Maurice Berger: "Are we finally going to talk about insecurity during the legislative elections?"

Maurice Berger is a child psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, former associate professor of child psychology.

He works in a Reinforced Educational Center and teaches at the National School of Magistracy.

He has published

On gratuitous violence in France.

Adolescents, hyperviolent, testimonies and analyzes

Facing violence in France, The Berger report

The theme of insecurity, one of the major concerns of the French, was only addressed towards the end of the debate in the second round of the presidential election.

While Marine Le Pen mentioned the increase in violence in the public space, Emmanuel Macron dodged this question by focusing on domestic violence.

Thus an essential problem has not been tackled, that of the place of the law in our society.

The growing number of laws in our thick Penal Code are not applied or are applied in such a way that they become meaningless.

However, for a certain number of individuals, a law does not exist until it is materialized.

A 25-year-old was punched for no reason as he walked out of a nightclub, knocked to the ground, and his attackers played football with his head.

He presented with cracks in the skull, a tear in the meninges, pneumencephaly, and has major sequelae.

He will probably never be able to work again.

During the trial, the facts are described as "

“, which can be punished by ten years imprisonment and a fine of 150,000 euros according to article 222-9 of the Penal Code.

However, the two attackers, repeat offenders, were sentenced to six and ten months in prison, suspended.

Amazement, the prosecution does not appeal.

So the authors probably think they can do it again.

Despite having a criminal record, many aggressors tell investigators that they have never been convicted, because they have never been in prison.

It is not a question of being a Fouquier-Tinville wanting to fill the prisons at all costs, but of slightly reducing the number of citizens admitted to the intensive care, surgery and rehabilitation services, or even to the cemeteries.

Maurice Berger

Caregivers, including myself, know that such examples are frequent: the sacrosanct proportionality of the sentence does not aim for proportionality in relation to the seriousness of the attack on physical integrity.

Its definition is twofold: the penalty set must not exceed what is strictly and obviously necessary and must not exceed the maximums provided for by law.

To what is it proportional then?

Currently, the penalty has become proportional to a kind of group mentality, a customary average.

So we live with laws that are often “stillborn” or transparent.

It is not a question of being a Fouquier-Tinville wanting to fill the prisons at all costs, but of slightly reducing the number of citizens admitted to the intensive care, surgery and rehabilitation services, or even to the cemeteries.

For at least ten years, in fact more, we have been in an anti-criminal policy, title of an article by Francis Casorla in the last issue (18) of the

.

And Dominique-Henri Matagrin adds that: “

”.

This is how Michel Foucault's dream came true.

A judge who would begin to apply the law a little more would have every chance of finding himself quite isolated, even disavowed on appeal.

And any government that would try to drive such a penal policy, the opposite of the Belloubet law, would be described as tyrannical.

In the “districts” the law of the strongest often reigns, or the law of the clan, a code of honor superior to the laws of the Republic, or even the law linked to customs.

Maurice Berger

There is another major issue.

While the newly elected President of the Republic declares that he is the President of all French people, the first condition for "living together" that we hear about is everyone's acceptance of a common law.

Because living in the presence of another person or a group requires as a prerequisite to feel safe.

It is therefore essential to be sure that there will be respect for one's physical integrity, for one's person, therefore no threats or humiliation, for one's territory, that is to say, one's home.

Without the certainty of real security or without a feeling of security, it is difficult to put anything in common.

But what an archipelago in reality!

In the "neighborhoods" often reigns the law of the strongest, or the law of the clan, code of

honor superior to the laws of the Republic, or the law related to customs.

In a part of civil society, the “antifas” seek to impose their law by forbidding people to think differently from them.

Minorities constantly try to modify common laws and obtain particular laws in the name of their individualistic desires.

What's left of the law?

Apparently, that was not the debate.

Will it appear during the legislative elections?