“I will introduce into our law the notion of excusable defence”, launched Eric Zemmour during his meeting in Cannes, Saturday January 22. “With this legal protection, shopkeepers, robbers, robbed citizens and police officers in danger will finally have the right to retaliate against thugs.” argued the 2022 presidential candidate. This proposal quickly caused controversy, with some accusing Eric Zemmour of wanting to make France a “Wild West” by issuing the French “a license to kill”.
Éric Zemmour wants an “excusable defense” to fight back against “thugs”.https://t.co/gYRedxaTJC pic.twitter.com/QFPDHoq6Tz
– Le Figaro (@Le_Figaro) January 23, 2022
As presented during his meeting, Eric Zemmour’s proposal remained rather vague, but the candidate provided details later. Questioned Wednesday, January 26 on Public Senate, he explains that he wishes to remove the notion of proportionality provided for by the law on self-defense. Eric Zemmour explained that he wanted to draw inspiration from a “concept of Swiss law”.
[Défense excusable] The thugs must take their risk: if they attack, it is up to them to be afraid, more to the police and the citizens.#HelloHomepic.twitter.com/XkAodMZ8Jl
— Eric Zemmour (@ZemmourEric) January 26, 2022
The words of Eric Zemmour could suggest that an attacked person today does not have the right to defend himself against an attack. It’s wrong. Article 122-5 of the Penal Code provides in particular that “is not criminally responsible the person who, in the face of an unjustified attack on himself or others, performs, at the same time, an act ordered by the necessity of the legitimate defense of himself or others. This article and those that follow it in the criminal code, however, provide specific conditions for self-defence to be invoked. Regarding the aggression first, it must be “unjust, real and current”. The response, meanwhile, must be “simultaneous, necessary, voluntary and proportional”. Clearly, we cannot fire a gun at someone who punches us. But it is precisely this last point that Eric Zemmour wishes to eliminate by explaining that he is inspired by the Swiss model.
In Switzerland, self-defense is also framed since an attacked person has the right to defend himself but “by means proportionate to the circumstances”. However, Swiss law introduces two subtleties. Article 16 provides that “si the author, by repelling an attack, exceeded the limits of self-defence within the meaning of art. 15, the judge reduces the sentence”. On the other hand, “if this excess arises from an excusable state of excitement or shock caused by the attack, the perpetrator is not acting culpably”. Clearly, Swiss law takes into account the emotion felt by those who responded to an attack. This is indeed what he calls the “excusable defense”.
But this does not mean that French judges never take this criterion into account. A case judged in 2018 is a good illustration of the discretion left to judges. A jeweler prosecuted for intentional homicide after shooting one of his robbers in the back has only been given a five-year suspended prison sentence. Justice ruled out self-defense while recognizing that the armed robbery of which the accused had just been the victim constituted “a mitigating circumstance”.
Note that Eric Zemmour is not the first to propose the introduction of a “excusable defense” in French law. Several parliamentary attempts had already gone in this direction in 2018 and 2019 but had not succeeded.