The bill put forward following the tragic death of Philippine, a 19-year-old girl who was raped and killed in September 2024 by a migrant subject to a deportation order, is currently under consideration in the French National Assembly. It aims to enable longer detention of the deportable foreigners deemed the most dangerous and introduces a new requirement for psychiatric assessment. Designed as a response to the tragedy, does it really have what it takes to change the security landscape in France?
The first key measure of the bill, presented by Macronist MP Charles Rodwell, concerns the extension of the duration of administrative detention. Currently limited to 90 days in most cases, this could be extended to 180 or even 210 days for certain individuals deemed dangerous. The stated aim is clear: to prevent an individual subject to an OQTF order, arrested for serious offences, from being released due to the inability to deport them swiftly. In Philippine’s case, according to the bill’s proponents, such a measure would have prevented the crime from being committed, since her killer was released early despite being a repeat offender and likely to carry out further attacks at any time.
The legislative response, whilst seemingly sensible, comes too late and will not bring Philippine back to life. This tragedy has served as a brutal revelation of the system’s flaws. By strengthening emergency detention, the legislature gives the impression of legislating in the heat of the moment rather than with foresight. Why were these measures not considered before such a horrendous crime occurred?
The Institute for Justice has drawn public attention to this “failure of the state”, denounced by Éric Ciotti, president of the Union of the Right for the Republic (UDR, allied with the Rassemblement National), in a public action brought against the state for failure to ensure security—unfortunately dismissed by the courts.
The Philippine case has merely highlighted the inefficiency of the current legal framework. Detention periods are ill-suited to the diplomatic and administrative realities of deportations; extending them today is not a matter of political courage but of the most basic pragmatism.
The second, and most controversial, part of the bill introduces a requirement for psychiatric assessment for certain individuals exhibiting both signs of radicalisation and mental health issues. Prefects may even order compulsory hospitalisation if suspects refuse to undergo the assessment. The National Assembly has expressed support for this provision, which is intended to better identify high-risk individuals and prevent potential acts of violence.
However, this link between psychiatry and security threats is causing concern among some members of the medical profession. It is based on an implicit association between mental disorders and terrorist danger, which is far from being systematically substantiated. Furthermore, it introduces a form of dilution of individual responsibility: explaining violence through pathology can lead to downplaying the role of choice and intent in the act itself. From this perspective, holy war as a motive for the act would no longer exist; only the mental disorder would remain.
This problematic shift redefines the balance between justice, medicine, and security. Healthcare would become a questionable tool for preventing terrorist risk, whilst the justice system finds itself competing with a medico-administrative approach to danger. The specific nature of the terrorist risk is erased, and the already prevalent temptation to view radicalised Islamists as mere ‘mentally unstable individuals’ is only set to worsen. Viewed through this lens, the court decisions handed down in certain cases have shocked public opinion, such as the brutal murder in 2022 of military doctor Alban Gervaise, who had his throat slit in front of his children. His killer was found criminally irresponsible on psychiatric grounds—after killing a man “in the name of Allah.”
The law also provides for the creation of a “terrorism prevention detention” measure, which involves placing an individual who has served their sentence in a secure “socio-medical-judicial centre” where they will be offered medical, social and psychological care.
The final reading of the bill is due to take place in early May.
