“Should we let judges decide who can run for office?”

« It is my political death that is being demanded. My political survival will depend on the implementation of this political death sentence, with provisional execution or not. This is the aim, I believe, of this operation which was launched by political adversaries », declared Marine Le Pen on November 15.

In question? The prosecution which requested his sentence to five years of imprisonment (of which two years are subject to change), as well as an additional penalty of ineligibility for acts of embezzlement of public funds. And the public prosecutor asked that the court, if it followed its requisitions, combine its sentence with provisional execution.

READ ALSO: Trial of RN parliamentary assistants: ineligibility required against Marine Le Pen and all defendants

I was initially annoyed by these new political excesses. Annoyed because Marine Le Pen is assisted by high-quality lawyers who must necessarily have told her that such requisitions were probable. Annoyed also and above all because it was obvious that the prosecution was going to request his ineligibility with provisional execution: it has been almost ten years since he considered that this file allows a conviction, how could it be otherwise, seriously?

READ ALSO: Towards the ineligibility of Marine Le Pen in 2027? The trial which comes at the right time for the Barnier government

First, since the Sapin II law of 2016 then the law on confidence in political life of 2017, judges have the obligation to pronounce a sentence of ineligibility in this matter. Article 132-26-2 of the Penal Code provides that “ however, the court may, by a specially reasoned decision, decide not to impose the sentence provided for in this article, taking into consideration the circumstances of the offense and the personality of its perpetrator. ».

Shoot magistrates on sight

In 2017, while she was an MP, Marine Le Pen never voted against this text: either she abstained or she simply did not participate in the vote. She was also not one of the deputies who referred the matter to the Constitutional Council who criticized these provisions “ which would be tainted by negative incompetence, by disregarding the principles of legality of offenses and penalties and of individualization of penalties ».

READ ALSO: Marine Le Pen, “thinking head of a contentious employment system”… faced with the risk of ineligibility in 2027

So, I don't see how Marine Le Pen and her allies can decently act offended today. And my humble opinion is that in reality, all of this was politically carefully prepared by always ingenious communicators who were only waiting for the end of the hearing to shoot the magistrates on sight. lax with rapists and the OQTF but severe with Marine Le Pen ».

READ ALSO: Natacha Polony: “The trial of the RN assistants highlights the urgency of properly financing political life”

Then, the provisional execution required is not an old text which would have been “ exhumed » by the prosecution, as stated by journalist Alain Duhamel. Article 471 of the code of criminal procedure comes from a law of June 27, 1983 and it is applied every day since hundreds of convicts leave to immediately carry out the prison sentences pronounced by the criminal courts, even though they can appeal.

Ineligibility

But what is shocking here is that this provisional execution has an impact on the democratic life of our country. And I must recognize that, even very annoyed by these outrageous reactions, I have shared certain doubts for much longer than all these sudden defenders of democracy. And it's a shame that Marine Le Pen waited until she was concerned to understand that she should have mobilized during the legislative debates of 2017.

ALSO READ: “But where should I put them, the assistants?” : in court, Marine Le Pen rediscovers her old lawyer reflexes

Because if some people keep saying that “ everyone can be sentenced to a penalty of ineligibility », you will agree that sometimes, it does not have the same consequences depending on who it targets… I have already seen clients condemned to ineligibility even though they had no desire to run in any election whatever!

READ ALSO: “Marine Le Pen the only order giver”: at the trial of parliamentary assistants, a “system” indictment

On the other hand, when it comes to an elected official (or an eternal presidential candidate), this still poses a democratic question: should we let judges decide who can, or cannot, stand? run for elections? For me, this is not a question of distrust of magistrates but a question of democratic logic: can we not let voters decide who they want to represent them? Including if they are ex-convicts? What if the judges are wrong when they have pronounced the provisional execution and on appeal, the chosen one is acquitted?

Regularly seized of the question, the Constitutional Council has never been of my opinion, judging that under certain conditions, judges could always set aside this mandatory penalty of ineligibility. Of which act.

The Cahuzac precedent

I had already had the opportunity to talk about this question concerning the candidacy of Jérôme Cahuzac for the last legislative elections (in a different situation, I agree) and I had not only made people happy by explaining that it was necessary to let voters choose if they want a fraudster as a deputy. And it turns out that 14.56% of voters in his constituency would have seen no problem with it. Jérôme Cahuzac was eliminated in the first round, but if he had not been able to run, we would have deprived 14.56% of voters of their choice. And this choice, in a democracy, is precious.

READ ALSO: “Still not the impression that you are answering the questions”: Marine Le Pen in a bad position at the helm

This is a real social issue and I believe that instead of tweeting support and petitions on the Internet, the many RN deputies could use their parliamentary power to change the criminal law. But we still need to do something other than political communication and low-level populism.

Marine Le Pen is, however, far from dead. First of all, she is only 56 years old and her political life is not over. Then and above all, his lawyers have not yet pleaded in his interests, since the defense will have the floor starting next Monday and for 15 days. Last but not least, she is presumed innocent and the criminal court has not yet convicted her.

ALSO READ: Return of Jérôme Cahuzac: take me for a Kant!

Whatever happens, she remains a defendant like the others and for the moment, the criminal law to which she gave no importance when it was passed must still apply. And this is what the prosecution requested, no more, no less.