His hands were tied behind him
the back with the cord. Almost without hesitation, I am
the guards who push the condemned, and I enter the inner courtyard
where the guillotine is located. Everything is happening very quickly.
The body is almost thrown face down. But at that moment I turn,
not for fear of giving in, but out of a kind of modesty
instinctive, visceral. I hear a dull noise.
I turn around. Some blood. A lot of blood. In a second, a life was cut short. I have a sort of nausea that I control. I have a cold revolt within me. This story by Monique Babelli, investigating judge present
at Baumettes prison during the last execution of a condemned person, was made public upon request
by lawyer Robert Badinter. Became Minister of Justice in 1981, He brings before the Assembly
national the first great debate, of François Mitterrand's seven-year term
abolition of the death sentence, and therefore the disappearance of
the infamous guillotine. - Tomorrow, thanks to you, French justice,
will no longer be a justice that kills. Tomorrow, thanks to you. There will be no more, to our shame
commune, furtive executions, at dawn, under the black canopy
in French prisons. Tomorrow, the bloody pages
of our justice will be turned around. Tomorrow is abolition. French legislators. With all my heart, I thank you. The story of the guillotine begins
at the time of the Revolution, in 1789. Around the world,
since the dawn of time, those sentenced to death are executed,
by all kinds of barbaric techniques. But France stands out. Driven by the humanist movement
and by the philosophers, she wants to end the torture
in force under the monarchy, while retaining the death penalty,
which is widely approved by the people. How to make it acceptable? This is the objective of Joseph Ignace Guillotin. Doctor, deputy of the third estate, he proposes
to put an end to the archaisms of justice. - Only nobles had the right to be
beheaded and it was with the sword of justice. Tells him that if we are sentenced to death, it must be executed according to a process
mechanical, the same for everyone. He has an ulterior motive as a doctor,
it is to return the kill, as brief, as short as possible,
as painless as possible. The idea will be approved,
but only the idea. We don't know this mechanism,
he himself did not design it. He is not an engineer, he has never
made a beheading machine, and in fact, it's mainly to make fun
of him as his political adversaries, will give the name guillotine, will give its name to this
machine that is going to be built. Several projects are submitted to deputies
and it is that of Doctor Antoine Louis, military surgeon, who was retained in 1792. A beveled blade between 2 wooden uprights, falls in a fraction of a second
on the neck of the condemned. Tests are carried out on cadavers
and animals, they are conclusive. - It is estimated at 18,000 the number of
people who had their heads cut off during the French Revolution. In bourgeois circles,
also in educated circles, it is a good idea to attend
an execution, above all, of course, if we are in the front row.
So much so that in Paris, the police headquarters distributed
real invitation cards. It's a box for
witness an execution, to cross the security cordon
and be in the front row. This box had a corner
detachable with a dotted line, this one was not used, this one was used. That is to say, we removed
the corner to let you in, that's the card of an execution
which we attended. In the 19th century, the practice did not change. The guillotine is still
appreciated by the population, but a certain repugnance begins
to be felt in political circles. It becomes less and less bearable. Firstly, we do it
migrate to the outskirts of cities. Then, in 1870, the scaffold was removed, this platform on which must climb
the condemned to be seen by all. - From 1906, France was not very
far from truly abolishing the death penalty. For what ? Because first arrives at the Elysée a
character called Armand Fallières, rather good-natured character, a lawyer
who has always been an abolitionist, and as President of the Republic, even if the president has little
power under the Third Republic, he has an important weapon
it is the right of pardon. - We're going to invent a maneuver
in an attempt to introduce, to try to impose
the abolition debate. Remove Executioner Credits
and thus remove the guillotine, on the sly, without him
there will be a big debate. - In 1908, we are not very far from a
majority vote in favor of abolition. The president is for it, the leader
of the government is for, the majority is rather for it.
