Minimum sentences against repeat offenders had only a “weak deterrent effect”, according to a study

It was an emblematic measure introduced in August 2007 during Nicolas Sarkozy’s five-year term. The minimum sentences against repeat offenders, which were then abolished by François Hollande in 2014, only had one “weak deterrent effect”contrary to their stated goal at the time, says a study published Tuesday March 19 by the Institute of Public Policy (IPP).

This law resulted in sentences on average almost twice as severe for repeat offenders, that is to say having committed the same offense a second time, according to this note. Its impact in terms of preventing delinquency was, however, limited, say the authors, who noted a weak change in behavior only among delinquents who had already concretely suffered the effects of this law, but not among those who could potentially fear its effects. effects.

Increase in prison population

The threat of minimum sentences had no effect in preventing those who had committed a first offense from committing a second. Only those who had already committed two offenses and who were severely punished for the second due to the new law saw their probability of committing a third offense drop by around 12%. But the “second or third recurrences” represented only approximately 1.75% of convictions before the reform, which explains “the dissuasive effect of a fairly small magnitude” of this law, notes the study.

The limited effect is also due to the fact that the minimum penalties only applied in the case of a similar crime, such as theft followed by another theft, and not in the case of a different crime. In fact, the law appears to have had no effect in preventing those convicted from committing different crimes. In the end, observe the authors of the study, the law on minimum sentences had only one “modest effect” has “consider the costs incurred” by the increase in the prison population that it caused.