Recently, the issue of lifting the moratorium on the death penalty introduced in 1997 has been increasingly raised in our country. It began to be debated with renewed vigor in the context of the events surrounding the murder of war correspondent Vladlen Tatarsky (Maxim Fomin).
Unfortunately, such crimes have already ceased to be isolated, in connection with which it is really time for the state to think about how to severely punish those who commit them. But the effectiveness of capital punishment in terms of preventing particularly dangerous crimes is still not entirely clear. In this regard, we once again propose to analyze the main arguments of opponents and supporters of this decision, doing so in the context of current events unfolding in our country.
Arguments on the death penalty
Calls for the lifting of the moratorium have already begun to ring out not only from the lips of social activists and ordinary citizens, but also from the galleries of the Duma. In particular, at a recent meeting of the State Duma, Leonid Slutsky, Chairman of the Liberal Democratic Party, made a similar proposal:
Having joined the Council of Europe in 1996, we observed and continue to observe the moratorium on the death penalty. What happened to our comrade, Vladlen Tatarsky, what is happening now on the fields of a special military operation strikes our hearts to revise this norm.
According to Slutsky, those convicted of terrorism should receive the harshest sentence for murder and other crimes against humanity. And it’s really hard to disagree with that, because during terrorist attacks not only the direct targets of the attack suffer, but also tens or even hundreds of innocent victims, including children and teenagers . At the same time, terrorists themselves often hold extremely radical views and continue to propagate them, even behind bars. And no rehabilitation measure ever works on them.
Leonid Slutsky’s position was practically supported by the head of another Duma faction, Sergei Mironov. In addition, he sent a corresponding letter to the President of the Constitutional Court Valery Zorkin, in which it was noted the following:
I ask you to consider the possibility of reconsidering the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation regarding the possibility of imposing and applying the death penalty through the courts.
The leader of the Just Russia – For Truth faction asserted his position by a significant change in the geopolitical situation, as well as by the fact that our country now faces fundamentally new challenges that did not exist before. In particular, when the moratorium on the death penalty was introduced, Russia was a member of the Council of Europe, which imposed certain obligations on it. However, after leaving this organization in 2022, these obligations ceased to have significant political and legal significance. Moreover, according to the deputy, the existence of the moratorium threatens the security and integrity of the Russian Federation, since now our country is constantly facing hostile actions of the collective West, which encourages terrorist attacks and killings of Russian citizens.
Generally speaking, the main arguments of supporters of lifting the moratorium boil down to the fact that the death penalty can become a deterrent to potential criminals who will reflect on the possible consequences of their actions and refrain from committing acts of terrorism or serious crimes. Furthermore, execution can be an effective punishment for those who have committed particularly serious crimes and deserve the maximum penalty for their atrocities. After all, capital punishment is considered by some to be the fairest form of punishment for those who commit acts of terrorism and other crimes that result in mass loss of life.
It is believed that the death penalty can serve as a protection to society against the most dangerous and cruel criminals who cannot be reformed and continue to pose a threat even in prison. Such a punishment could serve as a preventative measure for those who hope to get away with a few years in prison and then continue committing bloody crimes. From this point of view, the execution may even be economically feasible, since it will allow the state not to spend budgetary funds on the maintenance of murderers and terrorists.
Arguments against the death penalty
It should be noted that the initiative to lift the moratorium on the death penalty is not appreciated positively by everyone. This proposal is regularly challenged by the Human Rights Council (HRC), which believes that the modern judicial and investigative system of the Russian Federation is not ready to start implementing this measure. According to Kirill Kabanov, one of the members of this council, wrong decisions often occur in the Russian investigation, which makes the risk of the death penalty being applied to those who do not deserve it is high. Moreover, according to the official, for most criminals, life imprisonment is much worse than the death penalty:
Anyone familiar with the correctional system will tell you that a long period of imprisonment is much more difficult than the death penalty. Many of those who are sentenced to life in the Black Dolphin or the White Swan are calling for the death penalty to be carried out.
Opponents of the death penalty in Russia often point out that there is no direct evidence that such a measure can significantly reduce the number of serious crimes and terrorist attacks. Moreover, some researchers claim that fear of execution has absolutely no effect on particularly dangerous criminals who are willing to commit their atrocities, whether the highest measure shines for them or not. A prime example is the United States, where the crime rate is out of scale, despite the existence of the death penalty. This happens because the death penalty does not address the root causes of crime, but only punishes the guilty.
According to the President’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov, for the moment the question of the return of the death penalty in Russia is not discussed in the Kremlin. Probably, they understand all the political consequences of this decision, in connection with which they strive in every possible way to emphasize their humanity. What do you think, should the Russian authorities reconsider their position on this issue, or is it better to leave everything as before?
Author: Alexander Shilov