Unfortunately, at that time, a rather abominable crime,
a sad individual named Soleilland, who drags away a young neighbor and kills her,
hides the corpse in a sordid manner. And we see in a few weeks
to a reversal of opinion. From there, parliamentarians
the least convinced, the most undecided, will finally vote for
maintaining the death penalty. - The turning point is
The Great War is 1914. For what ? Because France is entering
a period of almost continuous war. When France is at war mentally,
what's the point of fighting, frankly, to save 1 or 2 bad ones
heads of criminals, while there are hundreds of thousands
good honest French people who die on the battlefields
to defend their country. There is no parliamentary debate
on the death penalty since 1909. We will really have to wait until 1979-1981
so that there can be a parliamentary debate. This is how 500
heads continue to fall. As no law governs
the organization of executions, a ritual was established which
varies very little over time. When a death sentence is pronounced, when the different
appeals were rejected, Justice, as they say, takes its course. - It's the countdown
which is set up, he knows he only has a few more
hours, or even a few minutes, at the end of the 19th century before dying. And it's a moment that is
extremely scrutinized by witnesses, because this is truly the moment when
justice is imprinted on the body of the condemned. We will also then take it to the registry, that is to say a room in the prison
where we are going to put it for the first time, in the presence of the executor, who is not allowed to come into the cell
to wake him up, who is waiting for him at the registry. - What is interesting to note,
is that once the guards brought the convicted person at the registry,
he is the chief executor who signs a release from prison. And we say in terms, let's say,
of the profession of executioner: “At that point, the convict belongs to me.” - And then there is this
which we call the toilet, which is made at that moment,
by help of the executor, which will consist of cutting
hair in the 19th century, to cut then rather
just the collar of the shirt, low-cut, this one bares the shoulders. Then we can let
a few minutes to the condemned, to restore and eat in the 19th century. Subsequently, we will be satisfied with a
glass of cordial, a glass of alcohol, and a few cigarettes. Say a few more words to the priest,
recommend things to him to transmit it to the
family or lawyer. And finally, we're going to bring it
in front of the guillotine. - The guillotine is
rise in 30 45 minutes. And then at dawn, towards
4 a.m., often, we will look for the condemned man in his cell, and between the moment we go to pick it up
in his cell and where he is executed, roughly half an hour ago. It's early morning, still
public, in front of prison doors, that the executions take place. But in 1939, just before
the declaration of war, the Eugène Weidmann affair,
will revolutionize practice. This German born in 1908 in Frankfurt
in a wealthy family, plunged into delinquency at a very young age. He multiplies the stays
in prison in his country. Narcissistic, mythomaniac, inhabited
by a feeling of all power, he knows how to play off his attractive physique. In Frankfurt, he seduces a rich heiress
who kidnaps him to ransom his family. Arrested, imprisoned, he meets
2 French gangsters. The trio arrives in Paris. - He arrives in full
universal exhibition in 1937, and there he is still
on the lookout for a bad move, and he will do the irreparable. - The first person who killed him was
Jean de Koven, a young American dancer came to France to discover
The 1937 Universal Exhibition. This young woman, he
for the idea of kidnapping her, and demand a ransom from him. - 2 days later, here he arrives,
who goes to pick up Jean de Koven at his hotel. Jean de Koven leaves with him and
we will never see her again. - He is seized by a moment of madness and
he jumps at his throat and strangles him. Then he will say himself that this first
experience of having given death, seemed very easy to him. And from there he will kill the others
people shot in the back of the head. And the other crimes will be committed
simply to pay his rent. And these are paltry sums,
when he is actually arrested, on December 9, 1937, his arrest represents a
relief certainly for him, because he is going to say on the eve of his death
that he is happy not to age. "The press announces
the arrest of the criminal. In La Celle-Saint-Cloud
in the villa La Voulzie, after a fight during which
Chief Inspector Brunsborn, and the 2 Roignant inspectors
and Bourquin are injured, the monster Wittmann is arrested." At Saint-Pierre prison in Versailles, he occupies the same cell
than Landru 15 years earlier. After a year of investigation, the trial
before the Assize Court of Seine et Oise, opens in March 1939. Eugène Weidmann and his band are
accused of 6 premeditated murders. - The trial is the spectacle of the century. The greatest personalities
there are, Cocteau, Colette who goes there as a journalist, there is Maurice Chevalier and
there is the most beautiful of all, and the one that makes you want the most
listen to him, there is the superb Weidmann. So all the women look at him:
“How beautiful he is!” And Colette said: “It’s very unwelcome
for wanting to cut off such a beautiful head." “Versailles knows this
morning a lively animation. In front of the courthouse, a crowd
curious and eager for strong emotions, rushes to attend the trial
of Weidmann and his gang. 6 terrible crimes committed in 4 months will
be discussed successively in the forum of an assize court which,
since the Landru affair, had not known any debates
criminals of this magnitude. Looking tired and depressed,
the criminal is of few words, and seems to have no illusions
about the fate that awaits him." The verdict is beyond doubt,
if his accomplices save their heads, For Weidmann, it's death. All appeals are dismissed.
