The social context: strikes shut down by force
Source : Private collection
Postcard. Armentières. A corner of the Grand’place during the strikes (April 1904). Private Collection. The debates over the death penalty in 1908 cannot be fully understood without knowledge of the political, international and social context which sparked worry and fear in the upper classes. At the top of their worries was the significant wave of workers’ strikes in the years 1904-1907. Strikes reached a peak in 1906 (1309 strikes and 438 000 striking workers), which was particularly extreme outside of Paris, notably in the north (textile factories like that of Armentières went on strike, as did mines). The difficult working conditions, exasperation with the disdain of the bosses, and the influence of anarchism all contributed to the length of the conflicts (115 days in the forges of Hennebont, from April til August 1906) and their accompanying violence. Stores were ransacked (as in Armentières), and bosses were taken hostage. The government responded by calling on troops, and Paris was practically in a state of siege on May 1st 1906. Clemenceau reinforced his reputation as a “strike-breaker” by having his forces fire on the road workers of Draveil-Vigneux (June - July 1908) – causing six deaths among the strikers – and by arresting the heads of the CGT (a powerful workers’ union). The presence of troops in the streets of striking cities, notably cities outside Paris, made the upper classes particularly fearful of “revolutionary dangers”, and thus, the context largely contributed to their position against the abolition of capital punishment.
Social issues deprioritized by the debate over the death penalty
Source : Collection of the museum of living history (Musée d’histoire vivante), Montreuil, France.
Drawing by Wagner, L’Assiette au Beurre, n°310, March 9th 1907 “La Peine de mort” (The Death Penalty), Collection of the Museum of Living History (Musée d’histoire vivant – Montreuil, photo: Véronique Fau-Vincenti) Here, the newspaper Assiette au Beurre reproduces an argument from the far-left which sometimes considered the ideological debates on the death penalty - which brought together all the deputies on the left (including socialists) - as a diversion to avoid supporting workers’ rights. This drawing shows the basic gist of such an argument: we may save the lives of several criminals, but while leaving the people to die from workplace accidents. Sometimes this argument was used for all types of accidents: during the debates of 1981, one argument for the death penalty was that in terms of the number of fatalities, it was more important to deal with accidents than with the fate of a handful of criminals.
Wine-making trouble
Source : Private collection.
Postcard. Souvenir of a winegrowers meeting. Montpellier, June 9th 1907. Marcelin Albert waving to the crowd (Private Collection) Troops intervened not only in industrial strikes, but also in revolts, like in the countryside, such as for example the Winegrowers’ Revolt of 1907. Chronic overproduction and increased competition with Algerian and chaptalized wines led workers, vineyard owners and vinedressers in the Languedoc to join forces and revolt. Starting in March 1907, a series of demonstrations led by Marcelin Albert, the informal leader of the protest movement, gained more and more supporters – over a thousand people attended a demonstration in Montpellier on June 9th. Out of solidarity, numerous municipalities stepped down one after another. In Béziers, the 17th regiment of the infantry fraternized with the activists… Clemenceau forcefully repressed this movement by having his troops fire on activists in Narbonne and Montpellier and by arresting and discrediting the leaders.
The separation of Church and State, and troubles in the countryside
Source : Private Collection
Postcard. Resistance to decrees expelling nuns in Brittany. The guard (Private Collection) Anticlericalism was the political platform of the Bloc des gauches (Left Block or Coalition of the Left since their legislative victory in 1902. The application of the 1901 law on associations led to the shut-down of many congregational establishments under the minister Combes up until July 1904, when they were completely forbidden. The law separating Church and State was officially announced in December 1905. The expulsion of teaching congregations (like the church assets inventories), a direct result of the Separation led to resistance movements in several provinces, notably Brittany, where some people took up the tradition of the Chouannerie of defending priests against the Revolution. These anticlerical measures aggravated the hostility that much of the clergy had in regards to the Republic. During the debates on the death penalty, Jaurès referred to this hostility in the words of the abbot Valadier, the Roquette chaplain who protested Soleilland’s pardon: “The head of a brigand is for you something so sacred that you won’t let it fall…yet you won’t hesitate to deliver these heads, these backs, these necks, these bellies of us all, to the knives of the apaches that the manure of your godless Republic has engendered.” Jaurès added that the day after president Carnot’s assassination, the same abbot “found a supernatural and benevolent explanation for his death… He stated that, by the will of Providence, President Carnot, killed one month after Emile Henry, was assassinated the same day that the pope announced, by pontifical document, ‘Those who judge will be judged in return and they will be judged all the more harshly if they exercise their own judgment against equality and against the law’” (trans. P. Bass).
The Russian Revolution of 1905
Source : Collection of the museum of living history (Musée d’histoire vivante), Montreuil, France.
Drawing by Grandjouan, L’Assiette au Beurre, n°310, March 9th 1907 “La Peine de mort” (The Death Penalty), Collection of the Museum of Living History (Musée d’histoire vivant – Montreuil, photo: Véronique Fau-Vincenti) The Russian Revolution of 1905 fanned fears of revolutionary contagion for those in power. Allied with Russia since 1892, France could not officially denounce the bloody repression that the tsar carried out.
The Apaches, a Parisian infestation
Source : Collection of the museum of living history (Musée d’histoire vivante), Montreuil, France.
