"But that's not what we wanted!..."

It is a frequent sight at the assizes, after the sentence has been read, that of twelve jurors, raising their arms, terrified and powerless, from their benches.

Two years ago, the case of the bandits of La Villette ended with a single death sentence: that of the man named Tissier. Now Tissier had only killed once; and his boyfriend, the butcher René Jean, who had been the instigator and executor of all the crimes of the gang, escaped with his head saved... This caused a noise in the courtroom. But already the jurors, more astonished than anyone, were explaining themselves:

- There was a misdeal. We were determined to have them both sentenced to death. Only, on one of the murders with which René Jean is accused, we felt we had to answer yes on the mitigating circumstances. There were fifty-nine questions. We did not imagine that this could spare him the scaffold… Whereupon, not without some eagerness, they asked for Tissier’s pardon.

In Epinal, this spring, there was a real conflict between the president and the jurors. It was a case of infanticide, several years old. The accused had since rehabilitated herself by her conduct and, during their deliberation, the jurors had called the president to ask him to apply the suspended sentence. It was nonetheless, after reading the verdict, a sentence of five years in prison.

Then, in retaliation, the Vosges jurors, the next day, acquitted an arsonist…

Just yesterday, Mr. Doumergue received a letter from the Seine jury which meant something like this:

“In the Allembert and Chauvineau case, we wanted to answer no to the fourteenth question. It was by mistake that we answered yes. We wanted, as far as Chauvineau is concerned, to limit our severity to a sentence of forced labor for a period. We respectfully ask the President of the Republic to correct this error."

The jurors know what they want. But they are half-mutes and, with their yeses and noes, they have a hard time making themselves heard. They have even more trouble if the president turns a deaf ear.

After the catastrophe, when they have recovered, in the street, the use of speech, they sometimes exchange impressions, and put them, in the form of wishes, in an envelope, addressed to the Keeper of the Seals. This wish is always the same:
- We are willing to judge, but we would still like to know what will result from our verdict. Let us be given the right to specify our intentions...

Let the jurors take care of fixing the sentence?
Let us be careful, Mr. Campinchi replies. The current institution has been in operation for over a century and has provided all the services expected of it. "In practice, the jury is the master of the sentence. Since 1911, he has been able to call the president to inquire, and the president always responds with this sacramental phrase: "I cannot vouch for my two assessors, but you are assured that we will take into account your suggestions." "Reform the jury? Oh no. We must be wary of reforms that are not necessary.

The president of the bar, Henri-Robert, on the other hand, declares, without reservation, that this one is necessary: ​​I have said and written it for a long time, he tells us. The jury must be master of the sentence.

"We have the choice between two systems. One, which has certain disadvantages, would consist of letting the jury make its decision alone. The other, which is the one currently in force in matters of expropriation, would have the jury deliberate with the magistrate.
"We could proceed in this way: the jury will deliberate alone on the guilt and, if the answer is affirmative, it will call upon the president and deliberate with him on the sentence"

Basically, The question is whether the famous articles 342 and 363 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which prohibit the jury from worrying about the consequences of its verdict, should remain posted in the deliberation room. Opponents and supporters of the reform agree to answer "No." And that is already admitting the essence of the reform.

Most of the time, in fact, it is following an agreement between the jurors and the president that the sentence is pronounced. It is simply a matter of saying that it must always be so, in law.

But how would this jury reform work?

- There would be fewer acquittals," says Fernand Izouard, "fewer harsh sentences, and therefore more justice.

"Under the current system, I've seen a man sentenced to hard labour for life for making twenty or so twenty-cent coins. I understand that the Republic defends itself against counterfeiters, but hard labour for life is too much, and the jury, in saying 'yes' to guilt, certainly did not want that.

"And look what happens in cases of infanticide. Fearing the maximum penalty, the jury acquits. If it were possible to obtain a sentence of two years' imprisonment, for example, it would not let the crime go unpunished."

More clarity. More justice. More peace of mind for the jurors too, it has to be said. For the voice of the jury foreman would not tremble so regularly as he read out the answers if this honest citizen were not himself terribly afraid of his verdict....

The question is not new. A draft was submitted in March 1921 by Mr Bonnevay. It was referred to the Criminal Legislation Committee. It must still be there. The House of 11 May must remove it. Wouldn't that be "democratising" the Code? -

ANDRÉ GUÉRIN.