The Role of Supervising Judges in the Granting of Parole in France: A Critical Evaluation

Since World War II, France has sought to decentralize and individualize its correctional system. The major change in the process was the creation of a new judicial role, that of Supervising Judge, who would incorporate both judicial and correctional roles. Until 1972, paroles were granted solely by the Ministry of Justice in Paris. But following legislative reforms in 1970 and 1972, Supervising Judges were given increased responsibilities in these matters. As a result there has been an increase in the total number of paroles awarded since 1972.

The hoped-for reforms met with strong opposition from correctional authorities, who perceived Supervising Judges as usurping their authority. The reforms were also opposed by some trial judges who saw them as interfering with the traditional role of courts, particularly in the sentencing of offenders. The ambiguous nature of the role itself, neither clearly administrative nor clearly judicial, has contributed to the problem in the development of the institution.

A major weakness in the present system is the lack of a strong administrative infrastructure which prevents Supervising Judges from operating effectively. Few judges are assisted by counselors, parole officers, or even clerks, who are a necessary part of carrying out such broad responsibilities. Supervising Judges have been the target of public criticisms for “coddling” criminals. Since they have little independence within the judiciary, their ability to function without government pressure is limited. There is, therefore, a temptation on the part of many to play it “safe” in order not to displease the public and the judicial hierarchy. While the survival of the role itself does not appear in danger, it may be limited by further legislative restriction of its authority.