The French Third Republic introduced more guarantees of civil liberties than any previous French regime, yet citizens remained unable to challenge police violence and illegality in court—even though the Penal Code provided a legal basis for prosecuting police misconduct. This article reveals how police managers and the judiciary in Paris collaborated to avoid bringing charges against police personnel. It also highlights the significant role played by French civil liberties activists and organizations, most notably the League of Human Rights, in pushing for more transparency and accountability in policing. While historians of policing have noted the discrepancies between high-minded republican ideals and limitations on citizens’ rights and liberties, they see this as stemming from incomplete republicanization and justify police impunity as necessary for the defense of the Republic and its values. This article argues instead that the continued absence of police accountability to the law was rooted in republican values and priorities themselves. Moreover, the failure to prosecute police placed the French Third Republic increasingly at odds with developments in Britain and Prussia. Finally, it provides the basis for further comparative research into how different political regimes, past and present, respond to citizens’ complaints about police abuses.

中文翻译：

---

超越法律的范围？1872-1914 年对巴黎警察人员的刑事起诉

法兰西第三共和国比以前的任何法国政权都引入了更多的公民自由保障，但公民仍然无法在法庭上质疑警察的暴力和违法行为——尽管《刑法》为起诉警察的不当行为提供了法律依据。本文揭示了巴黎的警察管理人员和司法部门如何合作避免对警察人员提出指控。它还强调了法国公民自由活动家和组织，尤其是人权联盟，在推动提高警务透明度和问责制方面发挥的重要作用。虽然警务历史学家已经注意到高尚的共和主义理想与对公民权利和自由的限制之间的差异，他们认为这源于不完全的共和化，并将警察有罪不罚视为捍卫共和国及其价值观所必需的。相反，本文认为，警察对法律的持续缺乏问责制根植于共和主义价值观和优先事项本身。此外，未能起诉警察使法兰西第三共和国与英国和普鲁士的发展越来越不一致。最后，它为进一步比较研究过去和现在不同的政治制度如何回应公民对警察滥用职权的投诉提供了基础。未能起诉警察使法兰西第三共和国与英国和普鲁士的发展越来越不一致。最后，它为进一步比较研究过去和现在不同的政治制度如何回应公民对警察滥用职权的投诉提供了基础。未能起诉警察使法兰西第三共和国与英国和普鲁士的发展越来越不一致。最后，它为进一步比较研究过去和现在不同的政治制度如何回应公民对警察滥用职权的投诉提供了基础。