The Pantheon and the Noose, Robert Badinter’s Legacy and the Global Conscience on Capital Punishment
In an era defined by resurgent nationalism and the erosion of liberal democratic norms, a singular event in Paris served as a powerful reminder of the ideals that once formed the bedrock of the modern state. The pantheonisation of Robert Badinter on October 9 was not merely the posthumous honouring of a distinguished French jurist; it was a profound national reaffirmation of a civilizational commitment. To be interred in the Panthéon is to be inducted into the secular sainthood of France, to reside among the nation’s most revered “Great Men”—and women—who have fundamentally shaped the Republic’s conscience. By placing Badinter, the architect of France’s abolition of the death penalty, alongside figures like Voltaire, Victor Hugo, and Émile Zola, France sent an unambiguous message to a world grappling with moral ambivalence: that the ultimate measure of a society’s progress is its unwavering respect for human dignity, even for those who have committed the most heinous acts. This event, witnessed by a former Indian Law Minister, forces a critical introspection in nations like India, where the death penalty remains a legal, though contentious, instrument of state power.
The Man and His Mission: The Abolition of the “Ultimate Affront”
Robert Badinter was not an armchair philosopher; he was a man forged in the crucible of personal tragedy and professional conviction. As a young lawyer, he witnessed the guillotining of his client, Roger Bontems, in 1972—an experience that seared into him a lifelong horror of state-sanctioned killing. But it was the execution of Claude Buffet and Roger Bontems that cemented his resolve. He later described the death penalty as the “ultimate affront to human dignity,” a barbaric relic that had no place in a civilized society.
His crusade was not an easy one. As France’s Minister of Justice under President François Mitterrand, he faced a populace and a political class where a majority still favoured capital punishment. The debate was, and remains, emotionally charged, often fueled by high-profile crimes that provoke public outrage and a clamour for retributive justice. Yet, Badinter persevered, arguing with eloquence and relentless logic on the floor of the National Assembly. On September 30, 1981, his efforts culminated in a landmark vote: the National Assembly abolished the death penalty, making France the 35th country in the world to do so. This was not a decision made in a vacuum; it was the culmination of the Enlightenment spirit—the very spirit that President Emmanuel Macron invoked at the ceremony, linking Badinter directly to the men of 1789 and the “fulfilled promise of the Revolution.”
The Ceremony as a Civilizational Statement
The pantheonisation ceremony itself was a masterclass in republican symbolism. It was a state event that transcended partisan politics, uniting the French political and cultural establishment in a shared celebration of an ideal. The presence of liveried Republican Guards, the readings from Badinter’s own writings by esteemed artists, and the solemn procession through the streets of Paris were all choreographed to elevate the moment from a mere memorial to a national sacrament.
President Macron’s eulogy was particularly significant. By situating Badinter’s battles—”the universal abolition of the death penalty, the fight against the poison of antisemitism… and the defence of the rule of law”—as struggles that “span the centuries and uphold our ideals,” Macron framed them as the eternal, defining missions of the French Republic itself. In a world where these very ideals are under threat from populism and majoritarianism, the ceremony was a defiant act of recommitment. As the author Ashwani Kumar notes, it reinforced “the core premise of its political and cultural inheritance,” reminding the world that a nation’s character is judged by its highest principles, not its basest instincts.
The moral, as Kumar powerfully articulates, is clear: “lesser mortals seduced by the pomp of power, willing to suborn public welfare for private gain, and those who mock idealism… stand dwarfs in the presence of true greatness defined by sacrifice and selflessness.” In honouring Badinter, France was not just celebrating a man, but chastising the smallness of contemporary politics everywhere.
The Indian Conundrum: A Personal Reckoning
The article gains its unique potency from the perspective of its author, Ashwani Kumar, a former Union Minister for Law and Justice of India. His personal account of knowing Badinter and his own evolving stance on the death penalty provides a crucial non-Western lens through which to view this global debate.
Kumar’s initial position is one shared by many in India. Having witnessed the “heinous acts of terrorist violence” in Punjab in the 1980s, he believed that the time was not right for abolition. This is the classic retributive and deterrent argument: that certain crimes are so monstrous that they forfeit the perpetrator’s right to life, and that the threat of execution is necessary to prevent such crimes. When he first discussed this with Badinter, the French jurist was “not entirely convinced,” maintaining with firm humility that the death penalty was “dehumanising and had not served its avowed function as a deterrent.”
Years later, as India’s Law Minister, Kumar revisited the question. His conclusion is a stunning testament to Badinter’s powers of persuasion and the force of empirical evidence: “my conviction that Badinter was right in stressing the futility of the death sentence as a deterrent to crime.” This admission from a former chief legal officer of the world’s largest democracy is profoundly significant. It underscores that the abolitionist position is not a soft-hearted European luxury, but a reasoned conclusion supported by experience and data from “across the world.”
The Unfinished Battle: The Death Penalty in the 21st Century
Despite the global trend towards abolition, the battle is far from over. According to Amnesty International, over 50 countries still retain the death penalty, including powerful states like the United States, China, and India. The practice often persists in the shadows of flawed judicial processes.
