1. Prof. M. H-Evans Rheims University

2. French Reentry Courts Juge de l’application des peines (JAP) Created in 1945 (nationwide : 1958) Exist in Spain, Italy, & in South America rnd as part of a collegial court in Belgium) Martine H-Evans’ studies on French JAP - Legal (2002, 2007, 2012, Forthcoming) - Empirical (pro. Culture/desistance/LJ/TJ) - In 2015: are JAP PSC?

3. Reminder: The 10 Core Components + others 1. Judicial regular supervision by a fair and caring judge 2. Public and Fair Hearings 3. Specialisation 4. Problem-Solving 5. Swift Intermediary Sanctions and Rewards 6. Collaborative and Interagency work 7. Community-Based Justice 8. One-Stop Shop 9. Frequent Drug Testing 10. Desistance Rituals

4. PSC qualities that JAP (sort of ) possess Regular Judicial supervision by a fair and caring judge Usually fair and caring (but closed commission decision making…) H-Evans, 2014 We’ll get back to regular supervision… Public and Fair Hearings Usually fair except with closed commission decision making… Specialisation Yes in reentry and probation. Exceptional legal training. Virtually no criminology or psychology training… But rapid acculturation (to a degree… not so with the issue of addiction): H-Evans, 2014 + Unpublished study with Malloret and Lefeuvre. Problem-Solving Yes to a degree. Very hands on. But problems are solved (but are they really ?…) by others (probation services, treatment services) somewhere else…

5. PSC qualities that JAP (sort of ) possess Community based Never in the PSC sense of reaching out and wanting the community to like the court JAP can count on a network of local partners… which they rarely have direct contact with (hey have become property of the probations services) And there is a serious issue with collaboration in France (corporatism, culture, secrecy… to be continued tomorrow) Swift Intermediary Sanctions and Rewards. Intermediary sanctions and rewards abound (H-Evans, 2014) and are widely used. However, not Swift enough. JAP use praise and encourage (including in their rulings) but not frequent enough to sustain desistance and recovery (by far )

6. PSC qualities that JAP have (partially) lost Regular Judicial supervision But not regular supervision – in France probation services see the offender (not frequent though) and the JAP no longer participate in supervision. Recent culture: « not their job! » Collaborative and Interagency work Since probation services left tribunals in 1999 and merged with the prison services: ‘prisonbation’ (H-Evans, 2015b) and Opposition (Mouhanna, 2011) One stop shop. Partially existed when probation services were situated at the tribunal. They gradually left since 1999…

7. PSC qualities that JAP never had Public and Fair Hearings We have already discused the issue of public hearings I used to think we had it right. After studying PSC for all these years I am now convinced that hearings should be public. That is if JAP were also supervising. The public would witness success. Frequent Drug Testing. France obviously does not believe in it. Very very loose supervision. Bogus occasional tests… No clear limit to drug use. None whatsoever with alcohol (‘Drinks as much as you like providing you don’t drive’). No money for drug tests. We only know whether people drink or use if they are under semi-freedom… It’s something of a joke… Note: no collaboration with the police.. Desistance Rituals. None in the past; none now. +95% JAP think it’s a great idea (H-Evans, 2014)… most say there’s no time for it.

8. Other qualities that JAP have but PSC do not They have gone to scale, nationwide (but also under threat. Not because of budget cuts but because: a) corporatism and executive = super-powerful; b) political opposition – too soft/too harsh/we no longer seem to believe in fair trial… Why should we, we’re always right?! They also deal with violent offenders and serious crimes. When necessary in collegial 3 JAP tribunals. They also operate in prison (but so do reentry courts).

9. Lessons for France More frequent judicial supervision Collaboration, collaboration, collaboration! More EBP More community participation and focus More problem-solving Desistance rituals… Do not get rid of fair trial! (Taubira Act, 2014)! But I’ll get back to this with another presentation…

10. And… the Problem with finding Good Judges How to put good wine in these excellent bottles? - Issue of recruitment - On the job acculturation, via the National Judge Academy and its Long internships, colleagues, partners and … templates! (Chicken or the Egg: Good judge before or after?) My studies : JAP are good courts with a strong desistance, TJ, PJ and LJ culture = > but current study (post Taubira Act): decisions in a closed prisonCommission without fair trial or even hearing the prisoner: bad habits are coming back (swearing and making derogatory if not insulting Comments/judging in two minutes... Prisonjapperie?/PrisonJAP)

11. References Casey P., Burke K., Leben S. (2012), Minding the Court. Enhancing the Decision- making Process. A White Paper, American Judges Association, October H-Evans M. (2013 ), Le juge de l’application des peines: Monsieur Jourdain de la désistance, l’Harmattan H-Evans M. (2014), French reentry courts and rehabilitation: Mister Jourdain of desistance, L’harmattan H-Evans M. (2015) (dir.), Offender release and supervision: The role of Court and the use of discretion, Nijmegen, Wolf Legal Publishers. H-Evans (2015 b), ‘France: Legal architecture, political posturing, ‘prisonbation’ and adieu social work, ‘in G. Robinson and F. McNeill (eds.), Community Punishment. European Perspectives, Routledge and COST UE: 51-71 H-Evans (2002, 2007, 2012, forthcoming), Droit de l’exécution des peines, Paris, Dalloz. Mouhanna C. (2011 a), La coordination des politiques judiciaires et pénitentiaires. Une analyse des relations entre monde judiciaire e administration pénitentiaire, Recherche Mission Droit et Justice, Rapport.

12. Merci! Thank you! http://herzog-evans.com http://herzog-evans.com martineevans@ymail.com martineeevans@gmail.com @ProfMEvans