State, Citizen, and Character in French Criminal Process

Abstract

This paper charts some major differences in the way in which evidence of the defendant's character is treated in France when compared with practice in England and Wales. Such evidence is more pervasive and visible (especially in the most serious cases) and its relevance is more broadly defined. Further, its presentation is shaped by a developed and positive conception of the French citizen. In part, these differences may be explained by differences in procedural tradition: the unitary trial structure in France, the dominance of fact-finding by the professional judiciary, and the rejection of general exclusionary rules of evidence. But a full explanation requires French legal culture to be understood in the context of French political culture. This reveals a very different conception of relations between state and citizen to that of AngloSaxon liberalism. As a result the legitimacy of trial is seen in terms of the rehabilitation of the accused as a citizen of the state rather than simply the punishment of a particular infraction.

Reading and writing youth justice in Italy and (England and) Wales

“…In Italy, as in other jurisdictions with an inquisitorial tradition, police reports do not just deal with the facts of the offence and its circumstances. They are expected to deal specifically with personality and background: police information and comment (both positive and negative) on these matters is a routine feature of case-files (for the similar position in France see Field, 2006 and for Belgium see Beyens and Scheirs, this issue). What the various discursive styles of police, social worker and psychologist have in common, particularly when read alongside Welsh youth justice files, is a kind of confident paternalism, a secure sense of the capacity to make valid judgements about 'normal families' and appropriate life-styles.…”

Understanding the Sentencing Process in France

“…Although French defendants might also feel that they are processed through the courts as they struggle to understand the process, 4 they are addressed directly, required to account for themselves and to respond to the accusations against them. In contrast to an adversarial procedure, their character is before the court from the outset (before any finding of guilt) and is seen as an essential part of evaluating the evidence (Field 2006).…”

La larga sombra de las categorías acusatorio-inquisitivo

“…relevamiento teórico de la oposición acusatorioinquisitivo de la sección anterior como: 1) tipos ideales descriptivos, 2) sistemas históricos o sociológicos presentes en procesos penales concretos pasados o contemporáneos, 3) intereses o valores contrapuestos que coexisten en todo proceso penal, 4) funciones del proceso penal y 5) modelos normativos. Dubber (1995), Field (2006), Lacey y Zedner (1998), Ross (2007), Whitman (2009Whitman ( y 2004.…”