A ‍54-year-old ⁣prison supervisor was sentenced to seven years in prison Friday evening ⁤for rape⁤ and‍ sexual assault on an inmate at a Paris prison in 2022.The‍ court pronounced a warrant⁤ with a delayed effect, a five-year socio-judicial ‍follow-up with a care injunction, and a final ban on exercising public service. The prosecution had requested 10 years in prison. The court dismissed the⁣ defense’s argument that‍ the detainee ⁢fabricated the accusations as revenge for a phone seizure or to ⁤obtain ‍a ⁤sentence arrangement. The court⁤ highlighted the consistency of the inmate’s accusations, ‍noting that ⁣his⁣ capacity for⁢ development was⁤ affected by his drug addiction, despite ⁢a propensity to lie.

In determining the sentence, ⁣the ‍court considered the ‍damage to the reputation of the prison administration and the justice system. The supervisor had⁢ also been the ⁢subject of prior disciplinary proceedings for sexual harassment. Defense lawyers expressed ⁢regret that the court convicted the accused based on the inability to ⁢exclude ⁢the possibility of guilt. An appeal has been announced.

At the time of⁣ the assault, the 27-year-old inmate was serving⁤ a 30-month sentence for domestic violence, traffic offenses, minor violence against a ‍minor, and aggravated theft. He testified that the ‍supervisor forced him⁣ to perform oral sex in his office⁣ and provided him with tobacco. Throughout the ⁢investigation and the hearing, the accused, who served nine months of pre-trial ⁣detention, denied the allegations.The trial presented two opposing accounts, with the accused appearing free and the⁤ accuser remaining incarcerated.

“Intolerant ⁣to Frustration”

Initially hesitant⁣ to report the incidents, the inmate later provided consistent statements, according to the prosecution.⁤ He first confided in a nurse,⁤ then a psychiatrist. We don’t invent⁤ all these ⁣details, the magistrate argued. Furthermore, the conspiracy theory did not align with ‍the prisoner’s personality, described as impulsive, intolerant to frustration, and not at all cold and manipulative.

The inmate’s lawyer challenged the notion of his client as an inveterate manipulator, ‍arguing that⁢ his behavior was driven by the anger of the moment. The prosecution emphasized the severity of the alleged acts, repeated over several months within the confines of ⁣the prison and the supervisor’s office, against a vulnerable inmate. The defense argued for acquittal, claiming the facts⁢ were ⁤ neither precise, nor detailed, nor corroborated, and criticized the request for conviction based on speculation.

The work of the court is not to choose‍ your⁣ favourite hypothesis, a lawyer stated. She accused the detainee of constantly lying and⁣ fabricating reasons, arguing that his lack of detailed defense stemmed from the events never occurring. ‍ I am innocent. I have⁣ nothing to blame myself, the accused stated before the court deliberated. I ⁢firmly believe ⁤in justice. I trust you, he told the magistrates.