Criminal Division Problem-Solving Course

Problem-solving tribunals bring together criminal justice and community partners and related resources to address crime and security issues, hold defendants accountable, respond to the needs of defendants and the underlying causes of their behavior criminal justice, improve the quality of life in communities and administer justice. Everyone has a role to play in solving problems, not only the judge, the prosecutor and the defense lawyer, but also social services and government agencies, community organizations, businesses, the faith community, the individual residents and the defendant / offender. Through these partnerships

OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAM

·         Improve the quality of life in DC neighborhoods, including reducing recidivism
      Respond to the needs of offenders by combining them with treatment and social services
      Increase public confidence in the justice system
      Increase offender accountability, including community services
      Streamline case processing
      Reduce the costs of criminal justice
      Forging partnerships to solve neighborhood problem

There was nothing to prevent the Minister of Justice from proposing another post to the Attorney General, but after having affirmed, less than a month ago, that the conditions for the appointment of public prosecutors should be included in the Constitution, this step leaves no voice.

Indeed, only the judges of the seat are irremovable (article 64 of the Constitution), which guarantees their independence. While the prosecutors are under the direction and control of their superiors and under the authority of the Minister of Justice. Reasons why the European Court considers that the public prosecutor's office can’t be considered as a judicial authority within the meaning of Article 5 - 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

So why these procrastination? Why not reform once and for all?

It is not so simple ... By changing the status of prosecutors, we would upset the entire judicial architecture. This magistrate holds a preponderant place in our penal system. Its function is composite. Sometimes, he is the representative of the government charged with laying the charge and implementing the penal policy, and sometimes he is committed to more administrative tasks, a little like a prefect. Moreover, during the proceedings, he has a quasi-jurisdictional power: he can’t condemn but he can’t be sentenced. The prosecutor does not judge, but he holds the tap of justice. It is he who decides on the investigation and the follow-up to be given, and it is he who seizes the investigating judge if he considers it appropriate. By definition, in the penal chain, he is the conductor, even if, drowned under multiple tasks. Visit to get the complete guide here and get further information about our services.

Formerly, it was closer to the field. Under the code of criminal instruction, the prosecutor was OPJ and he managed auxiliary LPOs to which he delegated some of his powers. (For the record, the investigating judge was also referred to as "auxiliary prosecutor".) He is no longer OPJ, although he can still perform some of the acts performed by the latter (searches, hearings ...). ). And if his arrival at the scene of a crime or an offense diverted the investigators present on the spot, it is not to replace them, but so that he can designate the service of his choice.

The prosecutor moved away from the investigation, which became more technical. And if, on paper, he remains the director of the judicial police, in fact, his control is usually symbolic. He is not a judge yet, but he is no longer a super cop. This is not in his claims. At least, according to the Honorary Attorney General at the Court of Cassation. In his report on the modernization of public action in November 2013, he refutes the idea of ​​making the prosecutor a kind of senior investigator, "it would be a deviation," he says. "Because unlike other models, it is in their quality of magistrate that the members of the public prosecutor draw their legitimacy".

It was probably alluding to Germany, where prosecutors are not included in the trial. They are hierarchical and autonomous officials in relation to justice, serving as a sort of bridge between the executive and the judiciary.

While here, the prosecutor is involved in the trial. He is the lawyer of the company. If there are victims, his voice most often joins that of the civil party; but if there is none, it is up to him alone to prove the guilt of the accused or the accused.

If he were detached from the executive power, he would not be an impartial judge. An imbalance in this mechanism would turn the civil party's lawyer into a real private prosecutor and, in order to put the balance back on the scale, it would then be necessary to give the latter the opportunity to carry out investigations, either by operating the administration or using unofficial means. A first step towards the privatization of justice. A bit like it's happening right now with security. On an old wall, it is often risky to remove a stone.

Our judicial system is a legacy of the Revolution of 1789. And if it did not work too badly until the last decades, one can wonder if it is adapted to the European justice! Because, more and more, it is this one that will take precedence over our institutions. Already, the saying "justice is done in the name of the people," took seriously the bottle.

Adding three words in our Constitution to ensure the irrevocability of the Crown and to be content with it would be irresponsible. We must reformat our criminal procedure. And it is urgent, because the European parquet floor is pointing out.

Article 86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides the possibility for the Council of the Union, acting unanimously, to establish a European Public Prosecutor's Office. It is up to the Member States making up this Council to decide whether or not to use this option.

At the suggestion of the National Assembly, the Prime Minister, asked the Council of State for a study request on this subject. The high administrative court focused on determining the possible implications for French law and identifying possible solutions for the articulation of a European Public Prosecutor's Office, the National Public Prosecutor's Office and the Judicial Police. The conclusion of this report is rather positive: a deconcentrated prosecutor's office "would lead to more effective protection for the Union and the citizen against cross-border crime, whether it is purely financial or extends to serious criminality".

Pile in the object of the European authorities which, as always, advance slowly. It may be wondered whether the recent publication of a report on corruption within the Union is not a means of raising public awareness to make it easier for Member States to withdraw.