La motivation des peines \u00e9tant devenue, sous l\u2019impulsion donn\u00e9e par la Cour de cassation dans ses arr\u00eats du 1er f\u00e9vrier 2017, une obligation g\u00e9n\u00e9rale et absolue dans le champ correctionnel, la question de sa traduction dans les pratiques des juridictions du fond se pose n\u00e9cessairement au regard du contexte de crise du service public de la justice et de crise de l\u2019autorit\u00e9 judiciaire dans lequel cette \u00e9volution est intervenue. Les juges correctionnels motivent-ils dans le d\u00e9tail, en reprenant et en sous-pesant \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9crit tous les \u00e9l\u00e9ments permettant de justifier ou d\u2019expliquer la peine prononc\u00e9e, ou se contentent-ils seulement de r\u00e9pondre, a minima, aux exigences nouvelles, notamment en recourant \u00e0 des formules standardis\u00e9es ou simplifi\u00e9es leur permettant de faire la d\u00e9monstration que la peine prononc\u00e9e est n\u00e9cessaire et proportionn\u00e9e, en application des crit\u00e8res d\u2019individualisation des peines d\u00e9termin\u00e9s par la loi ? Pour r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 ces interrogations, une \u00e9quipe de recherche, compos\u00e9e de chercheurs \u0153uvrant dans le champ du droit de la peine et de l\u2019ex\u00e9cution des peines, de la proc\u00e9dure p\u00e9nale, de l\u2019\u00e9conomie du droit, ou encore de la psychologie sociale, a r\u00e9alis\u00e9, sous l\u2019\u00e9gide de la Mission de recherche Droit et Justice, une cartographie des pratiques juridictionnelles de la motivation, \u00e0 partir de l\u2019analyse quantitative et qualitative d\u2019un \u00e9chantillon significatif de d\u00e9cisions de justice, et d\u2019entretiens avec les acteurs de la motivation, afin d\u2019\u00e9valuer la plus-value des nouvelles exigences l\u00e9gales et jurisprudentielles de motivation des peines, d\u2019analyser la mani\u00e8re dont elles ont \u00e9t\u00e9 re\u00e7ues par les professionnels du droit, et de mettre en exergue les difficult\u00e9s et probl\u00e9matiques que leur application pratique pose aux magistrats.
Au plan m\u00e9thodologique, l\u2019\u00e9quipe de recherche a analys\u00e9 6 482 d\u00e9cisions de justice ainsi que l\u2019ensemble des ordonnances p\u00e9nales d\u00e9lictuelles et des ordonnances d\u2019homologation de CRPC rendues entre le 1er janvier 2021 et le 30 juin 2022 par cinq tribunaux judiciaires. L\u2019\u00e9quipe de recherche s\u2019est appuy\u00e9e sur des outils d\u2019exploitation des donn\u00e9es sp\u00e9cifiquement cr\u00e9\u00e9s pour faire appara\u00eetre, au terme d\u2019une analyse statistique et \u00e9conom\u00e9trique des donn\u00e9es recueillies, des r\u00e9sultats chiffr\u00e9s permettant, selon le type de d\u00e9cision analys\u00e9e, d\u2019appr\u00e9cier le contenu de la motivation de la peine. Parall\u00e8lement \u00e0 cette analyse statistique des d\u00e9cisions et \u00e0 leur \u00e9tude analytique, l\u2019\u00e9quipe de recherche a men\u00e9 des entretiens aupr\u00e8s des acteurs de la motivation, principalement des juges, procureurs et avocats.
