Part I, Book 7, Chapter 9
Where Convictions Take Shape
Hugo has already shown us that he’s capable of sidling into the horror genre, and here he pushes us even further into horror with delicious ghost story vibes.
Madeleine, finally entering the courtroom, sees a “creature,” “coarse, stupid and bewildered,” sitting on the bench of ignominy. This victim of the law looks like himself aged, and in fact the courtroom, as Madeleine looks around, is the exact scene from his past as Valjean, twenty-seven years ago.
Seeing his worst memory reenacted with another version of his self on trial being called by his name is basically a waking nightmare for Madeleine, a ghost story come to life. There’s a creepy, out-of-body-experience sensation to this scene, and it is so good.
Madeleine sinks into an awaiting chair and hides his face behind a stack of files so no one can see him. This is a hilarious cartoon moment punctuating the horror of this hellish courtroom drama.
A less delightful detail: Bamatabois is one of the jurors. The man who basically killed Fantine! (Yes yes I know she’s not dead yet but come on, we all know what’s coming.) BOO, HISS. Put THIS man on trial!
When Madeleine arrives, Champmathieu’s lawyer is finishing his speech; Hugo notes that he uses the formal antiquated legal-speak that only lawyers use. His main argument, which is not a great one, is that no one can actually prove that Champmathieu really stole apples; he was found with a branch of apples, sure, but no one saw him breaking it off a tree, so he might not technically be a thief, just the world’s unluckiest freegan!
The lawyer does not disprove that Champmathieu is Jean Valjean, and more or less admits that it’s totally possible, and his weak-ass argument is that Champmathieu’s stubborn denial—against his own lawyer’s advice, he won’t admit to being Valjean—is proof that prison has affected his intelligence, and that the jury has to take that into account.
So to get this straight, this man’s argument is more or less that Champmathieu’s insistence that he is not Jean Valjean is really proof that he is Jean Valjean and has just become too stupid to say he is Jean Valjean.
I don’t know where these public defenders come from, but they’re not sending their best.
Champmathieu’s lawyer asks for the jury to sentence his client just for the breach of parole (THAT HE NEVER HAD, BECAUSE HE IS NOT JEAN VALJEAN) and not as a re-offending felon (WHICH HE ALSO NEVER WAS, BECAUSE HE IS NOT. JEAN. VALJEAN.) who committed armed robbery (WHICH NO ONE DID, BECAUSE AT NO POINT WAS PETIT-GERVAIS THREATENED WITH WEAPONS, WTF)—man, this whole situation is so messed up.
The public prosecutor responds, and unfortunately he seems to be a better lawyer than the other guy. He takes the defender’s concession about Champmathieu’s identity and proceeds to hammer the eff out of it, arguing that this pretty much establishes as fact that Champmathieu is really Jean Valjean. He then goes on to describe Jean Valjean as an utter monster, the worst of criminals, and points to Champmathieu’s stubborn denial as proof of his hardened criminal nature.
Man, Champy cannot catch a break; all this poor man knows is that he’s innocent and he’s not this other guy they keep accusing him of being, and both lawyers are using his denial as proof that there’s something wrong with him.
While the prosecutor is speaking in his fancy flowery language, Champmathieu, who doesn’t fully understand what’s being said, is just amazed “that a man should be capable of talking like this.” This is just heartbreaking; this man’s fate is being determined by people operating on a level he cannot hope to understand and he doesn’t have the education to know what’s going on.
Even this amazement is used against him. The prosecutor points to Champmathieu’s “vacant attitude” as proof of his “profound perversity”—clearly he’s being calculating and cunning with this act—and asks the jury to sentence him to penal servitude for life.
The defense responds, but his argument is weak. It is clear to everyone watching who’s going to win.
Man, this justice system SUCKS. Who knew that loaf of bread would have this many fateful ramifications nearly three decades later?
Leave a Reply