Le Petit Journal. Supplément illustré, October 20th 1907, Collection of the Museum of Living History (Musée d’histoire vivant – Montreuil) The term “Apache” - well-known and wide-spread thanks to literature on American history – was used by a French journalist during the Belle Epoque to describe the crimes committed by bands of young hoodlums in the capital and other large French cities. At first used for young delinquents and rebels with a particular appearance (cap, red scarf, bell-bottomed trousers) and their bourgeois vocabularies, the term was eventually applied to anyone who committed a criminal act. The summaries of crimes published in the press warned the public of the presence of Apaches everywhere. In this context, on September 4th, 1907, the Petit Parisien published an article titled “Les Apaches Maîtres de Paris” (The Apaches, masters of Paris): “We see them everywhere, from the richest neighborhoods to the poorest: cynical, lewd, merry, they continue to terrorize Paris.” Less than a week later, on the 12th, they reported, “the Apaches of Montreuil (a Parisian suburb) kidnap and rape a young 22 years woman”. The next day, a new title: “The Apaches of Marseilles. A sensational arrest. A seventeen-year-old assassin! The antecedents of the criminal…” On the 14th, Marseille was still on the front page: “The Apaches of Marseilles. Yet another crime in broad daylight in the streets (two bandits fire shots over a long-lasting quarrel. The murderer is lynched by the crowd)”. The journal had a column titled “Exploits of apaches” where they listed all the crimes committed. For more information: Drachline (Pierre), Petit-Castelli (Claude). Casque d'or [Amélie Elie, 1879-1933] et les Apaches, Paris, Renaudot, 1990, 213 p. Kalifa (Dominique). Les Apaches sont dans la ville, L'Histoire, n° 168, July-August 1993, p. 108-111. Perrot (Michelle). Dans la France de la Belle Epoque, les "Apaches", premières bandes de jeunes, in Les Marginaux et les exclus dans l'histoire, Cahiers Jussieu n° 5, Paris, UGE, 1979, p. 389-407.
Repressing the Apaches
Source : Collection of the museum of living history (Musée d’histoire vivante), Montreuil, France.
Le Petit Journal. Supplément illustré, November 3rd 1907, Collection of the Museum of Living History (Musée d’histoire vivant – Montreuil) The crimes of the Apaches were amplified and circulated by the press (some journalists were even accused of having fabricated events themselves), all which gave the impression that the police were incapable of controlling them. For example, the illustrated first page of the Petit Journal on October 20th, 1907 was subtitled: “over 30 000 delinquents against 8 000 police, the latter seeming defenceless when faced with young hoodlums armed with knives and revolvers”. Conservative circles, several magistrates, and criminologists denounced a “crisis of suppression”. Instead of blaming the weakness of the police force, they attributed this “crisis” to insufficient punishment, indulgent judges who gave light sentences, prisons which were too “comfortable” and which reproduced laziness and crime, and legislation that mitigated and individualized sentences (conditional freedom, parole, etc). Several of these individuals suggested that the best solution would be to follow the British model, and go back to corporal punishment: to sentence the Apaches to lashes… For more information: Kalifa (Dominique). Magistrature et "crise de la répression" à la veille de la grande guerre (1911-1912), Vingtième siècle, revue d'histoire, July-September, 2000, n° 67, p. 43-59. Lejeune (Dr.). Faut-il fouetter les "apaches" ? La criminalité dans les grandes villes : psycho-physiologie de l'apache; la pénalité applicable aux apaches, son insuffisance; les châtiments corporels : avantages et inconvénients; esquisse de la flagellation pénale dans l'histoire et en législation comparée : les apaches et le fouet, Paris, Libr. du Temple, 1910, 117 p. Loubat (William). La crise de la répression, Revue politique et parlementaire, 1911, tome LXVIII, n° 204, June, p. 434-468; tome LXIX, n° 205, July, p. 5-27.
A fear of nomads
Source : Collection of the museum of living history (Musée d’histoire vivante), Montreuil, France.
Le Petit Journal. Supplément illustré, November 12th 1907, Collection of the Museum of Living History (Musée d’histoire vivant – Montreuil) Rural populations in France had feared nomads for ages: they were accused of being ill-intentioned and accused of “stealing chickens” and causing fires. These Roma or “gypsies” had lifestyles and appearances that were radically different than those of the sedentary population, and villagers often reacted to them with fear and hostility. For the popular press, mentioning nomads was a method to maintain a feeling of insecurity in the countryside, since their rural readership did not have any experience with the Apache crimes outside what they read in the papers. Administrative surveillance of nomads was put into place at the end of the 19th century, and the census of 1897 estimated them to number 25 000. The police suppressed the nomadic populations, most spectacularly exemplified by their raid aimed at the “band of Pépère”. Under the leadership of Jean Capello, this group left Holland and began roaming across France in the summer of 1906. A hundred strong, it is unclear if they were guilty or framed for all or some of the crimes they were accused of. The police organized a sting operation against them to take place in June 1907 during the fair of La Tremblade (in Charente-Maritime), but the police did not find the spoils they were looking for (they only found papers, toys, and three rolls of banknotes). The operation was led by the director of the Sûreté Générale (police force), and his primary goal was to impress popular opinion and to pressure the authorities into creating mobile police brigades, which was achieved at the end of the year.
Gang crime: the Chauffeurs of the Drôme
Source : Collection of the museum of living history (Musée d’histoire vivante), Montreuil, France.
