The death penalty in terms of ethics. The Ethics of the Death Penalty

Daria glacier

After taking an elective course, the student became interested in the ethical side of the death penalty. Having studied the history of the issue and statistics for the country, the author examines the attitude of residents of the municipal district to this problem. The research is based on sociological and mathematical methods.

Download:

Preview:

Direction: social studies

The death penalty

as a problem of applied ethics

MKOU "Mayakovskaya secondary school"

Okoneshnikovsky district

Omsk region, grade 11

Head: Elena Gennadievna Blumenstein,

Literature and History Teacher

MKOU "Mayakovskaya secondary school"

Okoneshnikovsky district

Omsk region

Okoneshnikovo, 2012

Introduction _____________________________________________________ 3

Ethics. Applied ethics. Problems of Applied Ethics __________ 5

Applied ethics. Problems of Applied Ethics ________________ 6

2.1 Death penalty. Signs of the death penalty. Types of the death penalty__7

2.2 International Trends in the Application of the Death Penalty_10

2.3 The use of the death penalty in modern states _________ 11

2.4 International Law on the Death Penalty _______________________ 13

2.5.1 The death penalty in the history of Russia before 1917 ________________ 14

2.5.2 The death penalty in the USSR ____________________________________ 15

2.5.3 The death penalty in the Russian Federation ______________________________________ 16

2.6 Practice of the death penalty ____________________________________ 18

Chapter 3 The death penalty as an ethical issue ____________________ 21

3.1 Ethical arguments for the death penalty __________________ 21

3.2 Ethical arguments against the death penalty ___________________ 23

Chapter 4. Research into the question of citizens' attitudes towards the problem of the death penalty ________________________________________________________ 26

Conclusion ___________________________________________________ 27

Bibliography

Applications

Introduction

The death penalty ... For some, these two words evoke a feeling of horror and shudder, bewilderment, for others, the death penalty as a form of criminal punishment is associated with the officially legalized deprivation of another person's life.

"How is the death penalty different from murder?" - many people ask and cannot find the answer. "Isn't it time to abolish the death penalty?" These kinds of judgments and questions can be heard from representatives of the widest sections of the population of our society. But you can also find reasoning of a different nature, the essence of which boils down to the fact that in our society the death penalty is very rarely used, and therefore crime is not decreasing. Claims are addressed primarily to law enforcement agencies, and often to legislators. Thus, between the increase in crime and the use of the death penalty, a kind of direct connection is established. Consequently, there are two different opinions on the issue of the death penalty.

If we approach the problem of the death penalty historically, then we can be convinced that each era always expresses two directions that exist in public opinion - opponents and supporters of the death penalty.

The problem of "for" and "against" the death penalty arose in the minds of mankind long before our era. We have heard that this issue was first actively debated already in Ancient Greece during the Peloponnesian War, when the city of Mytilene rebelled against Athens and went over to the side of the enemy. The angry Athenians, capturing Mytilene, decided to severely punish the traitors and put the entire male population of the city to death, and enslave women and children. During the decision of the fate of the Mytilene people at the People's Assembly, a dispute arose and two opposing opinions were expressed. The Athenian demagogue Cleon spoke in favor of the death penalty. The Athenian Diodotus was of a different opinion. This indicates that 2,500 years ago, the idea of the fearsome impact of the death penalty and its effective impact on the reduction of crime was deeply questioned. In the dispute between Cleon and Diodotus, the latter turned out to be the winner - the People's Assembly of Athens voted against the execution of the male half of Mytilene. Unfortunately, this humane and reasonable decision was lost somewhere in our history, and was simply forgotten.

The further course of history gives us countless examples when humane considerations gave way to ill-considered cruelty, turning into bloody massacre. Currently, the question of the abolition of the death penalty is one of the most pressing issues. Hundreds of works by various authors are devoted to this problem, who adhere to directly opposite points of view. This controversial question interested us too, therefore in our work we set out the concept of the death penalty, its main features, the history of the development of the exceptional punishment in Russia, the execution of the death penalty under the current legislation, and I also bring to your attention the results of a statistical study on attitudes towards the problem of the death penalty.

Object of study: the death penalty.

Subject of study:history and practice of the death penalty in Russia, arguments "for" and "against" the death penalty.

Purpose of the study:to investigate the death penalty as a problem of applied ethics; create conditions for discussion about the permissibility of the death penalty and the implementation of certain moral choices.

Tasks:

to define the basic terms and concepts on the research topic;

review the literature on the research topic;

find out the history of the use and practice of the death penalty in Russia;

formulate ethical arguments for and against the death penalty;

to conduct a study of the attitude towards the problem of the death penalty of residents of the village. Lighthouse of the Okoneshnikovsky district of the Omsk region.

Research methods:

Analytical;

Comparative historical;

Sociological;

Mathematical.

Chapter 1 Basic terms and concepts

1.1 Ethics. Applied ethics. Problems of Applied Ethics

The term "ethics" comes from the ancient Greek word "ethos", which originally meant "place of residence." Then it began to mean stable phenomena: custom, character of a person. Aristotle was the first to introduce the term "ethics" to denote special knowledge, science. Cicero coined the term "morality" (Latin translation of the Greek word "ethics").

Ethics Is a general normative science that studies morality, ethics, virtue. Ethics is a system of knowledge about a specific area human life... Ethics can be called the daughter of philosophy, it is also called practical philosophy.

Ethics is an integral part of the foundation of general cultural and general theoretical humanitarian training of a specialist of any profile. Ethics derives all its problems from real everyday life. Abstract concepts and categories of ethics are only a means for understanding life realities in their interaction, completeness, depth and inconsistency (7, 453).

In modern conditions, moral life has acquired a socially significant character not only in its special forms, but also in individual, isolated manifestations. This was the result of many factors, among which the most important are:

A change in the real status of an individual in society, expressed in the fact that society as a whole, including the state, guarantees his basic human rights, especially protecting them in cases where the individual belongs to various kinds of minorities. Not only a large social group or community - people, class, family, profession, etc., but also the personality itself becomes the focus, the focus of social life.

New qualitative state of technology and technology of activity. Communications and the entire system of organizing social space have become more complex, as a result of which a failure in one link affects the state of the system as a whole. Such expensive technological opportunities have appeared, aimed at maintaining human well-being, life and health, that each case of their use becomes a socially significant event (7, 454).

These changes had as one of their consequences the intensive development of applied ethics.

