In 2002, Steven Spielberg’s film, Minority Report (see here ) , was released on our movie screens. It was taken from the new eponym of Philip K. Dick , a famous science-fiction writer, whose main theme is the manipulation of reality.
As the Wikipedia page on the film (and the book) points out, the main theme of the work is “security ideology through the classic philosophical question of free will versus determinism”.
This is the whole purpose of the Security Detention Bill, which provides for the confinement of persons presumed to be dangerous, even though they have not (yet) committed any wrongdoing.
This bill is a serious challenge to all the principles of criminal responsibility.
Several organizations (unions, associations) have called for signature against this project (see their website here ).
The Constitutional Council has just partially censored it, particularly on its “retroactivity” aspect. It should be remembered that the project is attempting to bring into force retroactively custodial measures.
However, the Penal Code states, in its article 112-1, that “only the facts constituting an offense on the date on which they have been committed shall be punishable.” Only the sentences which are legally applicable on the same date may be pronounced. the new provisions apply to offenses committed before their entry into force and which have not given rise to a sentence which has become res judicata when they are less severe than the old provisions. ”
Without making an exhaustive list of the most interesting interventions available on the Internet, you can usefully read on the question what my colleague Eolas says on his blog here and there or the former Minister of Justice, Robert Badinter, on the site of newspaper, The World .
Most disturbing is the clear desire to circumvent the decision of the Constitutional Council by resorting to the opinion of the President of the Court of Cassation on the question of the immediate applicability of the future text to “presumed dangerous”.