Should we judge more quickly to better protect victims?

In mid-April, the Senate will examine a criminal justice reform project, led by the Minister of Justice, Gérald Darmanin. Its most emblematic measure aims to unclog the courts: the introduction of guilty pleas.

The system would speed up the processing of certain criminal cases, particularly in rape cases, often judged years after the facts. If the accused pleads guilty, this simplified procedure would reduce his sentence by at least a third, provided that the victim agrees.

She would then avoid a complete, long and painful trial. But many professionals denounce the risk of hasty justice, unfavorable to the victim.

This reform can provide a concrete response to the strong expectations of victims. The so-called “guilty plea” system, legally called appearance on prior admission of guilt (CRPC), is part of respecting everyone’s rights. It is not me who affirms this but the Council of State.

It will not be a question of resolving cases at full speed, because in criminal matters, an investigating judge is seized and orders an investigation, expert opinions and hearings. This necessary time will be respected but the hearing will be brought forward and reduced to the examination of the personality elements of the parties.

From more than five years on average, the entire procedure could take less than three years. Today, cases take up to eight years to be judged, as the courts are so clogged (5,000 criminal cases are currently blocked according to the chancellery, editor’s note). In rape cases, this time can be trying.

The full trial, before the criminal court, is considered difficult because the victims fear that their word will be called into question. Furthermore, as the delays are long, the courts do not necessarily have the possibility of placing the accused in pre-trial detention until the trial.

The guilty plea system will spare the complainant the uncertainty of waiting and will be subject to his agreement as well as that of the accused, assisted by their lawyers. The latter, as part of their duty to advise, will assist their client as best they can.

When we talk about the need to better take victims into account, we must not fall into dogmatism. Rape is as much a mass crime as it is an attack on the intimate. The reactions and hopes of the victims are plural. Some seek above all recognition of the facts, more than a heavy condemnation of their attacker.

The Ministry of Justice suggests that 15% of criminal cases could be processed more quickly: this estimate is not based on any concrete elements. The “recognition of the facts”, particularly in cases of sexual violence, refers to a much more complex reality than the bill suggests.

It is rare for rapes to be fully acknowledged; often, the person under investigation disputes or admits only part of the facts: the gesture but not the intention, one fact but not another. This is where the educational dimension of the trial is essential.

However, the guilty plea only offers a hearing during which the author accepts or refuses the sentence, without debate, experts or witnesses. In a slow and saturated judicial system, the victim is faced with a forced choice.

Either she participates in a trial which will take place several years from now but which will offer a space for listening and confrontation often necessary for her personal progress, or she accepts a cheap, rapid, expeditious system which makes her invisible.

The time of the full trial also serves the accused to assess his responsibility and the seriousness of the facts. Finally, it allows the Court to avoid judicial errors as much as possible and to pronounce the most appropriate sentence possible. For twenty years, the executive has adopted a performance logic unsuitable for the most serious offenses.

The resources are concentrated on offenses of medium and low seriousness while there is a lack of magistrates for criminal cases. To avoid delays that border on institutional mistreatment, we must free up time and therefore prioritize criminal cases. Crimes concern all of society: we must reorient our priorities rather than multiply transaction mechanisms that are harmful to justice.