| Summary: | Before 1981, the death penalty was the ultimate punishment, reserved for the worst criminals. Unless they were spared due to mitigating circumstances, those found guilty of premeditated or aggravated murder were sentenced, in accordance with the penal code, to an ignominious beheading. These people often came from marginal backgrounds. However, criminals who were sentenced to death were not entirely beyond redemption. The President could always grant them pardons and spare them the guillotine. They were then sent to the hard labour camps in French Guyana – another form of elimination, but one which was considered a second chance. From 1908 to 1914, only a minority (less than a third) of these convicts were actually considered to be beyond any form of redemption and undeserving of survival. To help the President make decisions in these matters, the Ministry of Justice sought the advice of those who had worked on these cases (the judge and public prosecutors). Our intention is to look at how the magistrates justified their advice, with reference to reports stored in government and presidential archives. This study fits into a wider field – indeed, recent “moral sociology” studies pay close attention to how the various participants in the penal chain justified their decisions. Judges took into account some general characteristics relating to age, social status and recidivism. But, more than anything, the attitude of the criminal during the trial or in prison, and any display of cynicism, or even of outrageous behaviour, were key factors in the issuing of death sentences. These could be seen as signs that any attempt at “moral correction” would be doomed to failure. Moreover, the severity of the judges was underpinned by the concept of retribution. The issue of “responsibility” was then paramount. The need to create a deterrent effect was also important. The judges’ reports show us that Christian and spiritualist ways of thinking had a profound influence on the practice of penal law – far removed from the growing positivist theories of “social defence”.
|
|---|
