Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
The idea of developing a perfect society where all are equal and justice reigns have always been a dream for many. In fact, justice is one of the pillars of a democratic society; those who enjoy equal rights and have access to equal opportunities are highly likely to understand that every action leads to certain consequences. It is therefore essential to ensure that rules are undergirded by specific measures that help to maintain the established order. This paper includes an analysis of two executions in light of the concept of justice. Both events took place in France at the end of the 18th century at a time when the country was transforming into a new democratic state: the French Revolution, in which the monarchy was beheaded literally as well as figuratively. Analysis shows that justice is difficult to attain due to the complexity of the concept and its subjective nature as a construction of the human mind, which is subject to bias.
One of the executions under consideration took place in 1796, after the condemned person, Richard Ludman, had been convicted of killing another man. Although direct evidence to prove Ludman’s guilt was not found, some details existed that enabled the judge’s determination (“The Last Dying Speeches”). Richard Ludman confessed and was executed according to the decision of the court. The other execution, which took place in 1793, is an event in French history that continues as a subject of discussion because it involved the execution of the king of France, Louis XVI (“The Execution of Louis XVI”). The differences that characterized the two condemned individuals, as well as their crimes, affected the application of the principles of justice in each case.
To establish a basis for analysis, it is necessary to consider the scene. The French Revolution, ending the monarchy, erupted in 1789 as a result of the collapse of social and political orders that had been established centuries earlier. French absolutism, largely relying on the power of the nobility and clergy over the common people, failed because the existing social construction was unable to respond to the needs of industrial society (Jones 4). The country was transforming as technological advances began to influence the production of goods. In the process, capitalism became a reality that the established order tried to dismiss.
The economic situation in the country had also worsened due to losses from the Seven Year War, unfavorable weather conditions over several consecutive years, and ineffective management in almost all spheres of life in French society. Famine and a high level of unemployment led to numerous riots among people who were starving and oppressed (Jones 28). The government failed to make the economy more efficient, instead choosing to use violence to suppress rioting and disobedience. This course of action further intensified the tension between the ruling classes and the rest of France. Louis XVI was obviously unprepared to address all these challenges, leading to negative consequences for millions of people, including himself.
The revolution aimed at changing the social and political order, which might be considered a positive shift for the country. France needed transformation in order to remain on the political world map and remain one of the most powerful countries in Europe. However, the changes were implemented in a chaotic manner and were accompanied by a considerable degree of violence. Although executions are associated with the time of the French Revolution, they had been a common type of entertainment for people before this period. In that light, the execution of Richard Ludman could be considered an ordinary event as numerous criminals were sentenced to death in his time. Ludman had committed murder for some material benefit and was to be executed as a murderer. In this case, the principles of justice were manifested since a man who took another individual’s life gave his own life in return. Many cultures have deemed this formula fair, and it is still applied in some parts of the world.
The case of Louis XVI was different since, although he did not murder anyone with his own hands, he was also executed. The French people blamed him for all their misfortunes and the disaster that had afflicted their homeland. Clearly, it would be difficult to pronounce the king completely guilty in this respect as the country was governed by his ministers and advisors. Moreover, at the time Louis XVI ascended to the throne, France had been affected by numerous social and political ills that his predecessors had largely ignored. Thus, the newly crowned ruler also found himself in the complicated position of having to balance the needs and demands of the nobility and clergy (that supported monarchy) against the needs of common people who invested their labor and produced wealth. The great difficulty lay in the fact that the nobility was likely to overthrow the monarch for any actions that reduced their power and prosperity.
As mentioned, the state needed serious reforms to bring change to the no-longer-viable old order. However, the king failed to understand what was required and made many mistakes during his rule. For example, he suppressed riots and executed people, allowed his country to start a war that caused thousands of casualties, and he failed to ensure the development of the economy to prevent famine and unemployment (Jones 28). Louis XVI had the power to make final decisions as the political order of France was absolutism, putting it within his scope to make hard decisions and start painful but needed reforms. Therefore, he can be said to have been responsible for the deaths of many even though he did not actually commit murder.
As a result, the French people decided that the king would have to pay for those victims of his reign. At his execution, when the former ruler was about to speak his last words, the people in the street started shouting and refused to listen to him (“The Execution of Louis XVI”). Parisians were enraged and demanded his death; they were unwilling to hear anything he might have to say. The exclamation of the condemned man was remarkable: “I forgive my enemies—I die innocent!” (“The Execution of Louis XVI”). In other words, the deposed king apparently believed he did not deserve such a punishment as he had not committed a crime. However, his former subjects did not support this viewpoint, continuing to blame the king for all their problems. They found him guilty and wanted the strictest punishment for this man who (according to public opinion) had ruined the lives of millions.
At this point, it is necessary to consider an important aspect of justice. As all should receive what they deserve, so an individual who had killed someone was to be executed. The case of Richard Ludman, who confessed although there was no direct evidence regarding his crime, seems clear in that light (“The Last Dying Speeches”). However, the situation with Louis XVI is less obvious. A trial took place, in which numerous details associated with wars, famine, unemployment, and the royal family’s extravagant lifestyle were articulated. It seemed to many that the king held complete power to stop (or not to start) wars, give food to those in need, and be less wasteful. However, in reality, he could only control his family’s expenses, yet he seemed not to care enough to perform even that minimal service. The country was in a difficult geopolitical position and was economically inefficient, precluding simple solutions, and the king failed to exercise the necessary power irrespective of French absolutism.