1.2 Applied ethics. Problems of Applied Ethics

Applied ethicsnot just the application of the results of theoretical ethics to practice. It is a special stage in the development of both morality and ethics, signifying at the same time a new, deeper and more concrete form of their synthesis. Applied ethics is a special form of theorizing, theorizing directly involved in the life process; it is a special form of making responsible decisions, of human practice itself, when the latter rises to a theoretically meaningful level.

Applied ethics has developed in recent decades, and is developing most rapidly in Western countries, primarily in the United States. The most indicative for understanding the phenomenon of applied ethics are the problems that G.Yu. Laznovskaya calls “open moral problems”.Problems of Applied Ethics- these are such problems about the moral qualifications of which there is no consensus in the public consciousness, either among specialists or among the general public. These problems include:

● euthanasia;

● cloning;

● abortion;

● organ transplantation;

● death penalty;

● revolutionary morality;

● charity;

● mass culture;

● PR;

● technogenesis and ways out of the ecological crisis;

● medical experiments on humans, etc. (7, 454)

Chapter 2 The concept of the death penalty

2.1 Death penalty. Signs of the death penalty. Types of the death penalty

The death penalty is one of the oldest punishments known to mankind. As a matter of fact, the death penalty was applied even before the emergence of criminal law in the modern sense of the word. “The deprivation of life as a form of social reprisal against criminals was encountered incomparably earlier,” wrote one of the most prominent Russian scientists, NS Tagantsev (4, 23).

The prototype of the death penalty, like other types of punishment in pre-state society, was blood feud. “The origin of criminal law,” wrote the prominent Soviet lawyer Ye.B. Pashukanis, - historically associated with the custom of blood feud. There is no doubt that genetically these phenomena are close to each other ... ”(4, 23). With the emergence of private property, classes and the state, blood feud acquires a public law character, turns into criminal penalty and becomes an instrument in the hands of the ruling classes. But if, under the conditions of a clan society, blood feud could be carried out both by individual members of the clan, and by the whole clan, then with the emergence of judicial system blood feud is realized only by the court.

For many years, among scientists and public figures, there have been disputes over whether such a punishment as the death penalty has the right to exist. Apparently, this discussion will not end soon. Despite the fact that much has been written about the death penalty, there are still many unclear points in the theoretical development of this problem. In particular, the issue of the concept of the death penalty has not been considered either. At first glance, it seems clear what the death penalty is. This is the deprivation of a person's life. Meanwhile, a person can be deprived of life for various reasons. Even if we leave aside the cases of natural death (from illness, from old age), one can name many causes of violent death. Many people die as a result of the action of the forces of nature (floods, landslides, thunderstorms, etc.), from hunger, cold, accidents in everyday life and at work, due to public negligence. Many lives are claimed by suicide. People die from various crimes, from careless actions, such as violation of safety rules, road traffic, handling various dangerous objects and substances, etc. People mercilessly kill each other in war, during interethnic conflicts, on the basis of blood feud. But all these cases of deprivation of life in the social and legally have nothing to do with the death penalty. What is the death penalty? What are signs this exceptional punishment?

The most essential feature of the death penalty is that itis a punishment... This means that it has those features that characterize this particular measure. state coercion... The essence of any punishment is punishment. Professor N.A. Struchkov defines punishment as "a set of legal restrictions, specifically expressed in the application of one or another type of punishment" (2). Thus, punishment is the deprivation of a person of his rights or interests, a decrease in their volume or the introduction of a special procedure for their implementation, the establishment of duties that are due to punishment and are usually not assigned to other citizens. In the death penalty, punishment is manifested to the maximum extent. The convict is deprived of the most precious thing a person has - life. Naturally, at the same time he is deprived of all other rights and interests. However, this only happens after the sentence has been carried out.

The death penalty causes suffering... A person sentenced to death feels suffering at the time of the sentencing and waiting for the results of the consideration of the complaints submitted to him, a petition for clemency. In this situation, the majority of convicts develop a fear of death, which is often combined with a consciousness of the hopelessness of their situation, sometimes with an awareness of guilt, remorse, etc. The suffering of a criminal is no longer needed by society, because the death penalty is not intended to correct it. Society deletes him from its members, he ceases to exist.

When talking about the suffering caused by a condemnation of the death penalty, one should also bear in mindsuffering of family and friends of the sentenced.

The death penalty isthe most severe punishment... This is primarily predetermined by the fact that the convicted person is deprived of the most valuable benefit - life.

Like all punishment, she is coercion , is applied independently and, as a rule, against the wishes of the convicted person.

She applied on behalf of the state... This means that the state, by its own power, authorizes a sentence passed on its behalf by a duly authorized court.

She can be assignedjust for a crime, i.e. for an act provided for in the Criminal Code.

She can be appointedonly to the convicted personin the commission of a crime by the court.

The death penalty aims to achieveprivate prevention goals, it must prevent the convicts themselves from committing new crimes. Therefore, the convicted person is safely isolated until the execution of the sentence.

Article 59 of the Criminal Code calls heran exceptional measure of punishment.It is a temporary measure, but the most severe punishment, assigned for a very narrow circle of the most serious intentional crimes, is used quite rarely, even less often it is enforced due to the pardon of a very significant part of the convicts (6, 14-15).

Types of the death penalty.There is a division of the death penalty into skilled and unskilled. With a qualified death penalty for different crimes, different types of it can be imposed, with an unqualified one, the legislation provides for one type of death penalty for all crimes for which a death sentence can be imposed.

Practiced in modern world types of death penalty:

Firing squad

Hanging

Stoned

Lethal injection

Electric chair

Decapitation

Gas chamber.

Historical types of the death penalty:

Guillotining

Quartering

Wheeling

Drowning

Crucifixion

Burning alive

Burial alive

Throwing to be eaten by predators

Cutting into small pieces

Hanging by the rib

Impaling

"Iron Maiden"

Keeling (5.34).

International trends in the use of the death penalty

States from the moment of their inception and up to the present time have applied the death penalty. The practice of the death penalty depends on laws, traditions, customs, rulers, etc. The following objective tendencies are revealed in the historical practice of the death penalty.

Over timethe number of types of crimes for which death was the penalty is decreasing... For example, in England at the beginning of the 19th century, the death penalty was imposed for more than 200 types of crimes, including pickpocketing over 1 shilling in a church. The 16th century Russian law code prescribed the death penalty for 50 cases. At present, the death penalty has been abolished in England, and in Russia it has been suspended (a moratorium on the death penalty). In countries where the death penalty exists, it is usually considered a last resort and is used for limited types of crimes (premeditated murder, treason).

