Enacted in France in August 2007 and repealed in 2014, the law on mandatory minimum sentences introduced severe minimum penalties for legal repeat offenders, that is to say, individuals convicted for a second time for similar offences. The reform had an impact, in that the sentences imposed on repeat offenders increased significantly. This paper demonstrates, however, that the measure had no long-term deterrent effect. It also seeks to examine how those most affected learn to navigate the law.
Are mandatory minimum sentences an effective way of preventing reoffending?
This paper provides an evaluation of the long-term deterrent effects of the August 2007 law on mandatory minimum sentences.
Reference IPP Policy Brief No. 105
Presentation
Key Results
- The law has led to a sharp increase in prison sentences for repeat offenders (Fixed (prison) sentences 50 per cent higher, suspended sentences with probation three times longer), but there has been no change in sentencing for repeat or first-time offenders.
- The law had no deterrent effect in the short term.
- In the medium term, those who received these mandatory minimum sentences were less likely to reoffend (10 per cent lower probability), but only for offences carrying mandatory minimum sentences. Their likelihood of committing other offences remained unchanged.
- Those who received mandatory minimum sentences therefore appear to have learnt the letter of the law. This, coupled with the limited application of the reform to co-defendants, resulted in a weak overall deterrent effect of the reform.
Method and Data
This paper is based on an analysis of the judicial history of 64,000 repeat and habitual offenders in the 4 to 6 years following their release from prison.
