Les modes alternatifs de résolution des conflits sous l’empire de l’ordonnance criminelle : la loi et la doctrine

Abstract

In the summer of 1670, the committee responsible for drafting the criminal ordinance – which would be promulgated a few weeks later – met for its final conference. The day’s meeting was three articles devoted to the different methods of resolving disputes, amicable and judicial. The initial draft was intended to be restrictive, prohibiting settlements in the « grand criminal », while authorising them in other cases. Public prosecutors are even prohobited from prosecuting in the latter case, thus strengthening the out-of-court option for petty criminals. Discussions between the members of the commission even led them to extend the scope of transactions and transferts of rigths by authorising them for all crimes, including « capital crimes or afflictive offences », as prosecutors are obliged to prosecute in such cases. However, the new article 19 of the Title XXV of the ordinance does not specify what it means by « capital offence » and thus opens the way to litigation. The doctrine is much more restrictive than the text and limits its scope.

Keywords

• doctrine
• criminal ordinance of 1670
• legal recourse
• amicable settlement
• transaction