The way the death penalty is carried out is changing... Initially solemn, they gradually become bashful, hidden. In the past, death sentences were carried out in public, ceremonially, and festively. It was a sight to behold. Nowadays, the publicity of the death penalty has become a rarity. Demonstrative public executions carried out in Chechnya in 1997 under the Sharia court, as well as similar actions practiced in some countries, are perceived by public opinion outside the countries where they occur as a manifestation of barbarism, an insult to public morality. General rule consists in the fact that the death sentence is carried out in secret, at night, in the morning. In those rare cases when it is done publicly, this method of action is shocking to public opinion, is perceived more as a senseless murder than an act of justice.

Along with the usual forms of the death penalty, historically, skilled forms existed and even prevailed, when the murder was committed in sophisticatedly painful, striking forms (impaling, boiling in oil, pouring metal into the throat). This is how, for example, the death sentence sounded to the rebel, the leader of the uprising Russian peasants in the 18th century, Yemelyan Pugachev: burn in the same places ”(3, 18-19).

Modern norms of civilization are alreadyexclude qualified death penaltyand are prescribed to carry it out in quick and painless forms.

Gradually the circle of persons against whom the death penalty can be applied is decreasing... Currently, many laws exclude children, women, and the elderly from this circle.

In the past, all states practiced the death penalty. Nowadayscountries appeared that excluded her from legal practice, their number is steadily increasing. For example, at the beginning of the 20th century, the death penalty was abolished or suspended in 7 countries of Western Europe. In 1998, the death penalty was abolished in 53 and suspended in 27 countries. End of 1998 - the death penalty was abolished in 67 countries, in another 14 countries it was abolished, with the exception of special cases, crimes during hostilities, in 23 countries it was suspended for 10 years or more. 91 countries by this time continue to practice the death penalty.

The subjective attitude towards the death penalty is changing; several centuries ago, society unanimously recognized, and philosophers substantiated the necessity and moral justification of the death penalty. So, for example, Kant considered the death penalty to be the only possible punishment for murder from a moral and legal point of view. However, already at the time of Kant, the opposite view was widespread. Since the 18th century, ideas about the illegality of the death penalty as such began to be expressed and defended. In Europe, the first on this path wasCesare Becarria.After him, many social thinkers linked the principle of humanism with the demand for the abolition of the death penalty.

Global global trends are aimed at the abolition of the death penalty. (3, 26)

2.3 Application of the death penalty in modern states

In modern civilized states, the purpose of the death penalty is to take the life of a criminal, while causing a minimum of suffering. But the execution itself causes the condemned to suffer. The terms for considering a pardon and appealing a sentence sometimes reach several years. Only a few countries have a time limit after which the death penalty is automatically replaced by life imprisonment if it has not been enforced (4, 37)). Even worse is the condition of the prisoner, who is announced that his pardon has been rejected and the sentence will be carried out. In some states, the convicted person is not informed of the date of execution, and in some states a month in advance. In the first case, the period of hopelessness is shortened, in the second, the convict can do what is necessary to complete his life.

In our time, most states have refused to publicly carry out a sentence. According to the UN, in 1980-1990. in 22 countries the death penalty was executed publicly, including China, Pakistan, Somalia, Nigeria, Iran, etc.

Thus, most states are reducing the use of the death penalty and humanizing its methods.

Here are some facts from various sources:

In the Russian Federation, by 1997, 86 people were sentenced to death, 5 people were pardoned;

The last execution was carried out in the Russian Federation on 08/02/1996;

According to Amnesty International, in 1996, 7107 people were sentenced to death in the world, 5139 of them were executed, including 4,367 in China;

In the world, the death penalty as a criminal punishment is imposed in 38 states, including the United States, Iran, China, Nigeria, South Africa, etc.

Of interest are the compositions of crimes that provide for the death penalty as a punishment. If the appointment of the death penalty for premeditated murder, terrorism, espionage, etc. understandably, in a number of countries they are also executed for the following crimes:

- adultery by a woman (Iran, DPRK, Mauritania, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Sudan)

Forgery of official documents (Iraq)

Prostitution (Iran)

Unworthy life on earth (Iran)

Disagreement with God (Iran)

Eating food, water and smoking for the 4th time during the day during the Ramadan fast (Iran)

Repeated use of alcoholic beverages (Iran)

Homosexuality (Iran, Mauritania)

Printing and Display of Pornographic Materials (China)

Pimping, brothel maintenance (China)

Theft state property(Somalia)

Arson (Morocco, Western Sahara)

Counterfeit money making (Albania)

Black market trading (Mozambique)

Desecration of the name of the Prophet Muhammad (Pakistan)

Death Witchcraft (Rwanda)

Manufacture, distribution, sale, storage and use of drugs (Thailand) (4, 42).

2.4 International law on the death penalty

First of all, you need to highlight article 3Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which says that "everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

Further development of the consolidation of human rights to life is the inalienable right of every person. This right is protected by law. No one can be arbitrarily deprived of his life. In countries that have not abolished the death penalty, death sentences can be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law that was in force at the time of the crime and which does not contradict the ordinances.Of the Covenant and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide... This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court. Anyone sentenced to death has the right to ask for pardon or commutation of the sentence. Amnesty, pardon, or commutation of the death sentence can be granted in all cases. The death penalty is not imposed for crimes committed by persons under the age of 18, and it is not carried out against pregnant women.

In addition, within the framework of the European Union,Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in accordance with Article 2 of which the right of every person to life is protected by law. The provision has also been duplicated that no one can be intentionally deprived of life, except in the execution of a death sentence imposed by a court for committing a crime for which such punishment is provided by law (3, 27).

Was adopted and opened for signature at the 82nd plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly on December 15, 1989.Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rightsaimed at the abolition of the death penalty, in which it is determined that the abolition of the death penalty helps to strengthen human dignity and the progressive development of human rights, that all measures to abolish the death penalty should be seen as progress towards ensuring the right to life (3, 28).

Thus, the change in attitude towards the death penalty is associated with transformations in the consciousness of society, the ideas of moral sovereignty of the individual, human rights, social contract, etc. It is also associated with a fundamentally new attitude towards the state, which can be characterized as its legal restraint. The blow on the death penalty is a blow against the omnipotence of the state and denotes the inalienable nature of the human right to life.