The presidential pardon is refused. The execution is planned for
on June 17 at 3:50 a.m. In the spotlight,
on the sidewalk, in front of the prison, the executioner Jules Desfourneaux,
for whom this is the first execution, incorrectly positions the machine.
The blade refuses to go down. You have to dismantle everything, time passes. At 4:40 a.m., when everything
is ready, it's daytime. Christopher Lee, the British comedian
future Dracula in horror films, is in the audience. - The doors opened from the prison, He came out, white shirt,
pants, I think, bare feet, I don't remember very well,
but I believe, with my hands tied, the torn shirt with a man. On each arm, everything was arranged. There was the basket, the seesaw ball,
the scope, the blade, all that. Incredible, then fortunately,
I didn't see, I turned my head. I heard the blade descend. Maybe it's imagination,
I don't know. And then when I looked again, the basket left, and he was
dismantling the machine. It's the first and only
execution never filmed in France. - And there, there are cries of joy,
we pop the champagne, we dance. Ladies even soak their handkerchiefs
in the blood of the tortured, saying it is good for fertility. - This execution will give
give rise to such excesses, we consider the shooting
like one of those excesses at the time, that there the decision is made
to stop public executions. Which weakens the main argument
supporters of the death penalty exemplarity. The death penalty can no longer, if it
has been, to be exemplary to the extent, where she is no longer seen, no longer public, she is simply known by
a brief in the newspapers. Even hidden within prison walls, the ceremonial executions remain unchanged, prison staff, clerks,
lawyers, magistrates, priests, everyone plays their role in discretion. Only the executioner focuses attention
of the public and the press. - The executioners always
been both feared, hated and secretly admired. The executioners are first of all
a family matter. It's always like that,
there have been dynasties, there was the famous Sanson dynasty.
The other great dynasty, they are the Deiblers.
It was paid monthly, not by executions,
as one might imagine. There was also no bonus
which we would have called a basket bonus, every month the executioner came to
the direction of criminal affairs, and graces, seek his
envelope for him and his helpers, he had a first helper and
2 others around the guillotine, there were 4 of them, in general. And I did the math today,
a chief executor would earn roughly, €3,500 per month, his first aid,
2500 and the others 1500 per month. - Men like Anatole Deibler,
who began to perform in 1885, and who finished in 1939, who
brought down nearly 400 heads, either as chief executioner or deputy. In his execution diaries,
he notes in a very administrative way the name of the condemned, the date of the execution. On the other hand, he puts little
personal ratings. But I hypothesize that ultimately, it is the very nature of
these notebooks which inform us, about how the executioner
face his work, the difficulty of this work,
he routinizes it in a certain way, he makes it administrative, he takes a
form of distance from it. - Yes, it's quite special. It's not easy to kill
a human being in cold blood. And me, what I have read
in the work I have done, and what I can get from the interviews
that I had with the executioner, is that in reality, I had the feeling, that he held on to support
the situation to technical elements, to procedures, gestures, rituals. A bit like emergency doctors
in disaster medicine, because it's so
scary everything that happens, we take refuge behind the
procedures to cope with the situation. - But deep down, the executioners, if I stick to the one
that I knew, Mr. Obrecht, they were not species,
horrible characters, etc. They were average French people. Yet there are those condemned to death,
for which the executioner and his team have a real dislike
to exercise their office, these are the women. - Executions of women, technically, are not supposed to differ
of those of men, however, the executors
say very clearly, that they are not used to handling them, because it's still
