L\u2019espace des infractions en pr\u00e9sence, identifiable par les corps, ceux des victimes et des auteurs, et par des agissements sur des territoires d\u00e9finis, se trouve aujourd\u2019hui \u00ab augment\u00e9 \u00bb d\u2019une nouvelle dimension : celle de l\u2019espace en ligne. En regard, le travail socio-\u00e9ducatif est amen\u00e9 \u00e0 s\u2019instrumenter et \u00e0 s\u2019adapter \u00e0 ce nouvel espace d\u2019intervention. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Objectifs de la recherche : Le premier axe de la recherche vise \u00e0 caract\u00e9riser l\u2019\u00e9largissement de l\u2019espace des infractions en interrogeant les diff\u00e9rentes facettes des infractions num\u00e9riques dont les mineurs sont les auteurs.
Comment sont qualifi\u00e9es ces infractions et comment ces qualifications \u00e9voluent ? Quels instruments demesure peuvent \u00eatre mobilis\u00e9s pour donner \u00e0 voir le ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne ? Que nous disent les donn\u00e9es disponibles sur les caract\u00e9ristiques du ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne ? Comment sont r\u00e9ceptionn\u00e9s ces types d\u2019infractions au sein de la PJJ ? A quels types de suivis donnent-ils lieu ? <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Le deuxi\u00e8me axe propose une focale sur le travail socio-\u00e9ducatif \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e8re num\u00e9rique en s\u2019attachant \u00e0 documenter les dimensions du travail instrument\u00e9 et les champs de tension qui traversent les pratiques professionnelles. Comment les professionnels \u00ab font \u00bb avec les dispositifs num\u00e9riques et leurs usages ? Quelles formes de r\u00e9sistances peuvent \u00eatre observ\u00e9es ? Les pratiques professionnelles sont-elles g\u00e9n\u00e9ralisables ou les contextes nationaux les font-elles varier ? Comment se traduit l\u2019e-inclusion dans le cadre des suivis PJJ ? Comment les professionnels s\u2019adaptent aux usages des jeunes et des familles ? <\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
M\u00e9thodologie et terrains d\u2019enqu\u00eate : Les investigations s\u2019appuient sur plusieurs sources documentaires et m\u00e9thodes d\u2019enqu\u00eate en croisant approche quantitative (donn\u00e9es SDSE et questionnaire) et qualitative (immersion longue, observation ethnographique, analyse de situations, jurisprudence, entretiens individuels et collectifs, analyse des dossiers). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Principaux r\u00e9sultats : Malgr\u00e9 l\u2019affirmation r\u00e9guli\u00e8re de l\u2019aptitude du droit p\u00e9nal positif \u00e0 r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 des comportements d\u00e9lictuels plus in\u00e9dits dans leur mode op\u00e9ratoire, l\u2019enqu\u00eate montre que de nouvelles infractions sont sans cesse cr\u00e9\u00e9es, avec une d\u00e9termination des pouvoirs publics \u00e0 r\u00e9agir s\u00e9v\u00e8rement face \u00e0 des comportements juv\u00e9niles m\u00e9diatis\u00e9s et inqui\u00e9tant l\u2019opinion publique. Alors qu\u2019en 1996, on ne recense que 53 infractions sp\u00e9cifiques au num\u00e9rique, il en existe en 2019, 231. Pour autant, la proportion d\u2019infractions num\u00e9riques dans la d\u00e9linquance juv\u00e9nile est r\u00e9siduelle, se situant en-de\u00e7\u00e0 de 1% des infractions poursuivies ou jug\u00e9es. Par ailleurs, la d\u00e9monstration a cherch\u00e9 \u00e0 saisir les dispositifs disciplinaires mis en place en r\u00e9ponse aux infractions num\u00e9riques des mineurs en mod\u00e9lisant trois types : le dispositif inter-disciplinaire pour la primo-infraction, le dispositif mono-disciplinaire pour l\u2019infraction secondaire et enfin, le dispositif du transfert acceptable pour les infractions remarqu\u00e9es. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Enfin, consid\u00e9rant l\u2019aspect transversal de la circulation des technologies num\u00e9riques dans le travail socio-\u00e9ducatif, de l\u2019e-inclusion \u00e0 la surveillance \u00e9lectronique, du travail relationnel \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9ducation vers des usages vertueux, la recherche appr\u00e9hende le champ de tension en mati\u00e8re de pratiques professionnelles en termes d\u2019adaptations et de r\u00e9sistances en insistant sur l\u2019h\u00e9t\u00e9rog\u00e9n\u00e9it\u00e9 des mani\u00e8res de faire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The field of offenses, featured with bodies – those of victims and perpetrators – and actions in delimited aeras, is now enhanced by a new dimension: that of online space. In this context, socio-educational work will have to get appropriate tools and adapt to this new territory of intervention. Research goals First, our research aims to characterize the expansion of the offence field by reviewing the different sides of digital offences committed by juveniles. How are these offenses qualified, and how are these qualifications evolving? What measurement tools can be mobilized to shed light on the phenomenon? What do available data tell us about the characteristics of the phenomenon? How are these types of offences received by the PJJ? What types of follow-ups do they give rise to? The second axis focuses on socio-educational work in the digital era, documenting the dimensions of instrumented work and the fields of tension that run through professional practices. What forms of resistance can be observed? Can professional practices in this area be generalised, or do they vary according to national contexts? How is e-inclusion taken into account in PJJ support? How are professionals coping with the uses of young people and their families? Methodology and survey ground Our survey is based on several documentary sources and survey methods, combining a quantitative approach (SDSE data and questionnaire) and a qualitative approach (long immersion, ethnographic observation, situation analysis, case law, individual and group interviews, file analysis). Main findings Despite the usual saying on the ability of positive criminal law to respond to criminal behavior that is more unusual in its modus operandi, the survey shows that new offenses are constantly being created, with a determination on the part of public authorities to react severely to juvenile behavior that receives media coverage and worries public opinion. Whereas in 1996, there were just 53 offenses specifically related to digital technology, in 2019 there are 231. Even so, the proportion of digital offenses in juvenile delinquency is residual, at less than 1% of offenses prosecuted or judged. In addition, our research sought to capture educational support by modelling the disciplinary measures implemented in response to juvenile digital offences in three types: the inter[1]disciplinary measure for primary offences, the mono-disciplinary measure for secondary offences and, finally, the acceptable transfer measure for high-profile offences. Finally, considering the transversal side of the circulation of digital technologies in socio-educational work, from e-inclusion to electronic surveillance, from relational work to education towards virtuous uses, the research apprehends the field of tension in professional practices in terms of adaptations and resistances, insisting on the heterogeneity of ways of doing things<\/p>\n<\/details>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","disciplines":[114,115],"collections":[119],"publication_tag":[],"auteurs":[331,333],"class_list":["post-10841","publications","type-publications","status-publish","hentry","disciplines-droit","disciplines-sociologie","collections-rapports-de-recherche","auteurs-emilie-potin","auteurs-gael-henaff"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n