Firm prison required against Marine Le Pen: why could she benefit from an electronic bracelet?

It is time for the trial of the European parliamentary assistants of the National Rally (RN). Marine Le Pen and twenty-four other defendants are notably on trial for alleged embezzlement of European funds for the benefit of their party, having caused damage estimated at more than four million euros over a period of twelve years. Just that. The case seems to be going rather badly for them: the prosecution has in fact just requested very heavy sentences, in particular against the president of the group in the National Assembly.

Five years in prison, two of which were closed, were required against Marine Le Pen – all accompanied by a fine of 300,000 euros and a ban on running for elections for five years. This stay behind bars, if it were to be confirmed, could however be arranged in the form of an electronic bracelet. Why such a possibility? What conditions govern this surveillance system? Can everyone benefit from it? We’ll explain it to you.

Not linked to a specific type of offense

You probably already know this, but, to summarize, the electronic bracelet is a monitoring device aimed at limiting movements of a person while avoiding detention in prison. It functions as a geolocated beacon and if the person deviates from their authorized residence zone or does not respect the imposed schedules, the device sends an alert. This alternative is as much appreciated by the condemned as it is criticized by the victims. And for good reason: it literally prevents the guilty from languishing behind bars.

It’s actually a little more complicated than that. Benefiting from an electronic bracelet is not linked to a specific type of offense, but rather to legal situations. According to the law, this device can be used in three main contexts.

The first is before a final conviction. For example, in the famous case of the comedian Pierre Palmade, involved in a serious road accident in 2023placement under an electronic bracelet can be decided even before a conviction is pronounced. This measure is often chosen when a simple judicial review is considered insufficient, but pre-trial detention seems disproportionate. It is an intermediary, an alternative to pre-trial detention, called house arrest with electronic monitoring (ARSE).

The second and third cases concern the use of the electronic bracelet as a sentence modification. In other words, the surveillance system replaces prison if a person is sentenced to a sentence of less than or equal to one year, or if the remaining sentence of a convict is less than or equal to two years (as in the potential case of Marine Le Pen). These measures are particularly useful for relieving prison congestion while ensuring a form of control over the convicted person. This remains custodial detention, but at home.

Marine avoids the zonzon

As mentioned earlier, if Marine Le Pen is sentenced to two years in prison, this part of the sentence could be placed under an electronic bracelet, in accordance with the provisions of the criminal procedure code.

The situation is already making the opposition cringe. And, as with each granting of the electronic bracelet to public figures, debates on equality before the law arise. If the possibility of such an arrangement for Marine Le Pen were in fact confirmed, some could see it as privileged treatment, while others would insist that the measure is consistent with judicial practices.

In any case, if the court follows the prosecution’s requisitions, the application or not of an electronic bracelet will depend above all on the legal conditions and the guarantees offered by the former leader of the far-right party. Because several criteria must must be met for this measure to be considered.

First of all, the president of the RN in the National Assembly must have a home suitable for implementing this surveillance. In other words, their accommodation must meet certain technical requirements, such as mobile network coverage and electricity availability. Nothing insurmountable.

Then, Marine Le Pen must present a integration or reintegration projectguaranteeing a certain stability, notably through employment or training. There is no doubt that the MP can meet this criterion, often applied to ordinary prisoners, but which, in her case, could be examined in the light of her political obligations.

Finally, the convicted person must consent to the wearing of the bracelet in the presence of their lawyer. Here again, it is unlikely that Marine Le Pen would prefer incarceration to electronic surveillance, even if the latter imposes strict release times and precise reasons.

Judging by these criteria, it is therefore very likely that Marine Le Pen would be granted wearing the bracelet if she requested it at the appropriate time. And if, once the device is in place, she suddenly decides to flee to another country, the bracelet will automatically send an incident report to the SPIP, the Prison Integration and Probation Service, which will probably decide to remove it and place her behind bars, without accommodation this time.