do violence to a woman, and it doesn't fit
the masculine ethos of the time. Especially the ethos of the executors who
want instruments of justice, and who there have the impression of being brought back
really to them, to their role as bullies. Moreover, the executions
women are rare. They represent only 7% of
all those sentenced to death. No woman is executed for crime
common law between 1887 and 1941. After the war, they are one
handle to pass under the cleaver. Germaine Leloy Godefroid will
enter criminal history. She is the last Frenchwoman
guillotined on April 21, 1949. Behind the prison walls
from Angers, in Maine-et-Loire. Germaine lives in Baugé, in Sarthe. Known to be hardworking, but fickle, she runs with her husband
Albert, a coal merchant. One day she falls in love with
Raymond Boulissière, a young employee, to the point of wanting to delete
her husband to live with him. On December 10, 1947 at 10:30 p.m., Germaine hits Albert 20 times with leaves
butcher for 20 years of marriage. His version of a burglary is not
not credible in the eyes of investigators. She confesses. The crime of Germaine Leloy,
is a double transgression, firstly because she exercised violence while normally
violence is masculine, and then also because she
killed her husband, her husband. And she suddenly spilled,
in a way the marital hierarchy, since the woman by marriage
is submissive to her husband, and it is a transgression
which is severely repressed. Moreover, it is quite striking to note
if we look at the legal annals, that in reality there is much more
of men who kill their wives, how many wives kill their husbands,
yet, men who kill their wives are almost never sentenced to death,
while women who kill their husbands, on the contrary, they are almost all
systematically sentenced to death. The investigation is dispatched and the trial
is set for November 26, 1948. Only lasts one day. Germaine's guilt
Leloy Godefroid, and her lover Raymond
Boulissière is beyond doubt. - Germaine does not have an attitude that
would arouse the sympathy of the jury, quite the contrary, even
we know well that in the assize court, It's a bit of a lottery, ultimately,
it's true that a lot of things are based on the personality of the accused,
who appears very cold, very passive, without reaction, as Germaine was. There will be every chance that
this accused is sentenced to death, and this is indeed what
which is happening to Germaine. After 1949, there will be no
no more executions of women. There are women who continue
to be sentenced to death, but, we come back to this de facto abolition
which had existed during the greatest part of the Third Republic,
that is to say, the presidents successive, after Vincent Auriol,
will systematically grant grace for women. But the guillotine remains
no less active for men. A machine remains in Paris, the other two crisscross the
France according to the beheadings. Around fifty up to
the Clairvaux massacre in 1971. "Claude Buffet, 38 years of seclusion
life sentence for murder. Roger Bontems, 35 years old, 20 years of
imprisonment for armed attack. This is why Buffet and Bontems
are located at the Clairvaux power plant, on September 21, 1971,
where they are serving their sentence." The 2 men
admitted to the infirmary. They take hostage under threat of
their knives, Guy Girardeau, a guard, and Nicole Conte, a nurse. It's the commotion of battle
to the prison, to the chancellery, and the Ministry of the Interior. The police chief
judicial of Reims, Charles Pellegrini,
is the first on the scene. - Very late in the evening,
even at the beginning of the night, we'll pass you Paris,
it was the Keeper of the Seals, René Pleven, directly on the phone. So, Mr. Commissioner. How lucky are we
to save the hostages? Not much, Mr. President. But tell me, a percentage? 10-15%.
It's a good attack. Other times, other manners. Clairvaux, central house of
force, detained highly dangerous, but the orders of the ministry
of Justice were: We don't come out of a
central force house. We put a very heavy load
on the infirmary door. The explosion was violent. We had put ourselves a little behind on
the staircase, but it blew a lot, and we returned.
