How Did Napoleon's Social Control Bigandage Affect The Government?

Jones agrees that Napoleon had a police state, however he suggests that he did not introduce a police state, but actually continued an ‘unfulfilled trend’ from the Directory for stronger executive power, that he further developed it; centralization and suppression of association were ‘prefigured’ by the Directory. Jones’ view is substantiated by the lack of political representation in the government in the Directory. This view appears plausible when we look at the case in 1797, three of the directors Revelliere, Barras and Reubell sought the support from Hoche and Bonaparte, formed the Fructidor coup to ensure the success of their intervention in elections when the royalist candidates started doing well in the ballot box. The Floreal coup
The ‘wide use’ of military justice in the Directory to control brigandage shaped the harsh measurement in Napoleon’s rule suggested by Jones can be reinforced by the conseil de guerre, put in place by the Directory in 1796, a more comprehensive military justice system than before. The reforms were instrumental in placing military justice on a firmer footing than it had known. The penal code were enacted by the Directory legislature in 1796, specified harsh penalties like death sentences and desertion under fire, which served as the backbone of French military justice until 1857. Made the point of Jones more credible that the Directory is repressive by using police forces and censorship to control, Napoleon learnt and inherited the structure of a police state. There were elements of a police state in the Directory, but uncompleted, like the Police Ministry for example. Jones raised a reasonable argument that Napoleon further developed a police state based on the streamline of the Directory