In general, the death penalty is losing public support more and more, being phased out, ousted from legal practice, and deprived of its ethical sanction. Nevertheless, there has not yet been a qualitative shift in this issue, and a negative view of the death penalty has not become a universal, indisputable moral truth. Discussions about the justification and appropriateness of the death penalty in society continue.

2.5 The death penalty in Russian history

2.5.1 The death penalty in the history of Russia before 1917

In Russia and in Russian criminal law, the death penalty, which wore the form of blood feud, was known and widespread for a long time. For the first time, it was officially provided for in 1398 in the Dvinsk charter for theft committed for the third time. But it should be noted that the Dvinsk charter does not establish the death penalty for murder. Its application was expanded in the Pskov court charter of 1467, which established the death penalty for theft in the church, embezzlement from the public, high treason, arson, and theft in the settlement, committed for the third time. A further expansion of the range of criminal acts for which the death penalty was imposed occurred in the judicial codes of 1497 and 1550. and continued in the future. Thus, the law code of 1550, adopted under Ivan IV, established the death penalty for many crimes: for the first theft, if the thief is caught red-handed or confessed to the crime in the process of torture; for a second theft and a second fraud, if the perpetrator confessed; for robbery, murder, slander or other "dashing deed", if the offender is "led by a dashing"; for the murder of a master, high treason, church theft, arson, if the criminal is "led by a dashing". In the Code of 1649, especially dangerous crimes against person and property were punishable by death: murder, poisoning, arson, repeated robbery, harboring criminals, rape by military men, torture, tobacco trade - in total, the death penalty could be imposed for 63 crimes. The Code of 1649 provided for five types of execution of the death penalty. However, law enforcement practice was not limited to these methods.

According to the Military Articles of Peter I and other criminal acts of that time, the death penalty was envisaged in 123 cases. An example of the complete abolition of the death penalty in legislation was given by Russia, where, back in 1744, Empress Elizabeth ordered her to submit all death sentences to her, and on September 30, 1754, the Senate issued a decree to abolish the death penalty and replace it with life hard labor with stigmatizing the criminal with the “thief” stigma on the forehead and cheeks; and cutting out the nostrils. In 1787, Catherine II, in her manifesto, published on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of her reign, also ordered all those sentenced to death not to be executed, but to be sent to hard labor. But, contrary to the Elizabethan and Catherine's orders, death sentences were passed and carried out (for example, the mass executions of the leaders and participants of the Pugachev uprising, more than 20 thousand people were executed).

Under Emperor Alexander I, a new Criminal Code was being developed. The death penalty was extremely rare. In total, 24 people were executed in 25 years. At the same time, the overwhelming majority of executions occurred during the Patriotic War of 1812, when death sentences were passed by courts-martial. Under Nicholas I, five Decembrists were sentenced to death and executed. The Code of Laws entered into force on January 1, 1835 Russian Empire 1832 In accordance with it, the death penalty in Russia remained, but was applied only in relation to three categories of crimes:

Political (when these, according to their special importance, are submitted to the consideration and decision of the Supreme Criminal Court);

For violation of quarantine rules (i.e. for the so-called quarantine crimes committed during epidemics or involving the commission of violence against quarantine guards or quarantine institutions);

For military crimes.

The death penalty was envisaged both under the Criminal Code and Correctional Code of 1845 and under the Criminal Code of 1903. The massive use of the death penalty in these years was carried out mainly by extrajudicial bodies: by courts-martial, by decision of governors and commanders-in-chief, etc. After the February Revolution, the Provisional Government by a decree of March 12, 1917, she was reinstated for murder, robbery, treason and some military crimes.

2.5.2 The death penalty in the USSR

The October Revolution of 1917 began with the abolition of the death penalty. The decree of the 2nd All-Russian Congress of Soviets of October 26, 1917 announced the abolition of the death penalty. In addition, in Soviet times, two more attempts were made to abolish the death penalty - by the resolution of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR "On the abolition of the use of capital punishment (execution)" of March 17, 1920, and by the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR "On the abolition of the death penalty" March 26, 1947. The restoration of the death penalty was usually justified by such reasons as the severity of the class struggle, the resistance of the overthrown exploiting classes, the situation on the fronts of the Civil War, and the subversive activities of the imperialist states. At the same time, during the Civil War, the death penalty was used not so much to combat especially dangerous crimes as for political purposes.

An extremely widespread practice of using the death penalty in cases fabricated by the security organs was carried out in the 30s. It was used not only on charges of counter-revolutionary crimes. According to, for example, the decree of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR dated August 7, 1932, execution was also used for theft of state and public property. The Soviet codes (Criminal Code of the RSFSR 1922, 1926 and 1960) did not include the death penalty in the punishment system, citing the temporary nature of the exceptional punishment. However, this was a hypocritical declaration, since in a special part of these Criminal Codes the death penalty was represented quite widely (for example, in the Criminal Code of the RSFSR in 1926 it was provided for 42 crimes).

Soon after the Great Patriotic War, the abolition of the death penalty was proclaimed by the decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR dated May 26, 1947. This decree established that for crimes punishable under the current legislation with the death penalty, in Peaceful time imprisonment in forced labor camps for a period of 25 years is applied. Three years later, on January 12, 1950, a decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR was adopted "On the application of the death penalty to traitors to the motherland, spies, demolition saboteurs," and on April 30, 1954, the death penalty was also introduced for premeditated murder.

A decisive step towards the reduction of the death penalty was made in the foundations of the criminal legislation of the USSR and the Union republics of 1991., but already in Russian Federation the number of death sentences imposed has increased. This was due to political and economic instability, which was reflected in the growth of severeand especially grave crimes.

2.5.3 The death penalty in the Russian Federation

A significant step towards reducing the death penalty was made by the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993. In accordance with Part 2 of Art. 20 "the death penalty, pending its abolition, may be imposed federal law as an exceptional measure of punishment for especially grave crimes against life when giving the accused the right to have his case examined by a court with the participation of a jury ”(1). This constitutional provision is developed and specified in the RF Criminal Code of 1995, in Art. 59. Part 1 of this article states that the death penalty as an exceptional measure of punishment can be established only for especially grave crimes that infringe on life. The Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for the death penalty for murder under aggravated circumstances (part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), encroachment on the life of a statesman and public figure (Article 277 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), encroachment on the life of a person administering justice or preliminary investigation ( Art.295 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), encroachment on the life of an employee law enforcement agency(Art. 317 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), genocide (Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). All of them are especially grave crimes that infringe on life (2).