There was the supervisor Girardot who had been slain, his blood
had squirted up to the ceiling, and Madame Conte who was dying
in the next room. The trial for kidnapping
and double crime, opens on June 17, 1972,
in Troyes, in Aube. Buffet is defended by Maître Thierry Lévy,
and Bontems by Master Robert Badinter. Claude Buffet stands out from the start. - As my lawyers told you,
Maître Thierry Lévy and Maître Krauss, they say that I will demand the punishment from you
of death, I confirm it to you. And you will give me. Tuesday, when I left
courthouse, in the vans, the crowd was clamoring for death. If she knew that deep down,
she was doing me a favor. The verdict falls 2 days later. "Accordingly, the Court and the jury,
after having deliberated jointly, by majority and without hesitation, condemn Buffet Claude,
Bontems Roger to the death penalty." - Expelled, this individual who
stood up to applaud, it's shameful! Robert Badinter, the lawyer of
Montand, is on the front line, because it appears that his client did not kill. He multiplies his appeals in vain.
Because ultimately, Georges Pompidou, rejects grace for the 2 men. They are transferred to Paris, in
the Health Prison, and on November 28, 1972, Buffet
and Bontems are executed at dawn, in the small courtyard provided for this purpose. This double execution marks the
minds for several reasons, it becomes legendary. - First, Buffet's personality, who said: I must be condemned
to death because I will do it again, it's not common
in assize courts. Second, Bontems. I think he probably
not killed Madame Conte. Honestly, I read some
so much, but I think. But he had been convicted of
crime which today would earn him, at most 1 year in prison, he had robbed
a taxi driver with a fake p****, but he had been captivated by Buffet,
which had only one leitmotif, there are 2 of us, we did it
at 2 and we will leave at 2. It also became legendary because
that Badinter was Bontems' lawyer. I think he made a plea
remarkable against the death penalty, etc. - I became, after
this execution, an activist. An abolition activist. I can't, for that long
that I that I should, I will fight against the death penalty. It's incompatible with everything
what I believe to be justice. In the 1970s, the cause
abolitionist progresses. After the Buffet-Bontems affair,
10 sentenced to death, will be pardoned by presidents
Pompidou and Giscard d'Estaing. But the murder of a child
will relaunch the debate. On June 3, 1974, Maria
Dolores Rambla, 8 years old, who plays with her little one
brother in front of her house, Sainte-Agnès city in Marseille
in Bouches-du-Rhône, is kidnapped by Christian Ranucci. - The Ranucci affair is basically quite simple. We do not know why. He says :
It's to take him for a walk. It's possible. A little girl, little Dolorès Rambla, he asks her to get in
his car and then at an intersection, Ranucci with the little one
the car, an accident. No big deal, but when
even crumpled sheet metal. He hits another car,
he flees. the other car still drives, he chases her and he sees
the car stops. The driver of this car get out,
carrying, we don't know if it was a baby or if it was a child,
a young child or a doll, but he sinks into a
little wood that was there. Christian Ranucci, the owner
of the car, a Peugeot 304 coupe, is identified. The police are mobilized. Dogs follow a trail
which leads to a mushroom farm. - We seek and we find
the corpse of the little one, who was stabbed to death
disemboweled, it is obviously abominable. On June 5, 1974, Ranucci
is arrested at his home in Nice. The next day, after 6 p.m.
