"Rioters pay" bill in the Senate: punish rioters without making protesters pay

The day after a second Saturday of mobilisation against the high cost of living, the Senate opens on Tuesday 27 October the public debate on the so-called "casseurs-payeurs" ("rioters pay") bill. Officially devoted to compensation for damage caused by violence or vandalism in public spaces, the text reaches the chamber considerably toughened by the law committee. The moment is delicate: the State must respond to the victims of destruction while preserving a freedom protected by the Constitution.

What the bill provides

Presented in the Council of Ministers on 16 September, the bill, published on the Senate website, creates a form of collective civil liability. As Maire-info sums it up, anyone who remained in a gathering after a dispersal order could be ordered to contribute to repairing the damage, up to 10,000 euros per person, even without being the direct perpetrator. For those unable to pay, the text creates an exception to the rule that family allowances and housing benefits cannot be seized, the Banque des Territoires points out.

The government stands by this choice. Spokesperson Maud Bregeon spoke of a "form of collective responsibility", and Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu wants, according to the Banque des Territoires, to make perpetrators bear the cost of their actions. The context weighs heavily: according to the same source, around 2,000 people were taken into police custody in connection with the violence of recent weeks, 90% of them minors according to Justice Minister Gérald Darmanin.

A committee that tightened every bolt

Meeting behind closed doors on 21 October, the law committee adopted a dozen amendments, almost all of them toughening the text, according to Maire-info. Mediapart, cited by Le Club des juristes, also reported, based on participants' accounts, that several of these changes make the text harsher. The RSA (minimum income benefit) would join the list of benefits that can be seized, with a protected "subsistence minimum". The use of drones would be simplified. A ten-year ban from French territory would target convicted adult foreigners, and the penalty for taking part in a violent group would rise from one to three years in prison.

The rapporteurs, David Margueritte (LR) and Olivier Bitz (centrist), did however add a useful safeguard: people present for a legitimate reason, such as journalists, could not be convicted for their mere presence. According to Public Sénat, Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez will support most of these amendments.

The positions at stake

Supporters of the bill put forward a serious argument. Shopkeepers, municipalities and taxpayers currently pay for broken shop windows and destroyed street furniture, even though the 2019 law already allowed the State to take action against the perpetrators, with little result for lack of being able to identify them. Senate President Gérard Larcher said in Le Figaro that in case of non-payment, nothing should be ruled out. The government insists, according to Maire-info, that this is not liability without fault: the fault would be staying after the warning to disperse.

On the left, the criticism is head-on. Communist senator Fabien Gay fears, according to Public Sénat, that no demonstration will be able to take place any more. The leader of the La France insoumise group in the National Assembly, Mathilde Panot, sees it as "a weapon of mass repression" and considers the text probably unconstitutional.

The legal experts interviewed by Public Sénat are divided. Criminal law scholar Olivier Cahn sees it as "strict civil liability" that leaves wide discretion to prosecutors. Nicolas Hervieu, of Sciences Po, fears the scheme will remain a "dead letter" and predicts a referral to the Constitutional Council. Paul Cassia believes that the freedom to protest is not directly infringed, but that it is restricted in the background. The Council of State, for its part, required that the fault be clearly established: remaining in the gathering despite warnings to disperse, with knowledge of the violence.

What the State owes everyone

It would be wrong to say that the question raised is illegitimate. A State that leaves the damage to be borne by local residents alone fails in its mission. But our law rests on an old and protective principle: each person answers for their own faults, not for those of others. Collective liability, backed by the seizure of family allowances and now the RSA, would hit the most modest households first, and often parents for faults committed by their children. The penalty would strike precisely where national solidarity is meant to protect.

The risk is also practical. A peaceful protester who did not hear a warning, or who cannot leave a blocked procession, could end up in debt. In a country where trust between young people and institutions is already fragile, the fear of paying for others could deter far more citizens than rioters.

Another way

The Senate has the opportunity to do useful work. It could focus efforts on identifying the actual perpetrators, create a guarantee fund to compensate shopkeepers and municipalities quickly, and remove minimum social benefits from the scope of seizures. Firmness against violence is a duty of the State. It is only worth anything if it remains fair. The question facing senators on Tuesday is therefore simple: do they want to punish rioters, or to frighten those who protest?

Article written with the help of artificial intelligence.