L’évaluation du risque de récidive et l’intervention basée sur les données probantes : les conditions nécessaires à l’implantation de méthodes structurées d’évaluation et d’intervention efficaces

The results of different studies on the best practices of the prevention of recidivism are clear: it is possible to reduce the risk of recidivism of offenders through efficient intervention. Structured risk assessment combined with practices based on risk, need and responsivity principals may reduce the risk of recidivism by up to 30%. These programs, developed primarily in Canada, require adaptations to better suit a French context. The present article proposes to revise the main stages essential to the introduction of a new evaluation and intervention strategy based on evidence, namely, the exploration, the preparation of the establishment, the creation and implementation themselves, the sustainability approach and the introduction of evaluative research studies. The advantages of considering such an implementation strategy are discussed.     

Les vicissitudes du préjudice d’agrément

The fate of the loss of amenity has always been related to the right of recourse of the third-party payers against the person in charge of the damage. The loss of amenity has been recognized by Law of the 27 December 1973. It was at that time that it was excluded from the recourse of the third-party payers. It was not the case of the physiological injuries which had always been submitted to the recourse of the third-party payers. At first, these injuries had included the disorders in the conditions of existence. But in 2005, the Dintilhac nomenclature adopted a restrictive conception of the loss of amenity. This damage is now defined as the impossibility to practice regularly a specific activity of sport or leisure. In addition, the Law of 21 December 2006 imposed on third-party payers to exercise their action only on pecuniary damage. The physiological injuries were therefore excluded from this action. The strict definition of loss of amenity is both adopted in Civil Law and Social law. But in these two areas, the analysis of the judicial practice reveals that it is undermined the right for the full repair of the victims under their loss of amenity. Accordingly, the question of the opportunity to widen once more the definition of the loss of amenity arises today.