While the crimes credited to the king were numerous and serious, they were not properly considered during the trial. In short, the execution of Louis XVI was neither a manifestation of justice nor an act of punishment but rather a mere act of revenge on the people who had suffered because of the social order that had been established centuries before the French Revolution. No one listened to the defense team or even the prosecution as the citizens now wanted a complete overthrow of the French monarchy as well as the physical destruction of the person who embodied the institution. Therefore, the execution of Louis XVI did not represent a punitive measure aimed at discouraging others from disobeying existing rules and laws. The revolutionaries simply took revenge for centuries of injustice that was a feature of the French society of that period, typical of any feudal society.
The two executions shed light on such facets of justice as punitive and revanchist. The line between the two can be blurred, but the latter cannot occur in a truly just society. Of course, inefficient rule and the king’s performance of his duties were factors, and he deserved punishment. However, it was essential for his judges to listen carefully to all the details and arguments of the various parties. Such analysis might have helped the country develop a more effective solution without those victims and a ruined economy. Even though Louis XVI was responsible for his decisions and his unwillingness or inability to rule effectively cost him his life, his revanchist execution created a dangerous precedent that undermined the principles of justice. Certain acts should lead to specific consequences, which is one of the pillars of the concept under discussion. When punishment is used to satisfy the desire for revenge without thorough consideration of the situation, justice can become truly blind and unequally applied.
Apart from a general understanding of the purpose of justice, the two executions reveal another important aspect of the matter. Richard Ludman and Louis XVI represented different social strata, affecting the way they were executed. Louis XVI was guillotined (beheaded) as suited to nobility, while Richard Ludman was hanged as a poor person. Thus, even in the method of execution, justice was applied differently for the rich and the poor. Notably, the guillotine later replaced the gallows, and all French people became equal in terms of execution. However, justice never became completely equal for everyone.
In the 18th century, these two distinct types of punishment were acceptable, unopposed by the social groups of the time. Those belonging to the nobility and royal representatives were beheaded, while the peasantry and the poor were hanged. The latter type of execution was regarded as more vulgar and was associated with more suffering and less concern for the condemned. The guillotine was created as technological advancement and a more humane alternative to other methods of execution. In this light, it is reasonable to assert that justice should be based on complete equality and equivalency. Along those lines, a person who committed a milder crime could be fined to repay the harm caused to society.
As mentioned, murder demands execution as a consequence. At that, a single murder in pursuit of some economic benefit can hardly be juxtaposed with the death and misery of thousands. Ludman killed a man and was sentenced to execution by hanging, a painful and prolonged death. In comparison, Louis XVI was sentenced to a less painful and more humane mode of execution. It might be argued that a man who had caused many deaths and endangered the entire country deserved the punishment associated with more pain. However, it appears that social status was stronger than the desire for revenge.
It is obvious that justice was not applied in an equally harsh manner to the two prisoners under consideration as the poor murderer suffered (suffocating) before his death, while the king felt almost nothing but perhaps damage to his pride. This practice still holds true today. In many countries, the poor are subjected to harsh punishment while rich and powerful individuals are rarely punished at all. Even Western countries cannot boast complete justice when it comes to punishment; people who have money have more opportunities since they can pay high-profile lawyers to save them. Less fortunate individuals lack such opportunities, which results in overcrowded prisons where underprivileged groups comprise the majority. During the collapse of absolutism, even though the most prominent lawyers could hardly help the king, Louis XVI still received a certain kind of mercy in the form of the guillotine.
The concepts of morality and humanness associated with justice are manifested in the way the two prisoners pronounced their last words. Although Richard Ludman, an impoverished murderer, was hanged, he was also given the privilege of saying his last words. In his final speech, he addressed young men, taking pains to warn them about “bad houses” and “lewd women” (“The Last Dying Speeches”). The crowd of spectators listened to him, which could be regarded as a comforting act. The condemned managed to reconcile with himself through his last words, making it possible for him to spend the last moments of his life with less despair and horror. Some of those who came to watch his execution might even have felt mercy toward him or gained an understanding of the reasons behind his crime.
The spectators at the execution of Louis XVI did not express the same level of sympathy; they did not let him speak before his execution. They clearly did not want to offer any kind of comfort in their hatred of the king. The public was eager to show disrespect and disobedience even in the last moments of the king’s life. As he had been too far from his people during his rule, so they decided to remain as distant from him as possible during his execution. No mercy was possible as the monarchy had not shown mercy over the course of centuries. However, the king may have comforted himself in claiming his innocence. So, the aspects of humanness are more often in the hands of outsiders who can choose either to express their support or try to make the last moments of the condemned painful and full of disgrace, at least in the case of a public execution.
In conclusion, it is necessary to note that justice is a complex notion that often remains a declaration rather than reality. The French Revolution contributed to the creation of many democratic societies in the world but failed to ensure the rule of justice during or after its time. Louis XVI was not simply punished for his crime, which received scant analysis in the courtroom, but the king was destroyed as a symbol of absolutism. Thus, justice for the king was revanchist but still shaped by the conventions of a feudal society. Accused of killing millions, he was nonetheless executed as a royal person due to archaic traditions. Richard Ludman, executed several years later, was not given the same privilege due to his social position. In both cases, the public expressed its attitude toward the condemned men and tried to make them feel in accordance with their past actions. Importantly, justice remains a subjective concept, characterized by inequality based on an accused individual’s socioeconomic profile. Although a solution is unlikely to be found, it is vital to make an effort to create a society where justice resides.
Works Cited
Jones, P. M. The French Revolution 1787-1804. 3rd ed., Taylor & Francis, 2016.
“The Execution of Louis XVI. on the 21st. of January, 1793.”CBBcat, 1793, Web.
“The Last Dying Speeches of Those Inhumane Murderers.”CBBcat, 1796, Web.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.