In the first place, it should be specifically recalled on the one hand that no offender is strictly comparable to any other and that, on the other hand, contrary to what is often tacitly assumed, juvenile delinquency itself is in no way a uniform phenomenon. “It is necessary to refrain from seeking the explanation of a phenomenon, which arises from the relation between juvenile delinquents and the social group that notices and punishes them, in the substantial qualities of juvenile delinquents, or even of their family environment” writes Jean-Claude Chamboredon51. 2.2.2.1 The Act of 9th September 2002 It is all the more necessary to recall this need for circumspection since the Act of 9 th September 2002, article 22 of which created the young offenders’ institutions 52 was instituted in a context of serious concern with regard to the growth of juvenile delinquency. The report from the French Senate, which was submitted less than a month before the debates that led to the act of 9th September53, draws a gloomy picture of the situation, mentioning, on the one hand, a quantitative increase in the number of minors concerned (that is to say arrested for questioning by the police and gendarmerie on suspicion of commission of, or intention to commit offences): 177,017 in 2001, i.e. an increase of 79% in ten years; on the other hand, a growth of violence (increase in the number of intentional violent acts and sexual assaults); finally a fall in the age of juvenile offenders, with increasing involvement of children under thirteen years of age. Above all, the report emphasises what it itself refers to as “the 5% theory”, a “theory” according to which most offences are committed by a very limited number of minors; it mentions small “hard core” groups responsible for juvenile criminality and uses the expression “overactive core”, taken up by the Senate from its hearing of Sebastian Roché. It therefore denounces a small number of “multiple recidivists” or rather, repeat offenders. It is important to recall the above report, since the parliamentary debates regarding the Act of 9th September 2002 (referred to as “Perben I”) were heavily influenced by its views and vocabulary. The Minister of Justice, for example, stated before the French National Assembly 54 that “minors are committing offences and acts of violence at increasingly young ages”. In the course of the debates, the Minister therefore expanded upon the idea of changes to the penal measures applied to minors, on the basis of four factors in particular: the remanding in custody of minors having failed to comply with the obligations imposed upon them under the terms of judicial supervision; the acceleration of trial procedures after the commission of offences; the need to find an alternative response to juvenile criminality other than the existing secure young offenders’ institutions55 and prison; and the need to avoid the corruption of minors by adult prisoners and, for this purpose, the construction of new penal institutions exclusively dedicated to minors 56. 51 “La délinquance juvénile : essai de construction d’objet” [“Juvenile delinquency: essay on defining an object of study”], Revue française de sociologie, XII, 1971, pp. 335-377, p. 349. 52 Cf. the amendment thus instituted of article 33 of statutory instrument (ordonnance) no. 45-174 of 2nd February 1945. 53 Report of the investigating committee no. 340 (2001-2002), M. SCHOSTECK, chair, M. CARLE, rapporteur: “La délinquance juvénile : la République en quête de respect” [“Juvenile Delinquency: in Search of Respect for the Republic”], 2 volumes. 54 31st July 2002. 55 Secure young offenders’ institutions (centres éducatifs renforcés), the direct successors to UEERs “secure young offenders’ units” (Unités à Encadrement Educatif Renforcé), had been created some years previously. They are young offenders’ institutions designed for repeat offenders. However, they are “open” and in 2002 the government strongly criticised the numerous instances of children running away occurring in them for this reason: one senator mentioned an institution in the Essonne in which, among the eight children who were supposed to be there, only one was present. 56 In contrast to the “children’s wing” found near the “men’s wing” in traditional remand prisons. 31