⚖️ Issue
Security and justice: what each candidate thinks
By Fadrique Garcia Font · Reviewed on 19/10/2026
A presumption of self-defence for police officers and gendarmes, minimum sentences for repeat offenders, legalising cannabis, and rubber-bullet launchers and grenades at demonstrations.
4 questions, 44 candidate positions and 2 complete disagreements (how they are assigned).
What each candidate proposes on this issue
A summary of their positions on the questions in this issue, based on their programmes, statements and the votes of their party’s group. Details and sources, question by question, below.
Agrees: “Police officers and gendarmes should be presumed to have acted in self-defence”
Disagrees: “The sale of cannabis should be legalised and regulated”; “Rubber-bullet launchers (LBD) and grenades should be banned at demonstrations”
In between: “Judges should have to give repeat offenders mandatory minimum sentences”
Agrees: “Police officers and gendarmes should be presumed to have acted in self-defence”; “Judges should have to give repeat offenders mandatory minimum sentences”
Disagrees: “The sale of cannabis should be legalised and regulated”; “Rubber-bullet launchers (LBD) and grenades should be banned at demonstrations”
Disagrees: “Police officers and gendarmes should be presumed to have acted in self-defence”; “Judges should have to give repeat offenders mandatory minimum sentences”
In between: “The sale of cannabis should be legalised and regulated”; “Rubber-bullet launchers (LBD) and grenades should be banned at demonstrations”
Agrees: “Police officers and gendarmes should be presumed to have acted in self-defence”; “Judges should have to give repeat offenders mandatory minimum sentences”
Disagrees: “The sale of cannabis should be legalised and regulated”; “Rubber-bullet launchers (LBD) and grenades should be banned at demonstrations”
Agrees: “Police officers and gendarmes should be presumed to have acted in self-defence”; “Judges should have to give repeat offenders mandatory minimum sentences”
Disagrees: “The sale of cannabis should be legalised and regulated”; “Rubber-bullet launchers (LBD) and grenades should be banned at demonstrations”
Agrees: “The sale of cannabis should be legalised and regulated”; “Rubber-bullet launchers (LBD) and grenades should be banned at demonstrations”
Disagrees: “Police officers and gendarmes should be presumed to have acted in self-defence”; “Judges should have to give repeat offenders mandatory minimum sentences”
Agrees: “Police officers and gendarmes should be presumed to have acted in self-defence”; “Judges should have to give repeat offenders mandatory minimum sentences”
Disagrees: “The sale of cannabis should be legalised and regulated”; “Rubber-bullet launchers (LBD) and grenades should be banned at demonstrations”
Agrees: “Police officers and gendarmes should be presumed to have acted in self-defence”; “Judges should have to give repeat offenders mandatory minimum sentences”
Disagrees: “The sale of cannabis should be legalised and regulated”; “Rubber-bullet launchers (LBD) and grenades should be banned at demonstrations”
Disagrees: “Police officers and gendarmes should be presumed to have acted in self-defence”; “Judges should have to give repeat offenders mandatory minimum sentences”
In between: “The sale of cannabis should be legalised and regulated”; “Rubber-bullet launchers (LBD) and grenades should be banned at demonstrations”
Agrees: “The sale of cannabis should be legalised and regulated”; “Rubber-bullet launchers (LBD) and grenades should be banned at demonstrations”
Disagrees: “Police officers and gendarmes should be presumed to have acted in self-defence”; “Judges should have to give repeat offenders mandatory minimum sentences”
Agrees: “Police officers and gendarmes should be presumed to have acted in self-defence”; “Judges should have to give repeat offenders mandatory minimum sentences”
Disagrees: “The sale of cannabis should be legalised and regulated”; “Rubber-bullet launchers (LBD) and grenades should be banned at demonstrations”
Police officers and gendarmes should be presumed to have acted in self-defence.
A bill creating this presumption for the police was passed at first reading in the National Assembly in July 2026.
Of the 11 candidates with a position on this question: 7 in favour, 0 in between and 4 against.
-
Attal In favourVote de Gabriel Attal à l’Assemblée nationale, scrutin n° 7987, 7 juillet 2026 Why
-
Dupont-Aignan Strongly in favourProjet de Debout la France « Sécurité », mis à jour le 16 février 2026 Why
-
Glucksmann AgainstVote du groupe Socialistes à l’Assemblée nationale, scrutin n° 7987, 7 juillet 2026 Why
-
Le Pen Strongly in favourVote de Marine Le Pen à l’Assemblée nationale, scrutin n° 7987, 7 juillet 2026 Why
-
Lisnard In favour
Estimated position: inferred from the candidate’s overall programme and statements, without a specific document stating it.
Why -
Mélenchon Strongly againstVote du groupe LFI-NFP à l’Assemblée nationale, scrutin n° 7987, 7 juillet 2026 Why
-
Philippe In favourVote du groupe Horizons & Indépendants à l’Assemblée nationale, scrutin n° 7987, 7 juillet 2026 Why
-
Retailleau In favourVote du groupe Droite républicaine à l’Assemblée nationale, scrutin n° 7987, 7 juillet 2026 Why
-
Roussel AgainstVote du groupe GDR à l’Assemblée nationale, scrutin n° 7987, 7 juillet 2026 Why
-
Tondelier Strongly againstProgramme des Écologistes « Pour une prospérité écologique », juillet 2026, chap. 50, mesure 3, p. 165 Why
-
Zemmour Strongly in favourProgramme présidentiel 2022 « Pour que la France reste la France », p. 11 Why
Judges should have to give repeat offenders mandatory minimum sentences.
Minimum sentences for repeat offenders existed from 2007 to 2014. Today judges set the sentence freely, up to the maximum allowed by law.
