International Journal on Criminology Volume 3, Number 2, Fall 2015 | Page 111

Which Model for Twenty-First Century French Penal Procedure?
of procedure and judicial error). 5 According to certain authoritative writers, there is
even a correlation between the different types of procedure and differing conceptions
of the state—the inquisitorial system being affiliated with an authoritarian conception
of the state, whereas the accusatory system is more associated with a democratic and
popular conception. 6
Even if the origins of our judicial systems go back to profoundly distinct historical
and philosophical traditions, we should not allow the current opposition between
Anglo-Saxon and continental models to devolve into caricature. 7 Congratulating itself
on its presumed superiority as far as the rights of the defense are concerned, in practice
the accusatory procedure is greatly idealized and overestimated: in point of fact, judicial
error is a frequent occurrence in the US and the UK (see, for example, the cases of the
so-called Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, the Tottenham Three, the Taylor sisters,
and those of Bridgewater and the Maguire Seven), and without the vigilant control
of the Court of Strasbourg, the guarantee of the rights of the defense would largely
beat a retreat: the equity of the procedure is regularly subject to manhandling by police
practices that consist in violating the “disclosure of evidence” rule, and in not revealing
to the defense the results of inquiries favorable to the defendant’s case; the right not to
self-incriminate is today weakened by the ability to draw negative conclusions from
the silence of the accused. And finally, what value do the famous “right of silence” and
“fairness of the trial” have in light of the secret detention locations where torture is used
to extract confessions?
Inversely, sensitive to the sulfurous memories of its distant past (the repressive
and purgative actions of the Grand Inquisitors such as Torquemada or indeed Simon
de Montfort), the French model, imbued with the spirit of the inquisitorial, bolsters its
respectability more each day by way of the right to a fair trial (Article 6 of the European
Convention on Human Rights), which transcends all European justice systems and
accelerates their increasing uniformity. Elusive, in so far as it surpasses the binary model
(I), the originality of the contemporary French penal system lies in the hybrid model
upon which it is articulated (II).
5
On this point see D. Inchauspé, L’erreur judiciaire (Paris: PUF, 2010); A. Garapon and I. Papadopoulos,
Juger en Amérique et en France, Culture juridique française et common law (Paris: Odile Jacob, 2003); C.
Walker and K. Starmer, Justice in Error (London: Blackstone Press, 1993).
6
Faustin Hélie, Traité de l’instruction criminelle, 1853; K.J.A. Mittermaier, Das deutsche Strafverfahren,
1832; Max Weber.
7
See B. Danlos, “De quelques contre-vérités sur la jurisprudence de la CEDH en matière pénale,” AJ
Pénal 9 (2014): 404; P. Bonfils, “Faut-il changer notre procédure pénale ?,” Dalloz 3 (2010): 158; N. Jörg,
S. Field, and C. Brants, “Are Inquisitorial and Adversarial Systems Converging?” in Criminal Justice in
Europe. A Comparative Study, ed. P. Fennell, C. Harding, N. Jörg, and B. Swart (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1995); N. Dongois and B. Viredaz, “De l’américanisation des sciences pénales européennes,” in
Mélanges offerts à Raymond Gassin. Sciences pénales & sciences criminologiques, ed. R. Gassin (Paris:
PUAM, 2007), 215–232; Colson and Field, “La fabrique de procédures pénales”; Les systèmes comparés
de justice pénale. De la diversité au rapprochement (Toulouse: Nouvelles Études Pénales: Eres, 1998); Un
droit pénal postmoderne ? Mise en perspective des évolutions et ruptures contemporaines, ed. M. Massé, J.-
P. Jean, and A. Guidicelli (Paris: PUF, 2009); A. Bernardini, “Le droit pénal entre unification européenne
et cultures nationales,” in Mélanges, ed. J. Pradel (Paris: Cujas, 2006), 955.
106