In accordance with Part 2 of Art. 59 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the death penalty is not applied to women, as well as to persons who have committed a crime under the age of 18, and to men who have reached sixty-five years of age by the time the court is sentenced. According to part 3 of this article, the death penalty by way of pardon can be replaced by life imprisonment or imprisonment for a term of 25 years.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 50) provides for the possibility of pardon.

A pardon is a release from a sentence imposed by a court, carried out by the head of state, is known to the legislation of many democratic countries. Pardon as a tradition dates back to the times of absolute monarchy, when the monarch - the lord of souls and bodies, property and the very life of his subjects - could execute and pardon anyone.

The pardon commission under the President of the Russian Federation was established in early 1992 on the wave of democratic reforms. It included a variety of people, but not a single official representative of the government, not a single official. This very important circumstance made it possible to express independent judgments and make objective decisions. The Commission is an advisory body, makes its decisions as advisory, and they are almost always taken by the President.

Thanks to the efforts of many lawyers and public figures, in 1993 an alternative to the death penalty appeared in our country - life imprisonment. The Pardon Commission took part in the preparation of this law. Since August 1996, not a single person has been executed in Russia.

A significant step towards the abolition of the death penalty was the decree of the President of the Russian Federation of May 16, 1996 on the gradual reduction in the use of the death penalty in connection with Russia's entry into the Council of Europe. Subsequently, the President of the Russian Federation issued an order of February 27, 1997 on the signing of Protocol No. 6 (regarding the abolition of the death penalty) of April 28, 1983, to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of November 4, 1950.

So, the procedure for the official admission of Russia to the Council of Europe provides for the signing and subsequent ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights in the country's parliament. Russia undertakes to fulfill the 25 conditions put forward by the Council of Europe to streamline a whole range of state and legal institutions and change the state of affairs in the field of human rights. One of the most important among them is the abolition of the death penalty in peacetime. At the same time, together with the European Convention on Human Rights, Russia must sign a separate protocol on the abolition of the death penalty within three years and on a moratorium on the execution of already imposed death sentences.

Thus, having ratified this protocol, Russia will be obliged to remove from the Criminal Code the elements of crimes punishable by death (otherwise, change the punishment). Retreats and excuses are not permitted.

Naturally, when joining this organization, Russia, as its new member, must recognize its fundamental principles, otherwise the very entry into this organization loses its meaning. Based on this, there is no doubt that Russia should have signed the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights, which meets the interests of Russia and complies with our Constitution.

The question arises - can a new member entering the Council of Europe have some differences with its other members, or should all members of the Council of Europe have absolutely identical approaches to resolving all issues?

Item 1, Art. 64 of the European Convention on Human Rights states: “Any state, when signing this convention or when depositing the deposit of an instrument of ratification, may make a reservation with respect to any separate provision of the convention to the effect that a particular law in force at that time on its territory does not corresponds to this provision. "

This is precisely the situation in Russia. The text of the European Convention on Human Rights itself, in contrast to Protocol No. 6, states: “No one can be intentionally deprived of his life except in the execution of a sentence of death imposed by a court for a crime for which such punishment is provided by law” ( clause 1 of article 2). This means that the convention, in principle, does not exclude the preservation of the death penalty in any state of Europe.

Thus, the Russian Federation signed Protocol No. 6. However, this is only the first step towards legislative consolidation of the abolition of the death penalty. The decision on the complete abolition of the death penalty depends on a number of factors. Many of them are related to economic and political conditions. This is a general stabilization of the situation in the country, a way out of the economic crisis.

2.6 Practice of the death penalty

Oddly enough, the death penalty has been reduced to the level of a completely bureaucratic administration. state function... No journalists or television workers are allowed to this procedure.

A person sentenced to death, immediately after sentencing, is cut bald and dressed in a special striped uniform without pockets. The prison doctor conducts a detailed examination of the sentenced person. He is no longer returned to his old cell. The suicide bombers are transported to the so-called bush prisons, which are defined as places of execution of death sentences. After a certain time, another prison acquires the status of a cluster. There are special solitary confinement cells for suicide bombers, they are located separately from others, in the suburbs. A special team of inspectors serves the sentenced. Nutrition rates are normal. They are not entitled to any delicacies. Broadcasts - by special permission. They are checked especially carefully. Letters are peer-reviewed. Walking is allowed only in individually... Meetings - only with the closest relatives and again with the special permission of the court. The only one who goes to the death row is a lawyer. However, lawyers do not abuse this privilege. These visits are mostly formal. Their main goal is to prepare and sign cassation appeal and a petition for clemency.

The day and hour of execution in each specific case is determined by the governor of the prison, the prosecutor and the court. During the execution of the sentence, there is the head of the prison, the prosecutor (or their deputies), the doctor, the executioner - the executor of the sentence - and several assistants whose duties include escorting the sentenced person and his funeral.

The suicide bomber is not notified in advance of the upcoming execution. Until the last minutes they talk to him as usual. The inspectors guarding his cell do not know about this either. It is not so much about humanity as about not provoking the sentenced person to extraordinary actions, primarily to suicide. The state should execute him. And he, even if for a moment, should know about it. The procedure itself takes place in a special room and takes a few minutes:

The prosecutor asks the convicted person: "Are you such and such?"

Yes, the answer follows.

On such and such a day, such and such a month and a year such and such, the court sentenced to death. You have filed a cassation appeal. She was rejected. Do you know about this?

Yes, - the answer follows, which, however, does not in the least bother the people gathered in the room.

Was it then and then that you filed a petition for clemency?

Yes.

I will inform you that it was rejected and the verdict upheld.

This is the most dramatic moment. The person understands that there is no longer any hope. The most unexpected things can happen to him. He can withdraw into himself and not react in any way to the words of the prosecutor. Can attack the speaker. And then vigilant guards will instantly twist him. He may have involuntary urination and vomit. Sometimes people pass out. But most often they turn into an inarticulate mooing creature that is unable to stand on its feet. This "wadded feet" effect is present in almost all eyewitness accounts.

Most of the murderers (it is they who make up the contingent of suicide bombers), who did not spare their victims, who took the lives of defenseless old people, women, children, on the verge of non-existence begin to beg the people around them not to hurt them, spare them, suspend or postpone the execution, call some mythical personalities, send them to uranium mines, they promise enormous wealth supposedly hidden by them ...