in police custody, he confesses. However, the witnesses of
the kidnapping did not recognize him, and they have no more
identified his vehicle, as being that of the kidnapper. 6 months later, Ranucci retracts his statement. He claims not to remember having
kidnapped nor killed Marie-Dolorès Rambla, but he admits having indicated
the location where the murder weapon was, the bloodstained knife. The trial is set for March 9, 1976,
but 2 weeks before its opening, a particularly crime
horrible shocks opinion. - France is afraid, I think
that we can say it so clearly. - France is experiencing panic,
since last night, about twenty minutes after the end of
this diary, we taught him this horror, A child is dead, murdered. France is afraid. Every mother,
every father has a lump in his throat, when they think about this
which happened in Troyes, when he thinks of this 23-year-old assassin. A relation of the parents of little Philippe a small, well-dressed merchant,
who made us believe until the end, to the parents that the child was alive. - Patrick Henry committed this crime
horrible which consists of killing the child. He strangled him. He put
the corpse then under the bed, from the hotel room where he
lived, and after killing him, he continued to ask
a ransom to the parents. It's in this incandescent atmosphere
as the Ranucci trial begins, before the assize court
Bouches-du-Rhône. Among the 9 jurors drawn at random,
only one woman, Geneviève Donadini, who is also the youngest. - When Christian Ranucci arrives, he is dressed in a suit
flashy blue but really flashy. He has a white undershirt and
under his white undershirt, we can see a cross, a large cross. In the debates, Christian
Ranucci is and arrogant. He's unpleasant. It looks like he's looking at those
who are there, the 9 jurors, in a very vindictive way, but
seeming to say: "But you are here, you will judge me while you
don't even know what I did, you are going to judge me on ideas..."
He was very arrogant. -Ranucci, Use a peremptory, curt tone, pretentious even, there was a moment
gave an altercation that is remembered, between him and the commissioner of
police who led the investigation. Commissioner Alessandra,
I believe from memory, where Ranucci tells him, “I will break you. I will break you,
I will ruin your career.” And there, Alessandra answers him:
"You are a monster." Once again, the trial
is shipped in 2 days. Paul Lombard defends Ranucci, and Gilbert Collard represents
the victim's family, Les Rambla. - Maître Collard does not claim
no death penalty, but he still does well, reference to this murder which took place, to the cruelty of this murder, to the sadness,
finally even more than sadness, to the despair of the parents of this
little girl who was murdered, and who demands a fair sentence
in relation to the horror of this crime. - So I was convinced at first
that this affair did not deserve the death penalty assuming that
we were for the death penalty, but I was against the death penalty
because for me it is an archaic punishment, vile, I will not support her.
But the guilt, for me, when reading
of the file, there is no doubt. - Paul Lombard will plead and say,
as part of his pleading, that he has 3 enemies: The first enemy,
it is the civil party Gilbert Collard, The second is the lawyer
general and the third, he will say, addressing Christian
Ranucci, my third is you. Because it's true
that, at the time of the trial, he had a very attitude
unpleasant, I would even say detestable. The verdict falls on March 10, the jurors
took only 2 hours to decide. They were sensitive to climate
deleterious which surrounded the debates, and white-hot public opinion. - What could have played a role?
on public opinion? Everything plays on public opinion. Everything, because opinion
public is emotional. We cannot say that Gicquel's sentence,
France is afraid had no effect. Who knows, in memory, in
the emotion, in the psyche of a juror, what impact does this kind of thinking have?
