In France the
punishment for false witnesses is capital; in England it is not. Now, to
be able to judge which of these two laws is the best, we must add that
in France the rack is used for criminals, but not in England; that in
France the accused is not allowed to produce his witnesses, and that
they very seldom admit of what are called justifying circumstances in
favour of the prisoner; in England they allow of witnesses on both
sides. These three French laws form a close and well-connected system;
and so do the three English laws. The law of England, which does not
allow of the racking of criminals, has but very little hope of drawing
from the accused a confession of his crime; for this reason it invites
witnesses from all parts, and does not venture to discourage them by the
fear of a capital punishment. The French law, which has one resource
more, is not afraid of intimidating the witnesses; on the contrary,
reason requires they should be intimidated; it listens only to the
witnesses on one side, which are those produced by the attorney-general,
and the fate of the accused depends entirely on their testimony.
[17]
But
in England they admit of witnesses on both sides, and the affair is
discussed in some measure between them; consequently false witness is
there less dangerous, the accused having a remedy against the false
witness which he has not in France. Wherefore, to determine which of
those systems is most agreeable to reason, we must take them each as a
whole and compare them in their entirety.
