Abstract
In France in the early 2000s, closed educational centers (CEFs) were created on the foundation of a misunderstanding. Symbols of the unbridled, renewed promotion of youth imprisonment in public debates, when CEFs opened, they finally appeared to be less “closed” than originally claimed. Although the youths are formally required not to leave the premises, they still leave regularly. Should these outings be considered escapes? The prison term “escape” is often used in the media or in academic discussions, but this is legally inaccurate. To resolve the prevailing confusion, the Ministry of Justice recently issued a reminder: since CEFs are not prisons (in fact, alongside CEFs, there are still “real” prisons for minors in France), youths who leave without authorization are not escapees, but runaways. Based on an ethnographic investigation conducted within a CEF, this chapter looks at the issues surrounding this semantic clarification. On the one hand, the operation of CEFs fundamentally distinguishes them from a prison: educators aim to regulate exits more than to avoid them at all costs. However, on the other hand, as a symbol of the growing prevalence of probationary logic in the French juvenile justice system, every young runaway risks being incarcerated—in a “real” prison—if a judge so decides. Finally, this threat of “real” incarceration hanging over the heads of youths tends to reproduce the confusion, as a symbol of the increasing extension of prison rationales outside the walls of “real” prison.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Notes
- 1.
According to figures supplied by the PJJ administration, this only concerned 0.3% of CEF placements in 2013.
- 2.
In a different form, here we find certain elements of the analysis developed by John Pitts and Tarja Kuula (2006). Regarding the case of Finland, they point out that low juvenile incarceration rates mask the extensive use of confinement in psychiatric units through the youth protection service. For a specific look on the challenge of building an international comparison of youth detention, particularly with regard to the very various forms of confinement practices that are not presented as such, see Muncie 2008.
- 3.
Constitutional Council, decision no. 2002-461 of 29 August 2002, no. 54. It was only during a second phase—following the so-called “Perben II” law of 9 March 2004, on adapting the justice system to evolutions in criminality—that the possibility of placement in a CEF was extended to sentence reductions, with or without confinement. As stressed in the introduction, it is only in the very rare case of a sentence reduction with confinement that leaving the CEF is equivalent to escape.
- 4.
Here the author is referring to two forms of incarceration that I have presented—and distinguished—in the introduction to this chapter.
- 5.
These are the words of Alain Fainsilber, one of the designers of these prisons for minors : http://fainsilber.com/172_justice.html.
- 6.
Here, I am taking up Olivier Razac’s analysis of contemporary spatial control systems in his book Histoire politique du barbelé (Razac 2000).
- 7.
Out of the eight youth formally placed there, two had run away several weeks earlier, and the other was receiving training outside the CEF, authorized by a judge.
- 8.
Later in the chapter, I will explore how the educators handled Abou’s specific situation.
- 9.
It is important to note that these are the words of Michel Botbol, former psychiatric advisor to the PJJ administration (2008–2011), and Luc-Henry Choquet, current head of the “research” department of this same administration.
- 10.
During my whole observation period, only two youth reached module 3.
- 11.
Later, I will return to this crucial distinction, made by CEF professionals, between “running away” and “unauthorized outings”.
- 12.
Later, I will return to this expressed preference for prison, which is relatively common among youth placed in CEFs.
- 13.
In fact, the CEF director is required to maintain a real occupation rate of 80%, according to the “contract of objectives and means” to which she is bound, and respect for which is a condition for part of the “bonus” that makes up her salary.
- 14.
As we saw above, the only exception concerns a few youth promoted to module 3, for whom exits up to thirty minute are allowed.
- 15.
Here, Vincent is referring to an event that sparked things off, when the youth, after fleeing, was arrested by police for possession of a small amount of hashish.
- 16.
In a 2010 report, presenting 33 proposals to “make the CEF framework consistent with the fundamental rights of the child”, Dominique Versini, a child advocate, recalled the difference between running away and escaping, writing as the 6th proposal: “Assert that since running away is not an infraction, it cannot constitute a justification for incarceration when it does not take place in the context of the repeating or committing of an infraction, even in the context of a placement in a CEF” (Rights Advocate 2010: 77).
- 17.
In psychoanalysis, “symbolization” designates the ability to develop representations, an essential step in the subject’s psychological organization. In this case, by confronting the rules of penal law, and more generally confronting boundaries and prohibitions, the youth is supposed to be able to “picture” the primacy of law, leading them to abandon their supposed desire for “omnipotence”. This shows the influence of certain psychoanalytical notions in the PJJ, particularly from the work of Pierre Legendre.