sentence, alert can have? Nobody knows. - But the death penalty,
it's when you have in front of you, a young man in his twenties,
and that you have the possibility, you even have the right
to have his head cut off. That's the death penalty. The president of the Republic,
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, now has in hand the
destiny of Christian Ranucci. On July 26, 1976,
he refuses to grant his pardon. Jean Lecanuet, Minister of Justice,
justifies the decision of the head of state. - Personally, I hope
that this act will be exemplary. And those who believed they could
commit such heinous crimes, and escape the greatest punishment, will now measure
the risk they run. July 28, Christian Ranucci
is woken up at 4 a.m., in his cell in Baumettes. He protests his innocence
one more time, refuses to drink the glass of alcohol,
but accepts one last cigarette. The guards posed
mats on the course, so as not to alert the other prisoners. Christian Ranucci remains silent. According to his lawyers,
these last words would have been: “Rehabilitate me.” He was guillotined at 4:13 a.m. - I remember horrible noises. Who suddenly come to bleed
of silence. A first noise, Deaf. It is the body of the tortured
that we put in place. A second sound of disaster. It's the knife that falls,
and then perhaps the most atrocious, The sound of the bucket of water
we throw it on the machine, to wash away the blood of a young man. In his book "The sweater
red", bestseller published in 1978, Gilles Perrault casts doubt
the guilt of Christian Ranucci. He takes up the investigation point by point,
highlighting hidden elements, forgotten tracks, testimonies
exculpatory silenced. - The investigation was carried out, by curator Alessandra de
Marseille Urban Security. What does Commissioner Alessandra tell me,
the only time I met her, Afterwards, he refused to meet me. He tells me that between
on July 28, we learned. That Ranucci had been guillotined,
we all had the g**** of wood. That means what it means. That is to say, everyone
believed he would be pardoned. - When I read the book
"The red sweater", I didn't think about the miscarriage of justice,
because we had been shown that he was really the culprit. On the other hand, I noted elements which
should have been issued at the time of the trial. Elements may be exculpatory. And that upset me a lot. - There are 8 witnesses. All were presented for a taping. We introduced them to Christian Ranucci. None recognized him. Marie-Dolorès' little brother
did not recognize Ranucci either, as well as the mechanic Spinelli,
key witness who witnessed the kidnapping. It turns out that the car in
which the child rode, was not the Peugeot
by Ranucci, but a Simca. - On report, the inspector
carries the one who received the so-called, Christian Ranucci's confession will make him
say: "You know, I saw that at 40 meters, and then 3 rear quarters, these 2
vehicles look similar, I could have confused them." He made Spinelli sign it and
Spinelli says: "But not at all, I'm in bodywork
for 20 years. You do not believe, that I can mix up 2 cars like that?" According to Gilles Perrault,
documents from the Ranucci file, have not been sufficiently taken
taken into account during the instruction, including the knife and a sweater
red found by the police, at the crime scene. Error or negligence which opens the
relates to extenuating circumstances. - Judge Michel who will assist
at the execution of Ranucci. Justice Michel said: “The Ranucci file is a piece of shit. The police investigation is shit, the judicial investigation sucks. But Ranucci was guilty." - I always said that Ranucci had no
not been the victim of a miscarriage of justice, but from an error of justice. Because he would never have
had to be sentenced to death. How many have lived since who have done worse? -Christian Ranucci,
with his own mouth had said: "I drew the losing ticket without
have never played the lottery." He had been aware that from the end
In the end, he was unlucky. And from start to finish,
fate fell hard on him. Fate often persists
on certain convicts. Judicial history demonstrates
easily than the death penalty, the supreme punishment, falls
very often adversity, circumstances, luck. - First of all, it depends on
the place where you are judged. The court of Rennes for example,
in the 70s and 80s, never condemn to the death penalty,
undoubtedly because the magistrates, the prosecutor is hostile to it, while
the court of Aix-en-Provence, the court of Lille, are much more severe. Then you have the prosecutor,
the talent of the prosecutor who is growing strong, to get the head as a challenge,
as a challenge from the accused. You also have the talent of a lawyer,
there are also the circumstances, if the affair made noise,
if public opinion was expressed, the pressure of public opinion,
the pressure of the press, there's a whole bunch of
circumstances which mean that, there is no fairness in the end,
in this story. Today the lawyers who, before 1981, defended defendants against whom
capital punishment was requested, are now only a handful. For them, the wait for the verdict remains
the most trying moment of their career. - I pleaded 6 times, in cases where not only
the death penalty was incurred, but where it was required
formally by a general advocate. And when we were waiting for the result,
we were waiting for the questions, the answers to the questions. There were all the questions
asked to the jurors about the facts, then there was one last question
and only one that was interesting when the death penalty was incurred, it was: Does it exist
extenuating circumstances? There was a terrible moment that
the president, when he was a little cruel, he kept waiting for his response
and his answer when it was yes, that meant, there are circumstances
mitigating, there will be no execution. Even if the guy was sentenced to life,
which was always the case, we were on cloud nine. These extenuating circumstances,
the Bouches-du-Rhône assize court, will not grant them to Hamida Djandoubi. This young Tunisian, who arrived in 1968
in Marseille, is an agricultural worker. His life is turned upside down when he loses a
leg in a work accident. He feels diminished,
becomes irascible, violent. Against a background of p****, he opens up on
a young woman to acts of torture, of f*** before strangling him. - The Hamida Djandoubi affair is
distracted by another affair, that of Patrick Henry,
who has just been tried in Troyes, and who has not been convicted
to death to everyone's surprise, while all opinion
demanded death for Patrick Henry. If on January 20, 1977, Patrick Henry saved
his head before the Assize Court of Aube, he owes it only to his lawyer,
tenor of the bar, Robert Badinter. - We can remember the extraordinary
pleading of Maître Badinter, who only had one thing
to plead, and he did, the horror of the guillotine. I see it again,
addressing the jurors one by one. "You, sir, if the young man
whoever is there is condemned to death, it was you he would have cut alive in two." - So it was the death sentence
who was in question and the jurors, condemned the death penalty.
