Reflections: Pages 31-49

In the final section of “Reflections on the Guillotine,” Camus begins with a common argument from advocates of the death penalty. They claim that “certain men are irremediable in society” because they “constitute a permanent danger for every citizen and for the social order,” which justifies their “suppress[ion]” (31); however, is it possible that at least one condemned man is remediable or innocent (31)? Yes. Not only is it possible, it is likely. For example, Camus describes the execution of a man in America. Burton Abbott was convicted of murdering a 14-year-old girl in 1957 (31). Though he claimed his innocence, he was sentenced to death via the gas chamber (31). Two minutes after he started inhaling the toxic fumes, the Committee on Reprieves called to cancel the execution, but Abbott was already dead (32). While it is impossible to know whether or not Abbott was innocent, Camus fails to list the incriminating evidence against Abbott. For instance, investigators found the victim’s purse, ID, bra, and glasses from Abbott’s basement. Even if Abbott was guilty of this crime, Camus would advocate for his right to repent and/or reform his ways – a sign of remediation. I will discuss this concept further momentarily.

The French State operates on the idea that jurors do not make errors in the decision-making process. According to the law of probability, “the chance of error remains” because humans are fallible creatures who are subject to bias (33-34). Camus claims that “tomorrow another expert testimony will declare the innocence of some Abbott or other. But Abbott will be dead, scientifically dead, and the science that claims to prove innocence as well as guilt has not yet reached the point of resuscitating those it kills” (34). This is a profound statement. The justice system in 20th-century France fails to recognize how severely problematic it is to condemn an innocent man to death. This man’s life is cut short, and he cannot be brought back from the dead, even if his innocence is proven. How does France respond? It chooses to forget its crimes upon society instead of repenting and making a change to its corrupt system (35). Life goes on for everyone but the innocent man. 

What about the guilty man who is remediable? While “the death penalty is legitimate” in situations involving pathological, monstrous criminals, the majority of criminals are capable of repentance or reformation (37-38). Regardless of this exception, “the abolition of the death penalty ought to be asked for by all thinking members of our society, for reasons both of logic and of realism” (38-39). With this claim, Camus moves from appealing to the audience’s emotions to their logic. Specifically, he mentions how “without absolute innocence, there is no supreme judge” (39). In this way, humans are fallible creatures who make mistakes. Just as society is not “absolutely good,” criminals are not “absolutely evil” (43). Thus, no one can determine when a person deserves to die because living “is the natural right of every man, even the worst man” (39). Camus connects this idea of the “supreme judge” to a religious context (39-40). He discusses how capital punishment “denies, not human solidarity, but the guilty man’s membership in the divine community” (40). Because of this denial of life, the possibility of repentance and amendment is stripped from him, which speeds up God’s final judgment. A man cannot find Christianity after his crime if he is dead. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church’s justification of capital punishment is rooted in a misunderstanding of salvation (41). For instance, it claims that capital punishment is a “powerful means of salvation,” as the condemned man ‘repents’ right before he is put to death (41). Is this repentance genuine? Probably not. Does this repentance count during the final judgment? Probably not. Camus summarizes this point perfectly by stating, “it is one thing to believe before being afraid and another to find faith after fear. Conversion through fire or the guillotine will always be suspect” (43).

Camus lists his concluding arguments and potential solutions to combat capital punishment. While intended for the irremediable, capital punishment, as Camus observes, reveals a startling reality: "the number of individuals killed directly by the State has assumed astronomical proportions and infinitely outnumbers private murders," with a significant portion of these executions motivated by political reasons rather than murder (44). In this way, “society must now defend herself not so much against the individual as against the State” (44). While Camus’ opponents may label Camus as being too lenient on the punishment of criminals, especially murderers, Camus states that criminals must be punished and that absolution is not the answer (47). Camus explains how the death penalty should be “replaced by hard labor – for life in the case of criminals considered irremediable and for a fixed period in the case of the others” (48). If society truly thinks that the death penalty is a vital option for punishment, “the science that serves to kill so many could at least serve to kill decently” (49). In this way, “an anesthetic … would allow the condemned man to slip from sleep to death,” which is infinitely more humane than decapitation (49). Thus, Camus gives society two options with varying levels of accessibility. While it is more difficult to outlaw the entire system of capital punishment, it is the optimal solution (49). Camus ends his masterful composition with a call to action. The reader must advocate for the abolition of the death penalty to make society a more peaceful, just place, or society will crumble into chaos and dissonance (49).

We have concluded our summative journey through Albert Camus’ “Reflections on the Guillotine.” Next time, I will transition into the analysis and reflection phase, discussing the ethical implications of the death penalty in American society by drawing on Camus’ arguments. I will also discuss how certain ethical works, such as the Bible, can be used as a moral compass against American capital punishment. See you soon!

–Courtney Bain

Here is a link to a YouTube video about the history of American capital punishment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yali0srDiOQ . This quote stood out to me: "if you have to work so hard to figure out how to do it humanely, should you be doing it at all?"