- 18.
Conducted in coordination with the Government Information Service (SIG), this biannual barometer is entitled “The French People and the Law”.
References
Bailleau, F. (2010). France: Breaking with the European Line of Juvenile Justice. In Bailleau F. & Cartuyvels Y. (Eds.), The Criminalisation of Youth (Juvenile Justice in Europe, Turkey and Canada, pp. 155–186), Brussels: VUB Press.
Bonelli, L. (2007). Policing the Youth: Towards a Redefinition of Discipline and Social Control in French Working Class Neighborhoods. In S. Alladi & R. Kassimir (Eds.), Youth, Globalization, and the Law (pp. 90–123). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Botbol, M., & Choquet, L.-C. (2008). Une lecture renouvelée du droit pénal des mineurs. Cahiers philosophiques, 116, 9–24.
Chantraine, G., & Sallée, N. (2013). Educate and Punish. Educational Work, Security and Discipline in Prisons for Minors. Revue française de sociologie, English issue, 54(3), 437–464.
Chantraine, G., Sallée, N., David Scheer, D., Salle, G., Fransen, A., & Cliquennois, G. (2011). Les prisons pour mineurs. Controverses sociales, pratiques professionnelles et expériences de réclusion (Rapport pour la mission de recherche Droit et Justice, CLERSE).
Chantraine, G., Scheer, D., & Milhaud, O. (2012). Space and Surveillance in a Prison for Minors. Politix, English issue, 97(1), 125–148.
Chauvenet, A. (2006). Privation de liberté et violence: le despotisme ordinaire en prison. Déviance et société, 30(3), 373–388.
Foucault, M. (1982). The Subject and Power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777–795.
Jeammet, P. (1993). Le diagnostic à l’adolescence. In Journées des cliniciens de la PJJ du 17 et 18 mars 1993 (pp. 57–96). Vaucresson: Centre de formation et de recherche de l’Éducation surveillée-PJJ.
Le Coz, J. (2003). L’art de la fugue. Empan. Prendre la mesure de l’humain, 49(1), 61–62.
Mucchielli, L. (2005). Les centres éducatifs fermés: rupture ou continuité dans le traitement des jeunes délinquants. Revue d’histoire de l’enfance irrégulière, 7, 113–146.
Muncie, J. (2008). The “Punitive Turn” in Juvenile Justice : Cultures of Control and Rights Compliance in Western Europe and the USA. Youth Justice, 8(2), 107–121.
O’Malley, P. (1996). Risk and Responsibility. In A. Barry, T. Osborne, & N. Rose (Eds.), Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism and Rationalities of Government (pp. 189–207). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Palacio, M. (2006). Les centres éducatifs fermés : entre mythe(s) et réalité(s). Journal du droit des jeunes, 259(9), 23–25.
Petersilia, J. (1999). A Decade of Experimenting with Intermediate Sanctions: What Have We Learned? Correction Management Quarterly, 3(3), 19–27.
Pitts, J., & Kuula, T. (2006). Incarcerating Young People: An Anglo-Finnish Comparison. Youth Justice, 5(3), 147–164.
Razac, O. (2000). Histoire politique du barbelé: la prairie, la tranchée, le camp. Paris: La fabrique.
Sallée N. (2010). Les éducateurs de la Protection judiciaire de la jeunesse à l’épreuve de l’évolution du traitement penal des jeunes délinquants. Champ pénal/Penal field, vol. VII, online.
Sallée, N. (2016). Éduquer sous contrainte. Une sociologie de la justice des mineurs. Paris: EHESS.
Sallée N. (2018). Rehabilitation Within a Punitive Framework: Responsabilization and Disciplinary Utopia in the French Juvenile Justice System. Youth Justice, forthcoming.
Thomas, C. (2006). Une catégorie politique à l’épreuve du juridique : la “fermeture juridique” dans la loi Perben I. Droit et société, 63–64(2), 507–525.
Vuattoux, A. (2016). Les centres éducatifs fermés pour les adolescents sont-ils une alternative à la prison ? Mouvements, 98(4), 117–123.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sallée, N. (2018). Chapter 8 Escapees or Young Runaways? At the Boundaries of Confinement in a French Closed Educational Center. In: Martin, T., Chantraine, G. (eds) Prison Breaks. Palgrave Studies in Prisons and Penology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64358-8_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64358-8_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64357-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-64358-8
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)