Le Petit Journal. Supplément illustré, November 15th 1908, Collection of the Museum of Living History (Musée d’histoire vivant – Montreuil) General feelings of insecurity were also maintained by new forms of crime, or, more accurately, by the resurgence of ‘traveling (gang) crime’ which was notably common during the French Directory. In the beginning of the 20th century, organized crime began to be, once again, “mobile” - defying the police, who were assigned to certain areas, by crossing city or county lines. In the North, there were the “bandits of Hazebrouck” and the “band of Pollet”, a gang led by two brothers named Pollet that first specialized in stealing food before widening their activities to include night-time burglaries and murders in farms and isolated houses. When they were arrested in May 1906, the band of Pollet had over twenty members and their crimes included 120 armed robberies and six murders. In the Midi, organized crime resembled that of the revolutionary period: the “Chauffeurs” (a rural gang) burned the feet of the elderly to force them to reveal the hiding spot of their savings, just as the Chauffeurs d’Orgères did (on a much larger scale) in la Beauce at the end of the 18th century. This “red gang” terrorized the countryside of the Drôme region. Supporters of the death penalty brought up these crimes during parliamentary debates. Georges Berry, for example, cited popular newspapers’ accounts of ‘David’, who murdered an 82-year-old: “See how David tells the story of the murder of Bésayes, which, by the way, he is proud of. ‘It was a beautiful moonlit night. We climbed over the fence. Berruyer made the trap. We hid around the kitchen window. We saw the old woman light the lamp and attend to her household chores. Then, she left, like the night before. At this moment, Liotard jumped out. He had picked up a stick, a baton, and he hit the woman on the head. I sent her rolling on the floor by butting her in the stomach and we dragged her to the house…She didn’t stop whining. We hit her again with the stick. She lay on the floor, but she wasn’t dead yet. Now, there we were, all three of us, in the house; we covered the window with blankets. In the next room over, an old man yelled: ‘Julie! Julie! What’s happened?’ ‘Wait,’ I said, ‘And you’ll see your Julie!’ And we entered his room. The old man, who was lying in bed, opened his arms towards a small plaster Virgin Mary placed on the corner of a little alter and murmured as he trembled: ‘Good mother! Good mother! Protect me!’ ‘You’ll see how she protects you, your good mother!’ I took the Virgin Mary, I threw it at his face, and I told him ‘Here, kiss your good mother!’ The poor man hyperventilated, out of breath, and almost fainted. We gave him a glass of rum so that he’d stay conscious and we asked him where his money was. ‘Take whatever you find’, he responded, ‘but I won’t give you anything.’” David began laughing horribly and he continued. “We put a rope around his neck, but with a handkerchief beneath it so that it wouldn’t leave a mark. We pulled the rope: ‘Where’s the money?’ He continued to say: ‘No! No!’ So, since he didn’t want to be reasonable, we pulled harder and we strangled him. In the other room, the old woman didn’t want to die. We kicked her head with our heels. She still wasn’t dead. We made an omelet, we ate it, we drank, and then we searched for the loot. We found 220 francs under the bed and in a jar of salt, and then Berruyer said: ‘Let’s go now.’ ‘But she’s not dead yet!’ So, we strangled her with a rope. Then we put the body of the old man next to that of his sister and we ‘seasoned’ (sic) them, by pouring four liters of oil, a bottle of rum, and a bottle of oil on them.” I’ll stop after this story so as not to take up too much of the time we have in the Chamber. Yet I ask for your indignation for the murder by the same gang of an 82-years-old man, who was hung by his feet in the chimney for a whole night by David and his accomplices while they joyfully ate dinner right next to him. In the morning, when the old man’s brother came into the apartment, he found the poor man still alive with completely carbonized feet. (Noise on the far left. Exclamations in the center and on the right.) I beg you, gentlemen, don’t say that for those who commit such crimes the death penalty is a horrible punishment; no, it is only a fair retaliation for society.” (trans. P. Bass) For more information: Bénévise (J.), Dossat (E.). L'affaire des chauffeurs de la Drôme, Bourg-les-Valence, 2002, 450 p. Dossat (Emmanuel). Les Hommes rouges ou l'Histoire véridique des chauffeurs de la Drôme, Nigel Gauvin, 1990, 350 p. Guilini (Estelle). L'affaire des "chauffeurs" de la Drôme, in Cogne (Olivier) (dir.). Rendre la justice en Dauphiné : exposition présentée par les Archives départementales de l'Isère, au palais du parlement de Dauphiné du 31 octobre 2003 au 17 mai 2004. Catalogue, Grenoble, Presses universitaires de Grenoble, 2003, p. 227-231.
Soleilland’s crime
Source : Collection of the museum of living history (Musée d’histoire vivante), Montreuil, France.
Le Petit Journal. Supplément illustré, February 24th and August 4th 1907, Collection of the Museum of Living History (Musée d’histoire vivant – Montreuil) Soleilland’s crime marked a turning point in the debates over the death penalty: exploited by the popular press and supporters of the death penalty, this crime influenced public opinion and made the convictions of abolitionist deputies waver. Albert Soleilland, a downwardly ascending “petit bourgeois”, was a day laborer who worked for a furniture vendor in the eleventh arrondissement of Paris. On January 27th 1907, he murdered and raped Marthe Erbelding, the eleven-year-old child of his neighbors. The crime was all the more shocking due to the trust that had been established between the murderer and the parents of the victim – the latter had asked the former, a friend, to babysit that day. Shocked and outraged by the crime, tens of thousands of people accompanied the coffin of the young victim. Albert Soleilland was sentenced to death by the Assizes court of the Seine on July 24th 1907. For more information: Jean-Marc Berlière. Le crime de Soleilland (1907). Les journalistes et l'assassin, Paris, Tallandier, 2003, 240 p.
