Hugo, Victor -- Last Day of a Condemned Man [Le Dernier Jour d’un Condamné], 1832 Preface (1829) [tr. Moncrieff (2009)]

Dave — Mon, 09 Nov 2026 22:01:46 +0000

Those who judge and pass sentence say the death penalty is necessary. Firstly because it is important to remove from the social body a member that has harmed it once and might harm it again. If it were simply a question of that, then life imprisonment would be sufficient. What use does death serve? You argue that people can escape from prison. You had better go and take a look at one. If you think the iron bars are not strong enough then how come you have zoos?
No need for an executioner when there is a jailer.

[Ceux qui jugent et qui condamnent disent la peine de mort nécessaire. D’abord, — parce qu’il importe de retrancher de la communauté sociale un membre qui lui a déjà nui et qui pourrait lui nuire encore. — S’il ne s’agissait que de cela, la prison perpétuelle suffirait. À quoi bon la mort ? Vous objectez qu’on peut s’échapper d’une prison ? faites mieux votre ronde. Si vous ne croyez pas à la solidité des barreaux de fer, comment osez-vous avoir des ménageries ?
Pas de bourreau où le geôlier suffit.]

Victor Hugo (1802–1885) French writer, journalist, human rights activist, politician
Last Day of a Condemned Man [Le Dernier Jour d’un Condamné], 1832 Preface (1829) [tr. Moncrieff (2009)]

(Source (French)). Other translations:

Those, who judge and condemn, say that the punishment of death is necessary, because it is necessary to cut off from society a member who has already transgressed its laws, and who might transgress them again. If this were all that is required, perpetual imprisonment would suffice. Of what use is the penalty of death? It may be objected that a man may escape from a prison? A better objection than this should be found, because if the solidity of iron bars may not be trusted to, how do we venture to have menageries?
We require no executioner where the gaoler will suffice.
[tr. Reynolds (1840)]

Those who judge and condemn say that “punishment by death is necessary, — first, because it is requisite to remove from the social community a member which has already injured it, and might injure it again.”
If this be all, perpetual imprisonment would suffice. What is the use of inflicting death? You argue that a prisoner may escape from gaol, — keep watch more strictly! If you do not believe in the solidity of iron bars, how do you venture to have menageries? Let there be no executioner where the jailer can be sufficient.
[tr. Fleetwood (1840)]

Those who judge and condemn say that capital punishment is necessary. In the first place, because they must remove from society one who has already harmed it, and who can harm it again. If this is all, life-imprisonment would suffice. Of what use is death? You say that one can escape from a prison? Make your patrol better. If you do not trust in iron bars, how do you dare to have menageries?
No hangman is needed where the jailer is enough.
[tr. Ward (1896)]

Those who judge and condemn claim the death penalty to be necessary, first, "because a member of the social community must be banished from it if he has already done damage and may do so again." If that were all, life imprisonment would suffice: why death? You counter this, perhaps, by saying that people escape from prison. Then keep better watch over them. If you do not believe iron bars to be strong enough, how come you keep wild animals in cages?
No executioner is required when the gaoler is competent.
[tr. Woolen (1992)]

WIST Quotations

Hugo, Victor -- Last Day of a Condemned Man [Le Dernier Jour d’un Condamné], 1832 Preface (1829) [tr. Moncrieff (2009)]