in favor of the officers and against the family. The investigation might end there, and this is indeed what almost always happens. But we can also take into consideration the fact that, in the judiciary, not all individuals are treated equally, and not all words are given equal weight, particularly when law-enforcement officers are accused, and also when either the plaintiffs or the accused are Travellers. In the second stage, the sociologist therefore attempted to re-examine the different versions, this time in order to decide whether there were reasons to think that some of them were more consistent than others. He first presented a general discussion of the principles underlying the search for truth and the detection of lies. He then analyzed the different versions, both by drawing out any internal contradictions and improbabilities and by comparing them with the set of external evidence from other testimonies, expert opinions and technical reports. This process resulted in another possible reading of the facts of the case.
In short, the initial intention to give even-handed treatment to the versions of the officers and the family, respecting both equally, did not prevent the subsequent rigorous dissection of the legal arguments and verdict and the presentation of a version based on rational grounds of probability. To venture a parallel from cinema, we might say that the book begins in the manner of Rashōmon and ends in the spirit of Twelve Angry Men. And this twostage process is in fact not unlike the construction of the object of study itself, a criminal case. Indeed, the judicial procedure first produces depositions, which are more or less divergent versions of the facts, then an investigation, which examines all the evidence gathered, and finally conclusions. The method followed by the sociologist, right through to the writing-up of his work, ultimately follows a similar pattern. Hence some repetitions, mirroring the process of the counter-investigation. This process might be called a sociological investigation, in reference to but in contrast with the criminal investigation, because it is not limited to the individuals questioned but expands its interrogation to the social conditions of possibility of the events concerned.
As many studies, in France and elsewhere, have established, decisions taken by the courts reflect the balance of power and relations of inequality within a society, which come into play not only in the way certain people are convicted and others acquitted but also in the way social worlds are represented – in this case, those of the gendarmes and of the Travellers. In other words, they involve the production both of justice and of truth. When the sociologist embarked on this project, he knew that he would obviously have no impact on the former, but he thought he might be able to unravel its connection with the latter while the justice system represents the truth of the courts as the sole legitimate one. His counter-investigation could indeed reveal a different reading of the facts. The point was not to take the side of the vanquished against the victors, as historians sometimes put it – in other words to deem the family’s version more truthful than that of the officers – but to produce an account independent of all institutional links, of all professional affinities and, as far as possible, of any prejudice. The account must derive purely from the application of a dual principle: all voices deserve the same degree of attention, and the conclusions must proceed purely from the correlation of the available evidence interpreted in context.
It was this dual principle that, in the family’s view, the judges had not respected. For the aim of their campaign was not so much to see the officers who fired the fatal shots convicted, though they believed they should be punished in line with what they saw as their level of culpability, as to at last get what they felt was a true account of the conditions in which their son and brother died. An account which, as they put it, would make it possible to raise questions about the police’s methods of intervention, the functioning of the penal system, the political context of law and order, and the social representations of Travellers that, taken together, had made his tragic death seemingly ineluctable.
But, for the sociologist, the reason it made sense to engage in this work went beyond the mere critique of punitive practices to which he had devoted his previous books. By focusing on the events that led to the death of the young man, by granting the accounts of his family equal value with those of the gendarmes, by formulating a version independent of that of the courts, by offering a glimpse of what his life had been like, troubled to be sure, but so different from the defamatory portraits painted by the criminal investigation file and the media reconstructions, by pulling him out of oblivion and freeing him from stereotypes, the sociologist thought that it might be possible to return to him, whatever his criminal past, something of what society refuses Travellers, and that the family, through their campaign for justice and truth, had never stopped demanding: respectability.
He started writing.
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.