A Pardon: letter to Fallières
Source : Archives of the Parisian Police Prefecture, DB/141.
Letter to M. Fallières or the Pardon of Soleilland, song (Archives of the Parisian Police Prefecture, DB/141) Albert Soleilland was pardoned by the president of the Republic on September 13th 1907. Armand Fallières (1841-1931), elected president on February 18th 1906, was against capital punishment and systematically pardoned all those sentenced to death from the beginning of his presidency. Soleilland’s pardon caused numerous complaints. On September 15th 1907, the Matin published an article titled “After the pardon. The public does not countersign the decree of the head of state.” The article repeated popular reactions: “…and now, listen, hear: in the metro, someone said ‘If I were father Erbelding, I'd put a bullet in the skin of the president of the Republic who pardoned that monster. We’d be hard up to find a jury that would sentence me!’ Farther along, in the omnibus: ‘Now, the death penalty is abolished. As long as Soleilland keeps his head on his shoulders, we know that we can’t guillotine anyone,’ a voyager said. Women have been repeating: ‘The monster! The monster! We should have killed him like a dog with rabies. Well-dressed men, who were sleepily rocking with the rhythm of the bus and playing with the gold decorations on their shirtsleeves, stated their opinion: ‘And to think that to feed this being, we’ll have higher taxes!’ Let’s jump from Belleville to the Plaine Monceau. In the big park, little girls throw their diabolos in the air while little boys play hide-and-go-seek and the mothers –as well as the nannies – watch. ‘From the moment that Soleilland was pardoned’, they say, ‘We know that we can never take too many precautions. Paris, from the parks to the streets, is now the realm of lechers and apaches.’” These reactions constitute the theme of the song, Letter to Fallières, pictured above. It expresses the fears of mothers who beg the president of the Republic to think of their children, potential future victims, and to stop prioritizing the life of the murderer. Another song, by Eugène Gervais, criticizes Fallières’ pardon by describing the lechers now living free, making a parallel between the murderer gaining freedom after doing time in prison and the innocent child falling into his trap. Eugène Gervas, Lechers are pardoned or The story of a poor mother. Dramatic romance based on the true story of the vile Solleilland’s pardon, Ciroutre-Gauvry, 1907. (document communicated by Marc Renneville) “To the tune of: Go to sleep, my poor baby, lace for a penny, a blond child sleeps tight, His mother looks at him all pink: on his angelic forehead, she leaves a little kiss. Then, still rocking her child, she sings, in a newspaper she sees a crime, the title? Rape of a six-year old child!, her eyes on fire, approaching the cradle, she repeats, clasping her child, Second refrain: time’s gone by, the girl is now six, how she’s pretty this young Juliette! How her little white sandals become her, the baby frolics in her charming attire…When the mom, for a moment, goes away, the girl turns to the door and doesn’t stay, and in the street, worriless and playing, her kindly eye attracts the remarks of a passerby…Third refrain: I have candies in my pocket, you cutie, don’t hang your head, come here and don’t fear me. The baby responds, ‘Mister, I don’t want to’, papa told me taking candy from strangers I ought not to, Don’t run away, I know your papa, and I like, you should know, also your mama. The baby is happy, trusting, and goes, that same night, the vile monster will rape her! Fourth refrain: The next day, the mother learns of the crime. When she hears the name of the victim, she loses her mind. The mother goes crazy…happy is the prisoner; by his exemplary behavior - which is good, he pardoned, what a lucky fellow ! He is married and liberated from prison, and his children don’t know of his past! Refrain: Mothers, look after your children, Today it’s atrocious. We pardon bandits, and their crimes go unpunished. We mock the tears of alarmed parents. The lechers are pardoned, poor mothers, watch out!” (trans. P Bass) For more information: See the biographical article on Armand Fallières on Wikipedia.
A Pardon: letter to Fallières (continued)
Source : Archives of the Parisian Police Prefecture, DB/141.
Demonstration against Soleilland’s pardon
Source : Archives of the Parisian Police Prefecture, DB/141.
Extract from the newspaper Le Matin, September 16th 1907 (Archives of the Parisian Police Prefecture, DB/141) Here, the newspaper reports on a demonstration protesting Soleilland’s pardon which occurred only several days after Fallières signed the decree saving him from the guillotine. Mothers in working-class neighborhoods seem to have organized this demonstration, which led participants to the Elysée. The newspaper is sympathetic to the activists’ cause, which was certainly not the case during workers’ demonstrations. The article mentions that only men marched in the streets and that they were peacefully dispersed by the police.
The petitions of juries
Source : Archives of the Parisian Police Prefecture, DB/616.
