due to lack of sufficient resources for the courts, need it be recalled – while pointing out that, although the principle of enforcement of sentences pronounced by judges should not suffer any exception (apart from any limits set by the latter themselves), in the case in point, it would be wiser for such exceptions to be made exclusively with regard to the future, and not in a retrospective manner. The amnesty was a necessary and sufficient means of avoiding cases where, once again, people who have put their offences behind themselves and are largely rehabilitated are ordered to leave their homes in order to serve terms of imprisonment. This suggestion was intended as much for the former government as for the new, resulting from the presidential elections of 2012. The public debate, which followed this assessment from the Contrôleur général, clearly highlighted the absence of any temerity on the part of the authorities, with regard to topics considered important to public opinion, such as that of security. Has the latter so imposed itself upon the authorities, over the last ten years (date of the last amnesty), that the very idea of resorting to an act of this nature appears incongruous, providing grounds for the idea that their policies might consist of “making concessions” and “letting up the pressure” in the face of an evil – criminality – that spreads terror; to put it plainly: would the prison gates be opening in order to let criminals out? This idea is so wholly inaccurate that one hardly dares believe that it could constitute the real grounds for certain responses received by this modest proposal; and, if this is indeed the case, then - when taken to this extreme - the need for security corrupts morality, as one would have said in the 18th century. 1.1.2 The Assessment concerning Partial Release published on 23rd October 2012 The assessment of 26th September concerning partial release was published, in a very different situation. A certain number of principles of crime policy had by then been made known, since the report made by the Minister of Justice to the Cabinet meeting of 19th September 2012, concerning in particular the end of individual directions and the fight against recidivism, in contrast with the principles previously in force. The idea of increased emphasis on reduced sentencing stands out in particular 5 in the circular setting out these policies5. The assessment was intended to provide an illustration of the conditions of enforcement of a reduced sentencing measure, in this case partial release, within the new framework. The latter measure is decided upon (when a sentence of less than or equal to two years is incurred) by the judge pronouncing the conviction (article 132-25 of the Penal Code (code penal)), or indeed by the judge responsible for the terms and conditions of sentences, either prior to the commencement of enforcement of the prison sentence (article 723-15 of the code of criminal procedure (code de procédure pénale)), or in the course of its enforcement. While partial release requires rulings from members of the national legal service, it also requires, on the part of the judges as well as on the part of the prison officers, a certain number of practical conditions in order to bear fruit, that is to say the best possible readjustment of convicted prisoners to economic and social life. In particular, the assessment notes the conditions according to which partially released persons gain access to their new “status”: on the one hand, are found the cases where the persons concerned have remained free (the vast majority of cases) for inappropriately long 5 The Minister of Justice writes the following to the State Prosecutor’s Offices: “I ask you to devote particular attention… to reduced prison sentencing” (§ 6, in bold in the circular). 15