Gabriel Attal’s announcements deemed useless or even “catastrophic” by lawyers and magistrates

The action plan presented Thursday by the Prime Minister to combat violence involving minors is “perfectly populist”, says a lawyer in Seine-Saint-Denis.

During a trip on Thursday April 18 to Viry-Châtillon, where Shemseddine, a 15-year-old teenager, was beaten to death as he left his college, the Prime Minister promised to “reestablish authority, everywhere and for everyone”. He mentioned several avenues on the judicial level: weakening the principle of minority excuse, and setting up immediate appearances from the age of 16.

These two avenues of reflection did not convince, to say the least, the lawyers and magistrates contacted by franceinfo. At Meriem Ghenim, lawyer at the Seine-Saint-Denis bar, surprise gave way to a lot of anger: “These announcements are perfectly populist. As the texts currently stand, she recalls, minors are already sanctioned and can face extremely heavy sanctions, up to prison.”

The minority excuse allows the penalty incurred to be halved. Why touch this principle, asks Myrtis Vinas-Roudières, children’s judge in Bobigny and delegate of the Magistrates’ Union: “I don’t think a young person who is not deterred by the prospect of going to prison for two and a half years will be more deterred by the risk of serving five years.”

“Above all, need support”

Three years after the juvenile justice reform, educators are overwhelmed and resources are lacking, adds Albertine Munoz, sentence enforcement judge and representative of the Magistrates’ Union: “Children’s judges issue educational measures, which take a year to be applied. The minors we deal with in Seine-Saint-Denis live in very precarious environments, who above all need support.”

As for the measure concerning immediate appearances from the age of 16, Vaïté Corin, lawyer in Martinique, considers it disastrous: “A minor is not a finished adult. To send him to appear immediately to be judged quickly, without taking the time to question the true motivations of his action, is truly catastrophic.”

All this, she believes, results in a questioning of constitutional jurisprudence which has always given priority to education over repression.