So it was important, significant, it couldn't be decisive.
We do not abolish a legal provision when we know judicial relativism,
simply, in a great trial, we score a point
essential, but that's all. The proof of this judicial reality
is brought barely a month later. The pendulum of justice swings one last
once leaning in favor of a moribund law, but still alive. - At this time, Hamida Djandoubi is judged. The jurors are in this atmosphere
and therefore a relentless atmosphere. It must also be said that Hamida Djandoubi, he is not behaving as he should
behave like a repentant accused. He disputes on small points, he
this impassive mask, it remains very cold. This greatly displeases the jurors. The supreme punishment does not
no doubt, once again. The verdict falls, after 2 days of hearing,
in general indifference, we only note a few
articles in local newspapers, and in the daily Le Monde. - The execution takes place on
September 10 at 4:40 a.m. We installed the guillotine
under a hidden courtyard, as if we were ashamed of it,
as if we wanted to hide it. In her letter, Monique Mably,
the investigating judge, relates the latest
moments of Hamida Djandoubi. "The procession stops near a table,
the condemned person is seated on a chair. A guard gives him a cigarette,
he smokes his cigarette, almost finished. We give him another one.
He smokes slowly. At this moment I see that it begins
really realizing that it's over, that the moments he has left to live
will last as long as this cigarette lasts." - When he asks for a third
this time, the executioner says: “No, it’s over, we’ve wasted enough time.” In fact, it seems inhumane,
but he has his eye fixed on his watch. Above all, he doesn't want the sun to go
rises and we can see the execution. No one knows it yet, but Hamida Djandoubi, is the last guillotined
from Western Europe. However, the Church, the Council of
Europe and the European Parliament, had expressed the wish that France
removes this practice from its penal code. We have to wait for the campaign
presidential election of 1981. She opposes Valéry Giscard
d'Estaing to François Mitterrand which, from the outset, is pronounced. - I don't need to read
polls, which say the opposite. A majority opinion
is for the death penalty. I am a candidate for
the presidency of the Republic, I ask for a majority
votes for the French, but I don't ask for it,
in the secret of my thoughts, I say what I think, what
I adhere to what I believe in, what they relate to
my spiritual adhesions, my belief, my concern for civilization,
I am not in favor of the death penalty. François Mitterrand is elected. On September 18, 1981,
after 2 days of debate, the bill, so long awaited,
is submitted to the vote of the deputies. "That on the whole bill
abolishing the death penalty, against 117 for 363,
the National Assembly adopted." "7:28 p.m. the National Assembly has just abolished
the death penalty by 363 votes to 117." The standing deputies applaud. From this day on, the machine
of the good doctor Guillotin, disappears from the legal arsenal. The last 3 become
museum pieces. It's an end to the guillotine, an instrument
governments that have used it, depending on the circumstances and
moods of public opinion. After two centuries, France,
country of human rights, finally erased a dark part of
its history, the supreme punishment.
