Reasons for reinstating the death penalty in Russia have been named: to save and protect

Historically, the death penalty is one of the most ancient and widespread types of punishment. I think the time of existence of this type of punishment coincides with the time of the existence of human civilization. And the fact that, despite the obvious downward trend, the death penalty is still actively used in a large number of countries, including the most industrialized ones, such as China and the USA, speaks of the effectiveness of this measure of influence on public relations. Otherwise, humanity would have abandoned it long ago, just as it abandoned many other things that have outlived their time.

Since the death penalty is the most serious type of punishment, I would even say the most terrible, I am sure that none of the serious, decent, educated people are excited about the need to use it. The attitude towards the death penalty both in the world and in our country has always been complex. Philosophers, scientists, thinkers, and lawyers argued whether the state, as a collection of decent, law-abiding people, has the right to take someone’s life. And in general, the majority still agreed that in exceptional cases, to protect fundamental values, such as the existence of the state, the life and safety of people, to prevent even greater harm, such a measure is necessary and justified.

The first attempt to abolish the death penalty in Russia was made by the Provisional Government, but rather quickly restored it. After coming to power, the Bolsheviks abolished the death penalty with one of their first decrees, but they were also forced to restore it after the murder of the chairman of the Petrograd Cheka, M.S. Uritsky (by the way, an opponent of the death penalty) and the assassination attempt on V.I. Lenin. Subsequently, in all our criminal codes the death penalty was indicated as an exceptional measure of punishment, and in the criminal codes of 1922 and 1926, as well as in the current Constitution of the Russian Federation, it was stated that the death penalty remains until its abolition, that is, as necessary, but forced and temporary measure.

In the 1990s, despite a sharp increase in crime, the use of the death penalty was suspended by a number of regulations. After Russia joined the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, by order of President Yeltsin, Protocol No. 6 to this Convention was signed, providing for the abolition of the death penalty, which, however, was never ratified in our country. In general, all these regulations were adopted in the spirit of the then political orientation of “entering Europe” and the adoption of so-called “European values”, which, in my humble opinion, simply meant a partial renunciation of our sovereignty. In February 1999, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation declared unconstitutional the possibility of imposing death sentences in the absence of jury trials in all regions of the country. Despite the fact that this actual ban on the use of the death penalty was temporary and technical in nature, I count the legal effect of the moratorium on the death penalty in our country from this time.

Subsequently, this position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation was developed in the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of November 19, 2009 No. 1344-O-R, which opponents of the legal possibility of restoring the death penalty in our country often like to refer to: “As a result of a long moratorium on the use of the death penalty stable guarantees of the human right not to be subjected to the death penalty have been formed and a constitutional and legal regime has emerged within which, taking into account international legal trends and the obligations undertaken by the Russian Federation, an irreversible process is taking place aimed at the abolition of the death penalty as an exceptional measure of punishment , which is temporary in nature…”

I was forced to make some excursion into history and quote from the Definition of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in order to show that the use of the death penalty, as well as its abolition, was determined by the needs of the state and society. Even if we look at the wording of the Constitutional Court, we see how times have changed!

International legal trends have changed to the exact opposite, and the strict observance by the Russian Federation of its international obligations, which I can, as a specialist in the field, state and testify to, our Western “partners” did not care about from a high bell tower and wiped their feet on it.

Moreover, the active activity of, as President Putin put it, “our former friends” in interfering in our internal affairs, the active conduct of “orange” coups along the perimeter of our borders and the formation of regimes hostile to us there brought to the fore the provisions of Article 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in connection with articles 18 and 20, which say that the protection of human rights and freedoms, the protection of his life is the duty of the state.

Article 43, part 2, of the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation says that “punishment is applied in order to restore social justice, as well as to correct the convicted person and prevent the commission of new crimes.” In my opinion, this is absolutely correct and, despite the adoption of the Criminal Code in 1996, a very modern formulation. In relation to the death penalty, there is no longer any need to talk about correction, but restoring social justice and preventing the commission of new crimes is an absolutely adequate and completely solvable task. Restoring justice, like the demand for security, is a completely legitimate, reasonable and understandable desire of people. And, to put it bluntly, I simply cannot imagine how else it is possible to restore social justice in relation to the victims of the terrorist attack in Crocus City Hall, except through the application of the death penalty to the relevant persons. In a sense, the victim is our entire society, shocked by what happened and experiencing enormous moral and ethical suffering.

Preventing the commission of new crimes is also a completely achievable goal, since statistics show a decrease in the number of corresponding crimes when the death penalty is applied. Its frightening and stopping effect, based on world practice, is beyond doubt.

It is also impossible to agree that there are legislative restrictions for the resumption of the use of the death penalty. Law is an instrument that meets the needs of society, a derivative of political requests, and not vice versa. The law is the regulator of social relations, its task is to help us live and protect us. To do this, the law must meet the needs of society and be adequate to the times. Time has changed, the needs of society have changed, the law must change, and how exactly to change it – society should pose such a task to competent and qualified lawyers, who in this sense are not much different from engineers who design modern technical devices. There is a need – an appropriate legal structure must be developed. The main thing is that the authorities set such a task.

Of course, an exceptional measure of punishment should be introduced as a reaction to completely exceptional, extraordinary events. But didn’t they happen?! And is there a guarantee that they will not happen again? Rather, on the contrary, the likelihood of a repetition of such events will increase if we do not draw conclusions and take measures, including those of a criminal legal nature.

I have never been an opponent of the death penalty, but in fairness I am ready to admit that there is at least one serious argument against its use – a miscarriage of justice, and even if the process is not competitive enough. We all remember, for example, the classic case of American leftist labor activists Nicolo Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, who in 1927 were falsely accused of murdering shoe factory cashiers, executed and only rehabilitated in the 70s of the last century. And this was a classic example of a case where the death penalty should not be applied. It was an extremely complicated case, the guilt of the accused was completely unclear, and their social danger was doubtful.

But in the case of the terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall, we have the exact opposite picture. Of course, I respect the presumption of innocence and do not draw any conclusions about the guilt of specific individuals – this will be done within the framework of the preliminary investigation and trial, at which, I hope, all the norms of our legislation, including those regarding the adversarial nature of the parties, will be observed. And in general, an exceptional measure of punishment should in no case be applied left or right. It must remain exclusive even in terms of maintaining due respect for it, so by definition it cannot be used often.

But one thing is obvious: the lack of an adequate response from society and the state today will lead to great disasters and losses tomorrow. So isn’t it time to take social protection measures appropriate to the challenges facing us?