edn.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp. 273–284.
43.
SuggettD (2011) The implementation challenge: Strategy is only as good as its execution, State Services Authority and The Australia and New Zealand School of Government, Occasional paper n° 15.
44.
TaxmanFSBelenkoS (2012) Implementing Evidence-based Practices in Community Corrections and Addiction Treatment. Berlin: Springer.
45.
TylerTR (2012) Legitimacy and compliance: The virtues of self-regulation. In: CrawfordAHucklesbyA (eds) Legitimacy and Compliance in Criminal Justice. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 8–28.
46.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2012) Introductory Handbook on the Prevention of Recidivism and the Social Reintegration of Offenders. New York.
47.
WerthR (2011) ‘I do what I’m told, sort of’; Reformed subject, unruly citizens, and parole. Theoretical Criminology16(3): 329–346.
48.
WexlerDWinickBJ (eds) (1996) Law in a Therapeutic Key: Developments in Therapeutic Jurisprudence. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
49.
WexlerDB (2014) New wine in new bottles: The need to sketch a therapeutic jurisprudence ‘code’ of proposed criminal processes and practices. Arizona Summit Law Review7: 463–479.
