Justice distributive et justice rétributive

Cet article examine les positions de John Rawls par rapport à la justice retributive (pénale). Nous soutenons d'abord que la perspective de Rawls est éclectique par rapport aux deux polarités exemplaires de la justice pénale soit, en première part, celle du rétributivisme et de l'utilitarisme, et, en seconde part, celle du déontologisme et du conséquentialisme. L'examen des textes révèle que la pensée de Rawls conjugue des éléments qui la qualifient à la fois comme rétributiviste et déontologiste et d'autres qui la rapprochent de l'utilitarisme et du conséquentialisme. Les positions de Rawls sont ensuite scrutées à la lumière des résultats récents de la recherche empirique sur la justice pénale. Nous soutenons alors que la conception rawlsienne de la justice pénale comme un processus sanctionnateur de nature strictement réactive fpost factoj ne peut se concilier avec les aspects pro-actifs de plus en plus affirmés de ce type de justice. On suggère enfin que le principe de Rawls que l'inégalité n'est légitime que lorsqu'elle profite aux plus défavorisés n'a que peu d'application au sein de la justice pénale, dont la cible première est précisément constituée par les pauvres et les sans-pouvoirs.This paper explores Rawls' positions on the subject of retributive (criminal) justice. It is first argued that Rawls' perspective is hybrid with respect to the two traditional dichotomies of retributivism vs. utilitarianism and of deontologism vs. consequentialism. There is evidence to the effect that Rawls is both a retributivist and a consequentialist. Secondly, Rawls' positions are discussed in the light of recent empirical research. It is argued that his view of retributive justice as being strictly reactive conflicts with the present proactive dimension of criminal justice. It is also suggested that the principle that all inequality should profit the least advantaged members of society has now little application in criminal justice which essentially targets the poor and the powerless

Provocations

This paper is an attempt at the refutation of certain fallacies, which have gained a wide currency in legal and criminological thinking. These fallacies are the following. First, the mistaken interpretation of universal statements such as “Any person condemns murder” as the expression of a cross-cultural consensus about the blameworthiness of a certain type of behaviour; such statements, it is argued, are mere tautologies reflecting the cogency of our linguistic customs. Second, the erroneous belief that criminology can dogmatically account for the sum of the facts which appertain to its field of study, by means of a single, all-encompassing explanation; arguments are given to show that the fate of criminological studies is fragmentation. Third, it is argued that the criminal justice system should be conceived as an apparatus for social provocation rather than as institutionalized social reaction. Fourth, it is pointed out that we must draw an unambiguous distinction between the legal notion of a sentence and the intuitive notion of punishment; stressing this difference leads the author to compare briefly the main tenets of what he respectively calls dogmatic and sceptical criminology. Finally, the necessity to recognize as separate issues the justification and the allocation of criminal sanctions is proven and it is shown how the penal fascination with capital punishment is responsible for blurring the distinction between these issues

Quelques notes sur la réforme de la détermination de la peine au Canada

This review of recent developments in the field of sentencing in Canada begins by observing that none of the recommendations of the Canadian Sentencing Commission were implemented, since the commission issued its report in 1987. This amounts to a prolongation of the status quo. We propose elements of explanation as to why there was no follow up to the Commission's proposals. Second, we present a critical analysis of the latest consultation package on sentencing and parole, that was put together by the federal Department of Justice in 1990. We argue that the proposed statement of purposes and principles of sentencing should priorize the different sentencing goals that it enumerates. We also point out that there is an unbalance between the sentencing and parole components of the permanent commission proposed by the Department of Justice. The sentencing component is required to make sentencing policy, whereas the parole component acts as an advisor to the National Parole Board