But the condemned man has only a few minutes to live. He is asked to go into the next room, ostensibly in order to sign some documents. He crosses the threshold. Takes a step, another. And gets a bullet in the head.

A specially trained professional is shooting from a service weapon. The performers are taken from the over-conscripts of the internal troops. They are monitored by doctors. According to people involved in the execution of the sentence, an increase in salary, a longer vacation, and some kind of pension benefits are due.

After the shot, a doctor enters the room and pronounces death. Bodies are not handed over to relatives. They are presented with the usual death certificate (it is prepared before execution), where in the column "cause of death" it is written: "by the verdict of the court."

The place of execution is quickly washed with hoses. The corpse is packed in a canvas bag. After that, the executed are buried in special cemeteries, the location of which is kept in deep secrecy.

Chapter 3 The death penalty as an ethical problem

Throughout history, many people have expressed their thoughts on the death penalty. In the past, most people considered the death penalty as a perfectly just way to protect society from a certain type of crime, and neither the death penalty itself, nor its horrific forms caused any discussion or condemnation.

With the development of human society, the attitude towards the problem of the death penalty changes. Many social thinkers linked the principle of humanism to the demand for the abolition of the death penalty. Its opponents were, for example, Rousseau, Voltaire, Marx.

In Russia, S. Desnitsky, F.V. Ushakov, A.P. Kunitsin, O. Goreglyad, G. Solntsev, I.V. Lopukhin, A.N. Radishchev, P.I. Pestel, A.I. Herzen. N.G. Chernyshevsky, L.N. Tolstoy, V.S. Soloviev, V.G. Korolenko and many other Russian thinkers. At the same time, many approved the death penalty, including M.M. Shcherbatov, N.M. Karamzin, V.A. Zhukovsky, P. Lodiy, L. Tsvetaev, S. Bariev, I. Foinitsky, N. Sergeevsky and dr.

Let's take a closer look at the arguments in favor of and against the death penalty.

3.1 Ethical arguments for the death penalty

I am in general for the humanization of the punishment system,

But I still think that the worst

Crimes - monstrous, cynical -

Deserve the death penalty. Of such

Criminals cannot be corrected and punished,

Because there is no punishment commensurate with them

Wine. Such people have no right to live on

The earth. After all, it would never occur to anyone

Cage a venomous snake or tarantula

In the hope that in 15 years they will turn,

Let's say a snake or a May beetle.

A. Kuleshov, writer

The ethical arguments by virtue of which the death penalty is considered morally justified, that is, necessary from the point of view of public good, justice, humanism, include the following:

The death penalty is a just and moral deed, as it is used as a punishment for murder.

But:

Although justice is in fact based on the principle of equivalent, it is precisely this principle that is not respected in this case. Murder, for which the death penalty is imposed, is classified as a crime. The death penalty itself is an act state activities... It turns out that a crime is equated with an act of state activity;

The death penalty exceeds other forms of murder according to the psychological criterion, since the prior knowledge of death, its expectation, parting with relatives, aversion to the executioner makes murder as a result of the death penalty psychologically more difficult than in other cases;

Equivalence in the death penalty is not observed, since the forces of the executioner and the victim are obviously unequal;

The death penalty is an act of intimidation and therefore prevents the recurrence of such crimes.

But:

The death of a criminal in the sense of intimidation is less effective than his long, hopelessly painful existence outside of freedom. She really makes a strong impression, but this impression does not last long in the memory;

It has been statistically established that the use of the death penalty does not diminish the crimes for which it is used in society, just as its abolition does not increase them. So, in 1894, during a public execution in France, a certain Mr. Sh., One of the spectators climbed a tree in front of the guillotine in order to better observe what was happening. They wanted to take it off, so they remembered it well. A year later, this man was executed at the same place, for the same crime that was committed by Mr. Sh.

The death penalty benefits society by freeing it from dangerous criminals.

But:

Society could also protect itself from them by imprisonment for life. If we talk about the good of society, it should be to make up for the damage caused by the perpetrator. And the death penalty does not compensate anything.

The death penalty is humane, since life-long, hopeless, unbearably heavy confinement in solitary confinement is worse than instant death.

But:

Prison conditions can be made more acceptable;

It would be logical to give the right of choice to the criminal himself.

In general, only such an action can be considered humane (moral) for which the consent of the person concerned is obtained.

The death penalty is an easy and cheap way to get rid of a criminal. Russian jurist A.F. Kistyakovsky (an opponent of the death penalty) called it "non-violent punishment."

But:

It is through the death penalty that the state gets rid of the criminal, demonstrating visible strength while actually being weak.

3.2 Ethical arguments against the death penalty

A murderer is a man plus a murder.

True justice is done when

When the judge punishes murder

And revives a person.

V.R. Krishna Iyer, former judge

Supreme Court, India

The death penalty has a morally corrupting effect on society.

It has such an impact through the people involved in it, and the fact that in society the very fact of the existence of the death penalty affirms the idea that murder, at least in some cases, can be a just, good deed.

Citizens are motivated to act as guardians of justice themselves and by means of lynching to deal with criminals (for example, a murderer), especially if they are of the opinion that government officials are performing their functions in bad faith. Proof of the corrupting influence of the death penalty is that it is perceived as a vice. It is performed as a shameful deed, the executioners hide their profession, such methods of the death penalty are invented so that it would be impossible to find out who the executioner is at all. Prosecutors demanding and judges passing the death sentence would never themselves agree to be its executors. The whole pragmatics of this act is arranged in such a way that no one would feel individual responsibility for it and could not be considered guilty. L.N. Tolstoy called this the second deception (the first deception, in his opinion, consists in the desire to give violence a legal, morally sanctioned character): “Through state structure, in which, as in a basket woven from rods, all the ends are so hidden that it is impossible to find them, responsibility for the crimes committed is so hidden from people that people, committing the most terrible deeds, do not see their responsibility for them. Some have demanded, others have decided, still others have confirmed, the fourth have proposed, the fifth have reported, the sixth have signed, the seventh have executed.

The death penalty is an anti-legal act.

The right is based on the balance of personal freedom and the common good. The death penalty, destroying the individual, destroys itself legal relationship... This is not a right, but, in the words of C. Beccarria, "a war between a nation and a citizen."

