L'usage du rapport présentenciel (RPS) par les juges dans un contexte de durcissement législatif
The purpose of this study is to understand whether and how the massive arrival of sentencing restrictions has altered the practice of pre-sentence report (PSR) by criminal court judges of the Court of Québec. Nine interviews were conducted with judges at the Court of Québec. The results show that pre-sentence report still seems to be useful and frequent in two specific contexts: when the maximum sentence is two years or less and in cases of a sexual offence. Results also reveal that all the judges of this study use the report in order to individualize the sentence, even if the individualization is done differently. In fact, the penal restriction context changes the judges’ underlying motivations for individualization, which evolve to a risk management one. Moreover, this study reveals that the arrival of penal restrictions brought new reasons of using RPS: to prepare files for constitutional challenge to mandatory sentencing and to decide the destiny of the charges regulated by mandatory sentence. Finally, Bourdieu’s (1990) theoretical concept of hysteresis provides an analytical framework to explain why judges maintain the use of PSR in sentencing restrictions context.
Presentence report Penal restriction Mandatory minimum sentence Professional practices Sentencing Individualization of the sentence Hysteresis