Résumé
Interrogé sur la « juste peine » à attribuer à quatre figures de délinquant (un chauffard, un cambrioleur, un violeur et un banquier malhonnête), une large part (48,4 %) d’un échantillon représentatif de la population suisse préconise, dans l’un des quatre cas au moins, de prononcer uniquement une sanction alternative – c’est-à-dire non prévue par le code pénal. Partant de ce constat, nous décrirons d’abord les types de sanctions alternatives suggérées pour chaque situation. Puis, nous interrogerons le profil des enquêtés ayant privilégié ces sanctions alternatives.
L’analyse des sanctions alternatives proposées révèle une grande hétérogénéité en termes de finalité et de sévérité de la peine. Le fait de refuser une peine traditionnelle n’informe donc en rien sur la forme de justice préconisée à la place, ni sur son degré de punitivité.
Par ailleurs, cet engouement pour les sanctions alternatives révèle une critique du système pénal contemporain et une forme de plébiscite pour un modèle pénal alternatif. Ce modèle – dont l’essor récent de la justice restauratrice à l’échelle internationale illustre la vigueur – propose une justice plus horizontale, plus personnalisée, et qui prend davantage en compte les victimes. Mais il ouvre aussi la porte à des sanctions potentiellement plus longues et contraignantes.
Asked about the «fair sentence» for four types of criminal offences (traffic offence, burglary, rape and money embezzlement), a large proportion (48.4 %) of a representative sample of the Swiss population advocates, in at least one of the four cases, to pronounce only an alternative sanction – that is to say, not provided for by the criminal code. Based on this finding, we first describe the types of alternative sanctions suggested for each offence. Then, we examine the profile of the respondents who opted for these alternative sanctions. The alternative sanctions proposed are heterogeneous regarding the purpose and the harshness of the sentence. Thus refusing a traditional sentence does not inform in any way about the form of justice advocated instead or its degree of harshness. Moreover, this enthusiasm for alternative sanctions reveals a critique of the contemporary penal system and a claim for an alternative penal model. This model – illustrated by the rise of restorative justice at the international level – offers a more horizontal and individualised justice that takes victims more into account. But it also takes a step towards potentially longer and more restrictive sanctions.
Asked about the «fair sentence» for four types of criminal offences (traffic offence, burglary, rape and money embezzlement), a large proportion (48.4 %) of a representative sample of the Swiss population advocates, in at least one of the four cases, to pronounce only an alternative sanction – that is to say, not provided for by the criminal code. Based on this finding, we first describe the types of alternative sanctions suggested for each offence. Then, we examine the profile of the respondents who opted for these alternative sanctions. The alternative sanctions proposed are heterogeneous regarding the purpose and the harshness of the sentence. Thus refusing a traditional sentence does not inform in any way about the form of justice advocated instead or its degree of harshness. Moreover, this enthusiasm for alternative sanctions reveals a critique of the contemporary penal system and a claim for an alternative penal model. This model – illustrated by the rise of restorative justice at the international level – offers a more horizontal and individualised justice that takes victims more into account. But it also takes a step towards potentially longer and more restrictive sanctions.