Extract from the newspaper Le Matin, July 8th and August 1st 1907 (Archives of the Parisian Police Prefecture, DB/616) In its July 8th issue, the Matin claimed to have started this petition. In fact, the petition campaign (in which jury members sent petitions demanding the application of the systematically-pardoned death penalty) had started in January 1907. For two years, the campaign developed and changed with political circumstances: although in the beginning it was the president’s systematic pardoning of criminals that was criticized, the petition campaign became more radical in 1908 when a circular from the Chancellerie tried to forbid these demonstrations. It is highly probable that the movement was initiated or at least officially supported by a portion of the Magistrates who wanted to remind the executive branch of the supposed independence of the judicial branch, which had largely suffered in the 1880s. However, there were also municipal councils, general councils, labor unions, and trade associations who joined with the jury in expressing their wish for the application of the death penalty as laid down by the Penal Code. This petition movement doubtless relected the worries of the provincial bourgeois – a group that was well represented by radicals in Parliament – before what it perceived as a rise in criminality.
The death penalty for the apaches
Source : Collection of the museum of living history (Musée d’histoire vivante), Montreuil, France.
Le Petit Journal. Supplément illustré, July 19th 1908, Collection of the Museum of Living History (Musée d’histoire vivant – Montreuil) Whereas some people suggested reprimanding young delinquents with lashes, others unabashedly asked for the Penal Code to be amended so that Apaches who had committed simple murders could receive the death penalty. These people found that prison was an inefficient deterrent for rebels who, in their own milieu, used murder, no less to punish their own cases of dispute and betrayal…Georges Berry submitted a bill on this (Bill for the application of the death penalty to a new category of criminals) on October 29th 1908. An extract from the list of reasons: “Legislators, who did not plan for the Apaches and who didn’t even imagine that, with all the help of civilization, we would reach a day when professional bandits would strike for the pleasure of killing or for bravado, did not target this type of crime, which thus remained in the category of simple murders. They thus let a series of scoundrels who are unworthy of any pardon receive the benefits given to criminals who are less reprehensible, forcing juries against their will to be generous with the cruelest of murderers. No one deserves the rigor of justice more than these gang members who conspire and conspire every day, and who have their own leaders, meeting places where they plan their next deeds, and who, in their free time, amuse themselves by firing on inoffensive passersby and by lurking in isolated cabarets where they sow terror and death. No one deserves the rigor of justice more than these professionals of crime who can’t cross a man on his way home alone without attacking him with fury. And yet, we see, the law doesn’t treat these wretches as assassins due to a loophole that we urgently need to close up as soon as possible, by giving judges the possibility of applying capital punishment to those who deserve it more than anyone else.” His billl aimed to change article 304 of the Penal Code to the following: “Nevertheless, every individual found guilty of a murder who is either recognized as a professional criminal or who killed for the pleasure of killing will be considered as a murderer and punished with the death penalty.”
The press: against abolition
Source : Collection of the museum of living history (Musée d’histoire vivante), Montreuil, France.
Drawing by Haye. The Assiette au Beurre, n°310, March 9th 1907, “The death penalty” (La Peine de mort) Collection of the Museum of Living History (Musée d’histoire vivant – Montreuil, photo: Véronique Fau-Vincenti) The national press led the campaign against the abolition of the death penalty. On one hand, newspapers had a commercial interest: the national press had cultivated a general feeling of insecurity by publishing high numbers of crime stories to increase readership. On the other hand, it was also a question of the press’ political bent: the heads of the big mass-circulation newspapers were often moderate republicans. Such newspapers supported capital punishment during the parliamentary debates and reported on, and even orchestrated, protest movements against presidential pardons. The periodical L’Assiette au Beurre shows Eugène Letellier, a Belgian entrepreneur of public works and boss of the Journal. The Petit Parisien is the most emblematic case. After encouraging fear via numerous articles on the Soleilland case published through September 1907, the newspaper polled a large portion of its readership on whether the death penalty should be kept. One article explicitly stated their desire to put pressure on deputies: “Our referendum – is it even necessary to say so? – is not at all political, but we would still be very happy if our legislators, among whom there are many who are also struck by the increase in crime in our beautiful country of France, would take advantage of the results and if the government would admit the information that it will provide…” (October 4th 1907). The results indeed corresponded with the wishes, and political leaning, of the Petit Parisien: on November 5th, an article announced that 1 083 655 individuals voted “For” the death penalty and 328 692 “Against”. The following year, the deputies were largely influenced by this campaign and they voted to keep the death penalty.
Barrès: let’s get rid of these degenerates
Source : Journal officiel, session of July 3rd 1908, p. 1539-1540.
Extract from the Journal officiel, session of July 3rd 1908, p. 1539-1540; photo from the Marcel Proust website made by Gabriella Alù Maurice Barrès (1862-1923), a writer and member of the Académie Française (starting in 1906), became a deputy in 1889. He was a nationalist and member of the League of Patriots who became known for being against Dreyfus. During the debates on the death penalty, he strongly criticized Joseph Reinach, and he was reprimanded by the President of the Chamber of Deputies for his anti-Semitic statements (like his criticism of the different ‘race’ of his colleague). Barrès declared that he was directly opposed to the position of Victor Hugo, recognizing the author’s influence in the struggle for abolition. He declared that whereas he, himself, thought that the criminal was a “man fallen outside the realm of humanity”, the great poet Hugo thought that education was necessary because criminals had “not yet arrived at humanity”. Barrès’ viewpoint was in line with that of popular criminological theories at the end of the 19th century. Although Criminal Anthropology (developed in Lyon around the work of Alexandre Lacassagne), emphasized the role of social environment in the development of criminal behavior, unlike the “born-criminel” theory of Cesare Lombroso’s Italian school of criminology, Lacassagne still justified capital punishment in The Death Penalty and Criminality (Peine de Mort et Criminalité) and the majority of doctors at the time supported the death penalty. Specifically, when Barrès suggested chopping to cut off the “rotten branches” of society, he echoed Lacassagne who, in The Death Penalty and Criminality: The increase of criminality and the application of the death penalty (1908), supported the death penalty as a method of eliminating the incorrigible while advocating non-public executions, which he believed to be a better deterrent. For more information: See the biographical article on Barrès on Wikipedia or read the full speech on the website Criminocorpus : Peine de mort. Débat parlementaire de 1908.