Of the 11 candidates with a position on this question: 6 in favour, 1 in between and 4 against.
-
Attal In between
Estimated position: inferred from the candidate’s overall programme and statements, without a specific document stating it.
Why -
Dupont-Aignan In favourProjet de Debout la France « Justice », mis à jour le 12 octobre 2026 Why
-
Glucksmann Against« Notre vision pour la France », programme de Place publique (Acte I), mars 2026, p. 61 Why
-
Le Pen In favourProgramme du RN aux législatives de 2024, p. 4 Why
-
Lisnard In favourProgramme de Nouvelle Énergie, page thématique « Sécurité » (site du parti) Why
-
Mélenchon Against
Estimated position: inferred from the candidate’s overall programme and statements, without a specific document stating it.
Why -
Philippe In favourPriorités « Pour une France plus sûre », site de campagne edouardphilippe.fr (consulté le 19 octobre 2026) Why
-
Retailleau Strongly in favour« En France, la seule cour suprême, c’est le peuple », entretien au Figaro repris sur republicains.fr, 2 septembre 2026 Why
-
Roussel Against« Un communisme de conquêtes », base commune du 40e congrès du PCF, juillet 2026, § 2.2.2, p. 10 Why
-
Tondelier AgainstProgramme des Écologistes « Pour une prospérité écologique », juillet 2026, chap. 53, introduction, p. 170, et chap. 58, introduction, p. 183 Why
-
Zemmour Strongly in favourProgramme présidentiel 2022 « Pour que la France reste la France », p. 12 Why
The sale of cannabis should be legalised and regulated.
Using and selling cannabis is illegal in France. Only medical use is being trialled.
Of the 11 candidates with a position on this question: 2 in favour, 2 in between and 7 against.
-
Attal AgainstRéponse de Renaissance au questionnaire euandi, européennes du 9 juin 2024, affirmation n° 25 Why
-
Dupont-Aignan Strongly againstEntretien sur France Bleu, 17 octobre 2016 (debout-la-france.fr) Why
-
Glucksmann In between« Notre vision pour la France », programme de Place publique (Acte I), mars 2026, p. 60 Why
-
Le Pen AgainstProgramme du RN aux législatives de 2024, p. 6 Why
-
Lisnard Against
Estimated position: inferred from the candidate’s overall programme and statements, without a specific document stating it.
Why -
Mélenchon Strongly in favourL’Avenir en commun, édition 2025, chap. 15 (archive du 9 mai 2026) Why
-
Philippe Against« Le plan d’Édouard Philippe contre le narcotrafic », site d’Horizons, 21 mai 2026 Why
-
Retailleau AgainstPublic Sénat, « Bruno Retailleau veut s’en prendre aux consommateurs de stupéfiants », 24 octobre 2024 Why
-
Roussel In between« La France des Jours heureux », programme présidentiel 2022, proposition 18, p. 17 Why
-
Tondelier Strongly in favourProgramme des Écologistes « Pour une prospérité écologique », juillet 2026, chap. 58, mesure 4, p. 184 Why
-
Zemmour AgainstProgramme de Reconquête aux européennes de 2024, p. 16 Why
Rubber-bullet launchers (LBD) and grenades should be banned at demonstrations.
The police use these weapons to keep order. Serious injuries at demonstrations have revived the debate on their use.
Of the 11 candidates with a position on this question: 2 in favour, 2 in between and 7 against.
| Candidate | Position | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Attal | Against | Estimated position Why |
| Dupont-Aignan | Against | Estimated position Why |
| Glucksmann | In between | « Notre vision pour la France », programme de Place publique (Acte I), mars 2026, p. 60 Why |
| Le Pen | Against | Estimated position Why |
| Lisnard | Against | Estimated position Why |
| Mélenchon | In favour | L’Avenir en commun, édition 2025, chap. 4 (archive du 6 mai 2026) Why |
| Philippe | Against | Estimated position Why |
| Retailleau | Against | Estimated position Why |
| Roussel | In between | « La France des Jours heureux », programme présidentiel 2022, proposition 141, p. 57 Why |
| Tondelier | In favour | Programme des Écologistes « Pour une prospérité écologique », juillet 2026, chap. 50, mesure 3, p. 165 Why |
| Zemmour | Against | Estimated position Why |
-
Attal Against
Estimated position: inferred from the candidate’s overall programme and statements, without a specific document stating it.
Why -
Dupont-Aignan Against
Estimated position: inferred from the candidate’s overall programme and statements, without a specific document stating it.
Why -
Glucksmann In between« Notre vision pour la France », programme de Place publique (Acte I), mars 2026, p. 60 Why
-
Le Pen Against
Estimated position: inferred from the candidate’s overall programme and statements, without a specific document stating it.
Why -
Lisnard Against
Estimated position: inferred from the candidate’s overall programme and statements, without a specific document stating it.
Why -
Mélenchon In favourL’Avenir en commun, édition 2025, chap. 4 (archive du 6 mai 2026) Why
-
Philippe Against
Estimated position: inferred from the candidate’s overall programme and statements, without a specific document stating it.
Why -
Retailleau Against
Estimated position: inferred from the candidate’s overall programme and statements, without a specific document stating it.
Why -
Roussel In between« La France des Jours heureux », programme présidentiel 2022, proposition 141, p. 57 Why
-
Tondelier In favourProgramme des Écologistes « Pour une prospérité écologique », juillet 2026, chap. 50, mesure 3, p. 165 Why
-
Zemmour Against
Estimated position: inferred from the candidate’s overall programme and statements, without a specific document stating it.
Why
Explore other issues
Who do you agree with on this issue?
The questions in this issue are part of the full test. On 2 of them the candidates hold opposite positions, so your answer matters.
Take the political test