\u00c0 l\u2019issue de trois ann\u00e9es de recherche, les r\u00e9sultats mettent en \u00e9vidence que, si la motivation des peines est quasi inexistante dans les d\u00e9cisions rendues sur la p\u00e9riode 2017-2018, elles sont le plus souvent sommairement motiv\u00e9es dans les d\u00e9cisions rendues sur la p\u00e9riode 2021-2022, en raison du recours massif \u00e0 des formules standardis\u00e9es ou simplifi\u00e9es. Les r\u00e9sultats montrent que certaines peines ne sont pas motiv\u00e9es (69% des cas pour les peines d\u2019amende), et lorsqu\u2019elles semblent mieux motiv\u00e9es, l\u2019analyse montre que la majorit\u00e9 des motivations retenues rel\u00e8vent de formules type (89% des cas pour les peines de jours-amende). Quant aux peines d\u2019emprisonnement am\u00e9nageables ab initio au regard de leur quantum, 73% donnent lieu \u00e0 un refus d\u2019am\u00e9nagement qui n\u2019est pas motiv\u00e9 dans pr\u00e8s de 80% des cas, et pour les cas restants, donnent lieu \u00e0 une motivation standardis\u00e9e ou, au mieux, simplifi\u00e9e. Enfin les r\u00e9sultats de la recherche permettent de constater une motivation g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement plus soign\u00e9e dans les d\u00e9cisions des cours d\u2019appel, ainsi que celles rendues par les juridictions de l\u2019application des peines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Cette recherche est issue de l’appel \u00e0 projet sur le th\u00e8me : La motivation des peines correctionnelles<\/mark><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Interview des chercheurs ICI<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Since the reasoning of sentences has become\u2014following the impetus given by the Court of Cassation in its judgments of 1 February 2017\u2014a general and absolute requirement in criminal matters, the question of how this requirement is reflected in the practices of trial courts inevitably arises, particularly in the context of the crisis affecting the public justice service and the broader crisis of judicial authority in which this development took place. Do criminal court judges provide detailed reasoning, setting out and weighing in writing all the elements that justify or explain the sentence imposed? Or do they merely comply minimally with the new requirements, notably by resorting to standardized or simplified formulations that enable them to demonstrate that the sentence is necessary and proportionate, in accordance with the statutory criteria governing the individualization of penalties?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n To address these questions, a research team composed of scholars working in the fields of sentencing law and the enforcement of penalties, criminal procedure, law and economics, and social psychology conducted a comprehensive mapping of judicial practices in sentencing reasoning under the auspices of the Mission de recherche Droit et Justice. This mapping was based on both quantitative and qualitative analyses of a significant sample of judicial decisions, as well as interviews with those involved in the reasoning process. The aim was to assess the added value of the new statutory and case law requirements, to analyze how they have been received by legal professionals, and to highlight the difficulties and issues their practical implementation raises for judges.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n From a methodological standpoint, the research team analyzed 6,482 judicial decisions, along with all summary penal orders for misdemeanors and all plea-bargain approval orders issued between 1 January 2021 and 30 June 2022 by five judicial courts. The team relied on data-processing tools specifically designed to produce, through statistical and econometric analysis, quantitative results enabling an assessment of the content of sentencing reasoning according to the type of decision examined. In parallel with this statistical and analytical study, interviews were conducted with key actors in the reasoning process, primarily judges, prosecutors, and lawyers.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n After three years of research, the findings show that, while sentencing reasoning was almost non-existent in decisions issued during the 2017\u20132018 period, it is now most often present in a summary form in decisions issued during 2021\u20132022, largely due to the widespread use of standardized or simplified formulations. The results indicate that certain penalties are not reasoned at all (69% of cases for fines), and even where reasoning appears more developed, analysis shows that the majority relies on template-based formulations (89% of cases for day-fines). As for custodial sentences that are eligible for immediate adjustment due to their length, 73% are accompanied by a refusal to adjust the sentence, which is not reasoned in nearly 80% of cases; in the remaining cases, the reasoning is standardized or, at best, simplified. Finally, the research shows that reasoning is generally more thorough in decisions delivered by courts of appeal, as well as in those issued by sentence enforcement courts.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","disciplines":[114],"collections":[119],"publication_tag":[905,1529,1613,1612],"auteurs":[1611,1610,1608,1609],"class_list":["post-5690","publications","type-publications","status-publish","hentry","disciplines-droit","collections-rapports-de-recherche","publication_tag-decisions-de-justice","publication_tag-droit-penal","publication_tag-motivation-des-peines","publication_tag-peine-correctionnelle","auteurs-anne-gaelle-robert","auteurs-benjamin-monnery","auteurs-stephane-gerry-vernieres-2","auteurs-yannick-joseph-ratineau"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nEnglish version below \/ R\u00e9sum\u00e9 en anglais<\/summary>\n