Legal punishment is always individualized, that is, it is aimed exclusively at the culprit. In the case of the death penalty, the relatives of the offender are also actually punished, since it has such a strong effect on them that it can drive them to madness or suicide, not to mention severe moral suffering.

The idea of legal punishment, like punishment in general, is that an act is punished, not a person. At the same time, it is assumed that a person has more misdeeds, better than them, that he can correct himself, can overcome committed crime so that it is not continued in the following acts. In the case of the death penalty, a person is punished, he is denied the right to be a person, to straighten his life.

In law, the principle of the recoverability of punishment operates, which makes it possible to some extent to make reversible cases when a miscarriage of justice is committed. With regard to the death penalty, this principle is violated: the one who was killed cannot be brought back to life, just as it is impossible to compensate him for the harm caused by a legal error. For example, 349 mistaken death sentences were passed in the United States, 23 of which were carried out. There is a known case in Soviet practice when, before finding a real killer-maniac, over 10 false killers were caught, many of whom "confessed" and were sentenced to death.

The death penalty violates the limits of a person's competence.

Man has no power over life. Life and death are not homogeneous, but that is why the problems of life cannot be solved with the help of death. Man chooses a form of life, a way of life, but he does not choose life itself. The appearance of an individual in the world is not due to his prior consent. He cannot be the master of life and death. Even the right of a person to control his own life (the right to suicide), let alone the lives of others, defies rational justification and moral justification. The right to the death penalty is associated with the concept of the omnipotence of the state, asserts its unlimited power over citizens. A person cannot unconditionally judge guilt or talk about the absolute incorrigibility of a criminal.

The death sentence often produces in the one to whom it is intended, a deep spiritual upheaval, the sentenced person begins to look at the world with other, enlightened, not at all criminal eyes. In some cases, execution, even if it is not a miscarriage of justice, is carried out when there is no need for it.

It is noticed that the judges reading the death sentence experience an involuntary inner shudder. This fact, as well as a persistent aversion to the profession of the executioner, an instinctive unwillingness to communicate with him, can be considered signs that the death penalty is in fact something wicked, deceitful. This is evidenced by the inhuman horror associated with the murder.

The death penalty is an attempt on the fundamental moral principle of the intrinsic value of the human person, its holiness.

Since the principle "Thou shalt not kill" exists, the death penalty may have a moral sanction, since it is something exactly the opposite. The death penalty is an attempt to smuggle into the idea that murder can be a human, reasonable deed. The relationship between the death penalty, murder and morality was expressed by V. S. Solovyov: "The death penalty is murder as such, absolute murder, that is, a fundamental denial of the fundamental moral attitude towards man."

Chapter 4. Study of the question of the attitude of citizens

to the problem of the death penalty

Numerous polls conducted in Russia show that the majority of the population has a negative attitude towards the complete abolition of the death penalty. Of the respondents, 6.6% of the respondents supported the complete abolition of the death penalty. The answers of men and women were practically the same.

Among those who do not have secondary education, 15.8% supported the abolition of the death penalty, among those with secondary education - 6.3%, and among those with higher education - only 5%.

A significant part of the respondents (69.1%) believe that the death penalty should be used, but only in the most extreme cases, as rarely as possible.

Among the respondents, one in five believed that the death penalty should be applied, and as widely as possible (3, 29-30).

We conducted a survey of residents of the village. A lighthouse on the problem of the death penalty (see Appendix 1).

54 respondents were interviewed. Of these, 31 are women and 23 are men.

As a result of processing the questionnaires, it turned out:

the majority of respondents (33%) have complete information about the use of the death penalty in our country; the majority (60%) of students do not have such information high school 14-18 years old;

a significant part of the respondents (57%) are against the complete abolition of the death penalty;

32% of the respondents are in favor of the complete abolition of the death penalty, of whom the majority are 14-18 years old and 26-45 years old; the majority of workers are in favor of the complete abolition of the death penalty. The answers of men (28%) and women (32%) differ little;

The majority of respondents of all ages and all social groups (57%), all levels of education are against the complete abolition of the death penalty;

the absolute majority of all respondents (82%) support the use of the death penalty only in exceptional cases, only for especially grave crimes;

The majority of pensioners over 60 years of age (67%) believe that the death penalty should be applied as widely as possible;

100% of employees and employees higher education advocate the use of the death penalty only in exceptional cases (see Appendix II).

Conclusion

All of the above allows us to draw a number of conclusions:

The death penalty is one of the most difficult problems of applied ethics, a problem about the moral qualifications of which there is no consensus in the public mind, either among specialists or among the general public.

In the past, all states used the death penalty. Currently, the death penalty is not used in all states. The Russian Federation has imposed a moratorium on the use of the death penalty.

In international law, there are trends towards the complete abolition of the death penalty and towards its humanization. Modern norms of civilization already exclude the qualified death penalty and prescribe it to be carried out in a quick and painless form.

There are ethical arguments for and against the death penalty.

Numerous polls conducted in Russia, as well as a survey of residents of the village. The Okoneshnikovsky lighthouse of the Omsk region shows that the majority of the population has a negative attitude towards the complete abolition of the death penalty.

In connection with these facts, we believe that the issue of abolishing the death penalty in the Russian Federation should be resolved not at the parliamentary level, but through a nationwide referendum. This should be preceded by a broad discussion of the problem.

In order to create conditions for discussion about the permissibility of the death penalty and the implementation of certain moral choices, we created blogs "Are you" for "or" against "the death penalty?" on the website of our school and in the mail.ru system (see.http://blogs.mail.ru/mail/mayak.shkola/#7E5837BC39300C69, http://mayakshkola.ucoz.ru/forum/2-1-1)

In order to inform high school students about the problem of the death penalty, a multimedia presentation “The Death Penalty as a Problem of Applied Ethics” was created (see electronic attachment).

Bibliography

Sources of

Constitution of the Russian Federation - M., 1997.

The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - M., 1998.

Literature

Buyansky S.G. The death penalty: for and against / "Jurist". - 1999, No. 9.

Mikhlin A.S. Death penalty: yesterday, today, tomorrow. - M., 1997.

Mikhlin A.S. Methods of using the death penalty: history and modernity / "State and Law", 1997, No. 1.

The death penalty: for and against / ed. Kelina S.G. - M., 1989.

Ethics / ed. A.A. Guseinova, E.L. Dubko - M., 2003.

Appendix I

Application form

Dear respondent, we are studying the attitude of citizens of the Russian Federation to the problem of the death penalty. We ask you to answer the proposed questions by choosing one of the proposed answer options. Thank you for your participation in the survey.