The Indian context is particularly complex. The death penalty is theoretically reserved for the “rarest of rare” cases, but its application has been criticized for being arbitrary and prone to error. Concerns about judicial bias, forced confessions, and the excruciating delays in the appeals process—often leaving inmates on death row for decades—raise serious questions about its fairness. Furthermore, the socio-economic profile of those executed is overwhelmingly skewed towards the poor, the marginalized, and those unable to afford high-quality legal representation.
The core of Badinter’s argument, which ultimately swayed a former proponent like Kumar, rests on several pillars that remain relevant for India today:
-
The Fallibility of the State: No justice system is immune to error. The execution of an innocent person is an irreversible tragedy and the ultimate miscarriage of justice. The risk of such an error is an unacceptable price for a society to pay.
-
The Myth of Deterrence: There is no conclusive evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than a robust life imprisonment without parole. Terrorists and those who commit passion crimes are often not acting on a rational calculation of consequences.
-
The Dehumanization of Society: As Badinter argued, the death penalty does not just kill a criminal; it dehumanizes the society that carries it out. It perpetuates a cycle of violence and reinforces the idea that the solution to killing is more killing. It makes the state a participant in the very brutality it seeks to condemn.
Conclusion: Carrying the Torch Forward
Robert Badinter’s entry into the Panthéon is a call to conscience. It challenges nations that still cling to capital punishment to look beyond the transient fury of the mob and the simplistic appeal of retribution. It asks them to embrace a more difficult, but ultimately more civilized, standard of justice—one rooted in the unshakeable belief in the sanctity of all human life.
His legacy, now carried forward by his wife, the philosopher Élisabeth Badinter, is not a closed chapter in French history, but a living inspiration. For India, and for other democracies that retain the death penalty, Badinter’s life is a challenge. It invites a more courageous public discourse, one that questions the efficacy and morality of this ultimate punishment.
As Ashwani Kumar bids him farewell, he does so with the hope that the “torch of justice” that Badinter nourished will light the path to a fairer world. That torch now passes to a new generation of lawyers, activists, and lawmakers. The ceremony in Paris was a reminder that while the fight for a more humane world is long and arduous, its champions are immortalized not in stone, but in the enduring power of the ideals they champion. The true monument to Robert Badinter is not his cenotaph in the Panthéon, but every life spared from the executioner’s block, in every nation that chooses justice over vengeance.
Q&A Based on the Article
Q1: What is the significance of Robert Badinter’s “pantheonisation,” and what message does it send in the current global context?
A1: Pantheonisation is the highest honour in France, reserved for national heroes who have profoundly shaped the Republic’s values. By placing Robert Badinter in the Panthéon, France made a powerful civilizational statement, reaffirming its commitment to the Enlightenment ideals of human dignity, the rule of law, and the abolition of the death penalty. In a global context of rising majoritarianism and eroding liberal norms, this act was a defiant recommitment to the principle that a society’s character is defined by its highest ideals, not its basest instincts for retribution.
Q2: According to the article, what was the personal experience that fundamentally shaped Badinter’s opposition to the death penalty?
A2: While Badinter was philosophically opposed to capital punishment, his resolve was cemented by his direct, traumatic experience as a young lawyer witnessing the guillotining of his client. This firsthand encounter with the brutal reality of state-sanctioned execution seared into him a lifelong horror of the practice, transforming an intellectual position into a deeply personal and moral crusade.
Q3: The author, Ashwani Kumar, initially held a different view on the death penalty. What was his original stance, and what caused his perspective to evolve?
A3: As a former Law Minister of India who witnessed the terrorist violence in Punjab during the 1980s, Ashwani Kumar initially believed that the death penalty was a necessary deterrent and that the time was not right for its abolition in India. His perspective evolved through his dialogues with Badinter and his subsequent experience in government. He came to the reasoned conclusion that Badinter was right, acknowledging that the death penalty is dehumanizing and that empirical evidence from around the world shows it has failed as an effective deterrent to crime.
Q4: Beyond the abolition of the death penalty, what other “unfinished battles” did President Macron associate with Badinter’s legacy?
A4: In his eulogy, President Macron linked Badinter’s legacy to a broader struggle for the soul of the Republic. He highlighted Badinter’s “great and unfinished battles,” which included not only the universal abolition of the death penalty but also “the fight against the poison of antisemitism and its preachers of hate” and “the defence of the rule of law.” These were framed as interconnected struggles essential to upholding the republican ideal.
Q5: How does the article address the common argument that the death penalty serves as a necessary deterrent for heinous crimes?
A5: The article directly challenges the deterrent argument, citing Badinter’s firm conviction and the author’s own changed view. It posits that experience from across the world has confirmed the “futility of the death sentence as a deterrent.” The argument is that those who commit heinous acts like terrorism or crimes of passion are often not acting rationally and are not swayed by the calculation of consequences, thereby rendering the deterrent effect of capital punishment largely mythical.
