If one is not found in 1959 at the time of writing of this novel, one might think that Simenon has launched an indictment against the death penalty. But in 1959, international events did not put capital punishment under the spotlight. Barely 15 years after the end of the Second World War where we had executed the traitors and during the war in Algeria, the value of life was not the same as today, in a world slightly more peaceful (though!). So Simenon, through this episode of Maigret is not in the indictment, but we settled in the uncomfortable position to see a man struggling against the judiciary and against public opinion. It is not known which of the two is more ready to be hasty judgments, but as soon as a possible culprit is in their paws, little can achieve save him. Worse than that, Maigret has shown us that while some elements seem to accuse a man's opinion as justice explore all the dependent survey items. In a similar situation, you may decide that the man is guilty or innocent. The poor Josset pays the piper. His wife, murdered repeatedly with knives can only be done by this man who deceived her with a younger woman. During the investigation, all the accused, since everything is dependent. Josset appears as a monster and justice rushes into what could be a miscarriage of justice. So, this confidence Maigret at a dinner in Pardon, becomes one of the regrets of Commissioner. Not having learned the necessary clarity to the matter. Jurors may not rely as their famous "conscience", leaving the other pan of justice, one that says that doubt must benefit the accused. Commissioner Maigret. Coméliau is judge. The doubts Maigret weigh very little against the judge's need for justice and the need to brush the public opinion in the direction of hair growth.