Barrès: let’s get rid of these degenerates (continued)
Source : Journal officiel, session of July 3rd 1908, p. 1539-1540.
Berry: the “party of honest men”
Source : Journal officiel, session of November 4th 1908, p. 2027-2035.
Extract from the Journal officiel, session of November 4th 1908, p. 2027-2035. Georges Berry, born in 1855 in Bellac (Haute-Vienne), defended his PhD in Law in 1876 and was then called to the bar. In 1884, he was elected member of the municipal council of Paris, and in 1893, he was elected deputy of the Seine. This monarchist rallied behind the cause of the Republic on the right wing benches of the House. He was preoccupied by social issues and participated in many projects and commissions that treated begging, child labor, and other such priorities of the era. One of his first publications addresses the death penalty (La peine de mort nécessaire (The necessary death penalty), Paris, L. Laros et Forcel, 1881, 29p). Georges Berry received accolades from the right for defending “honest men” against murderers and other “scoundrels”. Berry’s references to the torture and death of victims, using examples of particularly sordid crimes, constituted a classic argument for supporters of the death penalty. Without any illusions that the guillotine worked as a strong deterrent, supporters considered that the death penalty was a success if it even prevented just a few individuals from committing crimes. Mentioning the victims of crimes also allowed supporters of the death penalty to lay claim to the same arguments of pity and humanitarianism that abolitionists used. Berry cites Alphonse Karr (1808-1890), a journalist and writer, as he writes: “Abolish the death penalty, but let the gentlemen who do the murders take the first step”. For more information: Read the full text of the speech on Criminocorpus: Peine de mort. Débat parlementaire de 1908.
Berry: the “party of honest men” (continued)
Source : Journal officiel, session of November 4th 1908, p. 2027-2035.
Labori: the hour of abolition has not yet come
Source : Journal officiel, session of November 4th 1908, p. 2044-2047.
Labori: the hour of abolition has not yet come
Source: Journal officiel, session of November 4th 1908, p. 2044-2047.
Photograph of Labori, Collection of the Museum of Living History (Musée d’histoire vivant – Montreuil, photo: Véronique Fau-Vincenti); Extract from the Journal Officiel, session of November 4th 1908, p. 2044-2047. Fernand Labori (1860-1917) was the defense lawyer of Vaillant and played an important role in the Dreyfus affair as the counselor of Mme Dreyfus, Zola and captain Dreyfus during the council of war of Rennes in 1899. When he was elected deputy of the Seine-et-Marne in 1906, his pro-death penalty platform was derided by the left, who expected an opposite viewpoint from one of Dreyfus’ key supporters. In fact, Fernand Labori did believe in most abolitionist arguments, but he chose to adopt the position held by Barère in 1791: the hour for abolition had not yet come because the mores and the moral education of society did not yet create a social state that was sufficiently safe and secure, while guaranteeing efficient repression, given the state of penal institutions. Labori also argued that an alternative punishment would be inefficient, using penal colonies as an example: stories of escape were frequent and highly publicized, despite the fact that most escapees were caught. For more information: See the biographical article on Labori on Wikipedia or read the full speech on the website of Criminocorpus : Peine de mort. Débat parlementaire de 1908.
Labori: the hour of abolition has not yet come (continued)
Source : Journal officiel, session of November 4th 1908, p. 2044-2047.
Jaurès: from fatality to social responsibility
Source : Journal officiel, session of November 18th 1908, p. 2393-2398.
Jaurès by Nadar, Collection of the Museum of Living History (Musée d’histoire vivant – Montreuil, photo: Véronique Fau-Vincenti); Extract from the Journal officiel, session of November 18th 1908, p. 2393-2398. Jean Jaurès (1859-1914) was a Philosophy professor who was elected deputy of the Tarn in 1885. Originally a member of the left-wing republicans, he rallied behind socialism during the Carmaux strike (1892) and he was elected as an independent socialist deputy of the same town in 1893. Jaurès founded the Parti socialiste français in 1902, the newspaper l’Humanité in 1904, and contributed to the creation of the Parti socialiste unifié (SFIO) in 1905. He battled the social politics of Clemenceau, but supported the death penalty abolition project presented by the same regime. Jaurès defined the foundation of supporters of the death penalty: a lack of hope, a pessimistic view of human nature, and the futility commonly evoked in terms of the redemption of criminals. In Jaurès’ eyes, this fatalism was directly opposed to the Republican spirit and that of Christianity, and it veiled society’s responsibility for crime. He described living, work, and unemployment conditions, as well as the frequent homelessness and alcoholism in order to sketch the psychology of delinquents which, little by little, led them to give in to the “sinister pride” of crime faced with a society that delinquents felt rejected from. For more information: See the biographical article on Jaurès on Wikipedia or read the full speech on Criminocorpus : Peine de mort. Débat parlementaire de 1908.
