Impartiality and neutrality have been demanded for the teaching of History, the positioning of the press and the practice of the judiciary, among other spheres. Each time builds its own fallacies and false prophets. People repeat them until they naturalize a certain discourse and become incapable of observing dimensions that differ from what is already defined: one can simulate exemption, but neutrality in matters involving judgments is never achieved.
In times of the judicialization of life and the immense court that we have built on social media, over common subjects and personalities from across the spectrum, it is expected that people professionally prepared to pass judgment do not repeat our same practices. The trick is to transform the nation's judges, opinion makers and advisors into supreme beings with the incredible gift of practicing impartiality in their sentences. When people make a judgment, they express their convictions and social and cultural references. The attempt to hide beliefs and values, under the sign of impartiality, should raise more suspicion than when one clearly assumes its premises.
The judges of revolutionary France, for example, had an exemplary case to express their impartiality: the trial of Louis XVI. One of the basic principles of the Revolution was to implement impersonality in the exercise of justice. This principle, however, was difficult to apply in that context: was the king judged like any other citizen? Some points of the trial explain political and legal issues that were confused in that context.
The Bastille was taken by the population on July 14, 1789 and was considered the symbol of the downfall of the French Old Regime.
The King's Judgment
Accused of treason, the first question to be debated was whether Louis XVI would be tried as a common criminal. Saint-Just shouted: “Let’s kill Louis instead of arguing!”; Robespierre declared: “Louis was king and the Republic was founded (...) Louis denounced the French people as rebels (...). Victory and the people decided that he alone was a rebel: Louis cannot, therefore, be tried; he is already condemned or the Republic has not been acquitted (...). The representatives of the people therefore do not have a sentence to declare, but an act of national providence to exercise.” It was resolved that the former king would be tried by the Convention.
The trial began on December 11, 1792. The halls were converted into boxes, like a theater, in which ladies dressed in their most attractive clothes ate ice cream, sucked oranges and drank liqueurs: opening the session, President Barrère spoke: “–Luís, the French nation accuses you. The National Assembly has decreed that you must be judged by it. We will read the list of crimes charged against you.”
After reading, the interrogation of the former king began, who seemed to respond satisfactorily to what was asked of him: “– On June 27, 1789, you attacked popular sovereignty, extinguishing the assembly of people's representatives. You wanted to dictate laws to the Nation. What do you answer to this?” The accused replied: “– At that time there was no law that prohibited me from acting like that.”
The defense was presented on December 26 by Romain De Sèze, who claimed that the Constitution did not give deputies the authority to judge the monarch. The king had been within his human rights when fighting for his life and his figure was inviolable. By judging the monarch as a conspirator against public freedom, a law of the Republic was used against the practice of the absolute monarch. The law, born under the principle of impersonality, retroacted to punish the despot.
Citizenship is the daughter of republics. In the monarchical system, there were subjects. Louis XVI, from a legal point of view, had not committed a crime, as he was the law itself. The monarch's defense tried to convince that, in that trial, he did not have the rights of a citizen, nor the prerogatives of a king. Luís' misfortune had no legal support and his judgment was essentially political: he had neither enjoyed his old nor his new condition.
The rest of the story is well known. On January 21, 1793, Louis XVI was guillotined at the Place de la Révolution (now Place de la Concorde). The crowd came to watch the execution of the former monarch who, in his last words, claimed innocence and forgave his enemies.
The transition from revolutionary times allows us to infer that the condemnation would be a minor aspect compared to the atrocities committed by Luís Capeto. However, one should never forget that modern law reaffirmed the rule of law over subjects and, consequently, helped to build the image that legal spheres would be impenetrable to principles external to the law itself. The execution, in that case, had little relation to the legal procedure and, from this exemplary process, it should remind us that we are never exempt in our ways of acting.
Impartiality?
Spanning the centuries that separate us from the execution of Louis XVI, there is a clash between norms and subjects. The dispute between supposedly isonomic rules for those who live under the same system and people who seek ways to distinguish themselves or justify themselves in the face of the rules. In education, in the press, in the judiciary and on social media, there is no shortage of examples of rules and conduct that are designed so that other people comply with them.
Returning to the initial question: would we be able to grant the French monarch absolution based on the simple finding that legal rules were non-existent when the crime of which he was accused occurred? Or, can our notions be manipulated according to circumstances and other wishes and desires? What motivates us when we judge? Are impartiality and concern with the investigation of facts the basic premises or just noble justifications that cover up other desires?
Impartiality and impartiality, if we look at the use of the guillotine in 18th century France and the behavior of professional judges and social networks in our time, are just an invention that hides the condition of accusers that surrounds everyone.
To read about the trial of Louis XVI:
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/louis.htm
