En France, l’évaluation structurée du risque de récidive est peu développée face au jugement professionnel non structuré, pourtant moins valide.

Cet article propose une revue systématique de la littérature, répondant aux critères PRISMA, sur la perception et la pratique de l’évaluation structurée, en France, chez les professionnels concernés.

Les mots clés « Évaluation du risque » AND « récidive » AND « France » ont été recherchés dans Pubmed, PsycInfo, Cairn et ScienceDirect.

Les 23 articles obtenus dans les résultats montraient des craintes et peu d’avantages concernant l’évaluation structurée, la possibilité d’un système hybride et les quelques travaux français utilisant des échelles de risque. Ces réticences concernaient : (i) le système judicaire français (notamment le tout actuariel) ; (ii) les professionnels évaluateurs (confusion des rôles entre professionnels) ; (iii) les personnes évaluées (risque de stigmatisation des infracteurs à haut risque) ; et (iv) les outils eux-mêmes (prédictivité modérée).

La validité scientifique, clinique et les garanties éthiques des échelles structurées du risque sont pourtant suffisantes pour permettre leur développement en France. Quelques hypothèses sont avancées pour expliquer les réticences à leur généralisation en France.

In France, the recidivism of offenders (both sexual and non-sexual violence) is a national concern as evidenced by the media and the succession of laws relating to the prevention of recidivism. Risk assessment can be performed using unstructured professional judgment which is unreliable or by structured risk assessment which are more reliable. Abroad, this structured assessment is considerably developed. In France, it gives rise to two opposing positions: (i) encouragement by public authorities; and (ii) fear by a majority of professionals in the field.

This article offers a systematic literature review, meeting PRISMA criteria, on the perception and practice of standardized evaluation in France by the professionals concerned.

The keywords “Risk assessment” AND “recurrence” AND “France” were searched in French and in English in the search engines Pubmed, PsycInfo, Cairn, and ScienceDirect.

The 23 articles obtained in the results highlighted: (a) fears and few advantages regarding the use of structured evaluation; (b) a possibility of a hybrid evaluation system in France; and (c) a report of some works already using scales of risk on French populations. This article focused mainly on the fears and perceived benefits of structured risk assessment. The reluctance has concerned both: (i) the French judicial system (fear of a new penology based only on the actuarial approach and its consequences); (ii) the professional valuers (fear of a confusion of professional's roles in health and justice fields); (iii) the persons assessed (fear of a risk of stigmatization of high-risk patients concerning violence); and (iv) the tools themselves (fear of a poor reliability of the risk assessment). Very few articles highlighted their advantages: reliability, simplicity of use, good inter-judge fidelity, guideline for care, and specially an ability to overcom the insufficient basis for the evaluation resulting from unstructured clinical judgment. Results also suggested the possibility of a hybrid evaluation system in France, which could rely on risk scales, without neglecting the interview and the qualitative collected information that have to respect precise steps and allow the management of offenders. Finally, this paper presented the few French studies using risk scales mainly focused both in sexual offenders’ risks and associated factors, and showing a better productivity of these scales than an unstructured professional judgment.

Fears related to the structured risk assessments are important. However, these scales may also supply a better vision of offenders. They require skills of professionals from various fields and allow both a fairer assessment of the offender and a penal system more adjusted. This perceived reluctance seems to be due to a poor knowledge of structured assessment the risk scales and a lack of research studies using them in France, where it is necessary to have a broad reflection on their development in the future.