Jaurès: from fatality to social responsibility (continued)
Source : Journal officiel, session of November 18th 1908, p. 2393-2398.
Jaurès: from fatality to social responsibility (end)
Source : Journal officiel, session of November 18th 1908, p. 2393-2398.
Deschanel: the argument of judicial error
Source : Journal officiel, session of November 4th 1908, p. 2042-2044.
Photograph of Paul Deschanel, taken from the Wikipedia article; Extract from the Journal officiel, session of November 4th 1908, p. 2042-2044. Paul Deschanel (1855-1922), a progressive republican, was elected deputy of the Eure-et-Loir in 1885 and was president of the Chamber of deputies from 1898 to 1902. He dedicated most of his speech to what he considered the most decisive argument: potential judicial error made the death penalty unthinkable, because it’s impossible to believe in an infallible system of justice. The deaths of innocent people who were executed are worth as much as victims of murder. Deschanel described the case of Mme Doize (1861-1862) who confessed to parricide in order to save her child, and who was only acquitted a year later when the identity of the two true assassins came to light. For more information: See the biographical article on Deschanel on Wikipedia or read the full speech on Criminocorpus: Peine de mort. Débat parlementaire de 1908.
Reinach: the example of human suffering is useless
Source : Journal officiel, session of July 3rd 1908, p. 1534-1539.
Portrait of Reinach, Collection of the Museum of Living History (Musée d’histoire vivant – Montreuil, photo: Véronique Fau-Vincenti); Extract from the Journal official, session of July 3rd 1908, p. 1534-1539. Joseph Reinach (1856-1921) was both the head of cabinet under Gambetta and directed the République française, Gambetta’s newspaper. A deputy for the Basses-Alpes from 1889 until 1898 and then from 1906 until 1914, he played an important role in the review of the Dreyfus trial, which he later wrote a seven-volume history of. Joseph Reinach was known for his strict stance against delinquency, as can be seen in his advocacy of relegation in Les Récidivistes, published in 1882. He aimed to show that capital punishment only had a limited and relative deterrent power because it did not decrease the number of crimes, and particularly not of the most horrifying ones (his examples included Soleilland, Vodable and Vacher). Describing an execution, he showed that inhuman torture could only inspire horror and not fear of crime, and that for ages the public nature of executions was only superficial, despite the fact that it constituted an essential element of the exemplary nature of the punishment. For more information: Read the entire speech on Criminocorpus: Peine de mort. Débat parlementaire de 1908.
Reinach: the example of human suffering is useless (continued)
Source : Journal officiel, session of July 3rd 1908, p. 1534-1539.
Reinach: the example of human suffering is useless (end)
Source : Journal officiel, session of July 3rd 1908, p. 1534-1539.
The abbot Lemire: respect the human person
Source : Journal officiel, session of November 18th 1908, p. 2398-2401.
Photograph of the abbot Lemire, taken from the biographical article on Wikipedia; Extract from the Journal official, session of November 18th 1908, p. 2398-2401. Priest Jules Lemire (1853-1922) was a deputy of Hazebrouck from 1893 until his death. Representing “social Catholicism”, he often defended extremely minority positions within the Catholic Church. For example, whereas the authorities of the Catholic Church did not make a statement on the death penalty at that time, the abbot Lemire voted for its abolition. His argument prioritized human rights, the dignity of the “human person”, and a belief in the possibility of the condemned to reform and reconcile themselves with moral law. Like Jaurès, he emphasized the responsibility of society. We can compare his speech with the position of abbot Valadier, a prison chaplain, who implies an opposite (and mainstream Catholic) belief system when interviewed by the newspaper La Patrie on December 24th, 1906. “It’s perhaps harsh, but I believe that its maintenance is absolutely necessary for public security. The fear of the guillotine is necessary to keep criminals who no longer have morals nor faith in line. If you had consulted all of my colleagues, my fellow prison chaplains, I don’t doubt that their opinions would be identical to my own” (trans. P. Bass). We will find other, less castigating, citations of abbot Valadier on the page on the separation of church and state and the problems in the countryside. For more information: See the biographical article on the abbot Lemire on Wikipedia, and read the entire speech on Criminocorpus: Peine de mort. Débat parlementaire de 1908.
The abbot Lemire: respect the human person (continued)
Source : Journal officiel, session of November 18th 1908, p. 2398-2401.
The battle of numbers: mobilized statistics
Source : Journal officiel, session of November 11th 1908, p. 2214.
