Jacqueline Sauvage : Some Thoughts on a French Criminal Case concerning Domestic Violence

As part of its educational and research mission, AGS is dedicated to fighting violence against women in the world. In 2014, AGS hosted an international conference on this theme, which brought together an audience of over 180 including scholars, policy-makers, diplomats, and other practitioners of international relations. The AGS research center is currently working on a second volume of the book Crimes Against Women (Ed. David Pike, New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2011), which examines three types of gender-related crimes: those rooted in law, those deriving from religion or tradition, and those perpetrated in times of war. The following article refers to the French case known as L'Affaire Jacqueline Sauvage. This case illustrates how the issue of violence against women takes place even in the most developed countries and the role of Law in addressing this issue.

By Eileen Servidio-Delabre, Ph.D.
President of the American Graduate School in Paris

The facts of this French case are shockingly appalling and even more shockingly common. Jacqueline Sauvage married Norbert Morot, had 4 children, one son and three daughters. During their forty-seven years of marriage, Morot terrified and abused, sexually and otherwise, his wife and his children. No one in their social environment noticed or at least did anything about it in spite of many visits to emergency rooms. The family was said to be under the threat of death if any one of them reported or did anything against Morot.

September 9, 2012, the son commits suicide; he hangs himself. The following day, Jacqueline Sauvage takes a rifle and kills her husband by firing three shots into his back.

A majority of the jury that tried her case in first instance found her guilty and sentenced her to ten years of imprisonment. The jury considered that Sauvage could have left or could have officially complained about her husband.

The defense had pleaded self-defense. Unfortunately, this choice had no legal support whatsoever. Self-defense is defined in the France’s Penal Code and has been narrowly interpreted for years. In this case, one needed to prove that:
- Sauvage reacted to an unjustified aggression against oneself or another;
- and that her reaction was proportionate to the aggression.
Neither of which were possible in the circumstances; her husband was walking away from her—and thus the shooting in the back—at a moment where there seemed to have been no aggression.

This decision was appealed, and confirmed.

The social shock of this second decision handed down in December 2015 lead to a petition signed by 400,000 persons asking for President François Holland to pardon Sauvage.

Many believe that the plea of self-defense should be acceptable even in a situation where the danger is not imminent. They argue that if a person is constantly living in fear for themselves and others of being abused, or murdered, the danger is always imminent. If this had been an accepted interpretation in France, then most likely Sauvage would not have been condemned. However, it was not and the lawyers, prosecutors…knew this.

There are now public demands to alter the law to include situations such as this one.

There seems to be no doubt that the family in question suffered for years with no help. Sauvage took justice into her own hands. No one else was helping. She was on her own and terrified for herself and her children; one of which was pushed over the edge just the day before.

However, if self-defense is so narrowly interpreted, one should realize there is a reason for this. Claiming self-defense when one is not in a situation of actual aggression would open the door to much abuse. It is not, in this case anyway, that the law should be put into question. It is the criminal justice system that is letting one down–a phenomenon that is happening around the world.

Criminal justice systems work in such a way that one may wonder how there is any justice being handed out at all. When it is – which does happen often – it seems like it is based more on luck or very fair judges or prosecutors than on the checks and balances of the system itself.

There are two parties in a criminal affair, the accused and the prosecution. In France, in all but minor cases the accused must be represented by a lawyer. The prosecutor in France is a magistrate.

Once a case goes to court, both parties want to win. It is as simple as that. The truth somehow can get blurred in this system. These are not civil or commercial affairs. One should not proceed as if they were.

Truth is little by little losing its value in criminal cases. The goal is no longer truth or as close as one can get to it. The goal is winning.

The actual accused person also loses some of his/her importance in all this. The system has turned our criminal trial into a game.

Now, let’s return to the Sauvage case. The defense wanted to change years of a narrow interpretation and become heroes, the prosecutor actually asked for a higher sentence than ten years… The jury surely was caught up in legal issues that they could not understand. And where was Jacqueline Sauvage in all this?

What is the truth here? Can one actually believe that Sauvage, while holding and firing that rifle the day after her son hanged himself and after years of sexual and other abuse to herself and children, was acting rationally and in entire control of herself?

January 29^th, Holland received Sauvage’s lawyers and family to hear them, and soon after granted a partial pardon. Jacqueline Sauvage will be released, although due to legal technicalities, this may not happen as soon as it should.

The criminal justice system in France and around the world, including the International Criminal Court, needs to be restudied, reworked. Neither the inquisitorial nor the accusatorial systems are actually working. If they were, Sauvage should not be waiting to leave prison, she would never have been sent there in the first place.