Photograph of Aristide Briand, from the Wikipedia article; Extract from the Journal officiel, session of November 11th 1908, p. 2214. Aristide Briand (1862-1932), a lawyer in Nantes, started his long political career by organizing in labor unions and socialist organizations. He was the secretary of the Parti socialiste français in 1901, becoming deputy of the Loire starting in 1902, and he finally quit the socialist party during its unification phase in 1905. Starting in 1906, he started a ministerial career, and he was Attorney General under Clemenceau’s government from 1908 until 1909. The parliamentary debate of 1908 was characterized by an abundance of references to crime statistics that each side interpreted in their own way – either to argue that crime rose when the number of executions decreased (those in favor of the death penalty) or to argue the opposite – that there was no relationship between the application of the death penalty and violent crime (abolitionists). This speech given by the Attorney General is perhaps the best illustration of this battle of numbers. He drew upon a resource of his ministry, an annual (since 1825) publication titled Compte general de l’administration de la justice criminelle, which constituted a barometer of penal activity in the courts. Aristide Briand had the large task of convincing his fellow deputies that murder, the only crime subject to the death penalty, was not the same as “blood crimes” which also included “simple murder”, which was increasing at the time. He also had to struggle so that a significant period of time was taken into account in order to find crime trends instead of just the previous few years. This difficulty interpreting crime statistics died down in 1981, when all parties were under the general agreement that statistics could be interpreted as one pleased. For more information: See the biographical article on Briand on Wikipedia and read the full speech on Criminocorpus: Peine de mort. Débat parlementaire de 1908 . A Bibliographie also exists on Crimincorpus regarding the use and interpretation of crime statistics.
The battle of numbers: mobilized statistics (continued)
Source : Journal officiel, session of November 11th 1908, p. 2214.
The account of public opinion
Source : Journal officiel, sessions of November 4th and 11th, 1908, p. 2030.
Photograph of Aristide Briand from the Wikipedia article; Extracts from the Journal officiel, sessions of November 4th and 11th 1908, p. 2030 and 2210. Public opinion, reflected (and manipulated) by the press, jury petitions, and local collectivities weighed on debates. After Soleilland’s crime, public opinion tended to be against the abolition of capital punishment, which explains changes made in the commission preparing the discussion – Jean Cruppi, who had concluded his report in favor of abolition was replaced by Henry Castillard, who was against. Like Castillard, all the supporters of the death penalty supported their opinion with this new change in public opinion and stated that they were responding to the pressing demands of the social body. The right-wing deputies were happy to pit republicans and radicals against their own democratic ideals of respecting the wishes of the people, and it was in this context that Georges Berry invoked a “court of the people”. Aristide Briand, Jaurès and others responded that the people needed to be educated and that learning how to sway opinion in the opposite direction by analyzing its causes was the new task at hand. For more information: Read the full speech on Criminocorpus: Peine de mort. Débat parlementaire de 1908.
The account of public opinion (continued)
Source : Journal officiel, sessions of November 4th and 11th, 1908, p. 2030.
The turn-around of radical deputies
Source : Collection of the museum of living history (Musée d’histoire vivante), Montreuil, France.
Drawing by Radiguet, L’Assiette au Beurre, n°310, March 9th 1907 “La Peine de mort” (The Death Penalty), Collection of the Museum of Living History (Musée d’histoire vivant – Montreuil, photo: Véronique Fau-Vincenti) This drawing shows the deputy Chavoix, a member of the commission of judicial reform, who supported abolition before changing his mind after he read an article on Soleilland’s crime. The intervention of socialist deputy Marcel Sembat on November 4th, criticized this change of opinion that affected several deputies on the left, and he mentioned this specific episode: “You all remember the origin of this campaign. The commission of judicial reform took on this project, and M. Cruppi who, as M. Labori says, is not at all suspect (public laughs), was its eloquent interpreter: the commission was clearly in favor of abolishing the death penalty. But why and when did this change start, this movement that now leads us to ask for the maintenance and the application of the death penalty? It’s the Soleilland case that dominates this whole movement. (Deputies on the left murmur in denial). You can say “no”! Historically, that is the starting point; M. Chavoix is moved, you all are moved, and the newspapers have “done their job” when bands with lanterns come back to the public squares of Paris asking for Soleilland’s head – adding that soon there will be the head of Fallières too. (laughs)” (trans. P. Bass).
The final vote
Source : Archives of the Parisian Police Prefecture, DB/616; Collection of the museum of living history (Musée d’histoire vivante), Montreuil, France.
Extract from the newspaper Le Matin, December 9th 1908 (Archives of the Parisian Police Prefecture, DB/616); Le Petit Journal. Supplément illustré, December 27th 1908 Collection of the Museum of Living History (Musée d’histoire vivant – Montreuil)) The Matin and the Petit Journal published the results of the vote: 330 deputies voted in favor of the first article of the committee for judicial reform’s project concerning the death penalty (“The punishments include: 1° Death…”) and 201 voted against. The two periodicals had similar views of the results, reflecting the satisfaction of supporters of the death penalty: the vote was “a bad day for murderers” and the reappearance of the guillotine would dissuade Apaches from their nighttime attacks…
The execution of the parricide Duchemin (1909)
Source : Archives of the Parisian Police Prefecture, DB/142.
Extract from the newspaper Le Matin, August 6th 1909 (Archives of the Parisian Police Prefecture, DB/142). Once the maintenance of the death penalty was ratified by the Chamber’s vote, executions restarted in the capital, at the doors of the Santé prison. On August 6th 1909, the parricide Henri Duchemin was the first to be executed in this place, which had replaced the Grande Roquette. The countryside also began applying the death penalty again, with multiple executions which had a strong effect on public opinion and which highlighted a new repression of organized crime. On January 11th, dozens of thousands of people attended the quadruple execution of the Pollet gang: the brothers Abel and Auguste Pollet and their lieutenants, Canut Vromant and Théophile Deroo. On September 22nd, three of the “chauffeurs de la Drôme” (a rural gang) were executed: Louis Berruyer, Octave David and Urbain Liottard. The latter's last words were: “Long live Deibler! Death to the pigs!”