To you:

A) 14-18 years old;

B) 19-25 years old;

C) 26-45 years old;

D) 46-60 years old;

E) over 60 years.

Your social status:

a) student;

b) student;

c) worker;

d) an employee;

e) entrepreneur;

f) retired.

Your education:

A) incomplete secondary;

B) average;

B) secondary special;

D) higher professional.

What's your gender:

A) male;

B) female.

Do you have information about the death penalty in our country?

A) yes;

B) no;

V ) find it difficult to answer.

How do you feel about the complete abolition of the death penalty?

A) for;

B) against;

C) I find it difficult to answer.

In your opinion, the death penalty should be applied

A) as wide as possible;

B) as rarely as possible;

C) only in exceptional cases.

51. Ethics of the death penalty

Discussions on this issue continue to this day. Let us first consider the arguments that some authors put forward “for” the death penalty, and then the possible objections to them.

We are talking here about ethical, moral arguments, given which the death penalty can be considered justified, not just accepted by force, possible. The key arguments are as follows.

1. The death penalty is a just retribution, it is a moral act, since it is used as a punishment for a murder.

This is the most common argument. It would seem to be very strong and persuasive, since justice is, in fact, based here on the position of the equivalent. But it is precisely the principle of the equivalent that is not observed in this case.

Murder, for which the death penalty is punished, is classified here as a crime. And the death penalty itself is an act of state activity. It turns out that a crime is equated with an act of state activity.

The death penalty is superior to other forms of murder on the basis of the psychological criterion. The convict knows about death in advance, expects it, breaks up with his family, this and much more makes murder by death penalty psychologically, undoubtedly, more difficult than in most other cases.

2. The death penalty may be unfair in relation to the person to whom it should be applied, but nevertheless it is justified, since by its intimidating action it helps to prevent the commission of the same crimes by others.

This argument is easily refuted with a deeper approach. The death of a criminal in the sense of intimidating others is less effective than his long, hopelessly painful existence outside of freedom. The death penalty as a punishment can indeed make a very strong impression, but this impression does not last long in a person's memory.

3. The death penalty is good for society by freeing it from very dangerous criminals.

To this, one can argue that society could protect itself from them and through life-long prison isolation. If we talk about the good of society, it should be to make up for the damage caused by the perpetrator. And the death penalty does not compensate for anything.

4. The death penalty can be justified by humane considerations in relation to the person who committed the crime, since life, blind, unbearably heavy confinement in solitary confinement is much worse than a quick death.

5. The death penalty is the easiest and cheapest way to get rid of a criminal. Russian lawyer A. F. Kistyakovsky wrote: "Its only advantage in the eyes of the peoples is that it is a very simple, cheap and not puzzling punishment." Thus, the arguments in support of the death penalty do not hold up to moral scrutiny.

From the book In Search of the Moral Absolute: comparative analysis ethical systems author Lutzer Irwin W

From the book Ethics: lecture notes the author Anikin Daniil Alexandrovich

1. Historical preconditions for the emergence of the death penalty Today, the most urgent questions have become about the practice of using the death penalty. Its supporters and opponents put forward their arguments. What is the ethical side of this problem? The death penalty, first of all, is

From the book Ethics the author Zubanova Svetlana Gennadievna

3. Ethical arguments against the death penalty Although an examination of the historical dynamics of the problem of the death penalty shows that it is increasingly losing its ethical sanction, is losing public support and is gradually being ousted from legal practice, nevertheless

From book Everyday life eastern harem the author Kaziev Shapi Magomedovich

49. Historical preconditions for the emergence of the death penalty Today, the most relevant questions are the practice of using the death penalty. Its supporters and opponents put forward their arguments. What is the ethical side of this problem? The death penalty, first of all, is

From the book Sexual Life in Ancient rome by Kiefer Otto

52. Arguments against the death penalty Consider the ethical arguments against the death penalty. 1. The death penalty has a morally corrupting effect on human society; it has a direct impact directly through the people who are involved in it, and

From the book On Imitation of Christ the author Kempian Thomas

Torture and Executions To arouse suspicion, and even worse - the anger of the master was for a concubine or wife tantamount to signing a death sentence. “Who knows how many blood and tears have flowed behind the impenetrable double walls and how many innocent souls were sacrificed

From the book Russian Eros "Roman" Thoughts with Life the author Gachev Georgy Dmitrievich

From the book Life and customs of tsarist Russia author Anishkin V.G.

Chapter 24. On judgment and execution for sinners In all matters, look at the end, see how you will stand before a strict Judge, from Whom nothing is hidden: You cannot propitiate Him with gifts, and He does not accept excuses, but He will judge in truth. Oh wretched and insane sinner, what answer will you give to God,

From the book From Edo to Tokyo and Back. Culture, life and customs of Japan of the Tokugawa era the author Prasol Alexander Fedorovich

National executions 25. XII.66. Waking up at night after Polish vodka at Pan Pilevsky's on Christmas Eve - the Nativity of Christ, where God sent me yesterday to the vacant appliance on the table, so my arrival gave them an even number - 6, which means joy for the whole year (think!

From the book The Book of Great Navi: Chaosophy and Russian Navoslavie the author Ilya Cherkasov

Executions As we know, only eight days have passed since the death of his beloved wife Anastasia, and Ivan has already decided on a new marriage. From that time on, fun began in the palace. At first, the king was amused with jokes and conversations, then feasts began, they said that wine pleases the heart,

From the author's book

An example of a sophisticated execution Having declared traitors to the noble boyars, whom he suspected of being connected with bishops and other clergy who encroached on his power, Ivan again sentenced many innocent people to execution, because the evidence, as always, was false.

From the author's book

Archers' executions The mass executions of the archers took place on 30 September. Gallows were placed at all the gates of the White City. Crowds of people gathered to watch the criminals. Patriarch Adrian, following the custom of his ancestors, with an icon of the Mother of God, came to Peter to ask for mercy on the condemned, but Peter,

From the author's book

Justice and executions Serious crimes under Peter were punishable by burning. For this, they built a small wooden shed, covered it with straw from the outside and from the inside, and set it on fire. The offender was suffocating in smoke and burned. The criminals were also beheaded and hanged.

From the author's book

Repressions and executions As you know, Alexei fled abroad from his father's anger, but, intimidated by Tolstoy and Rumyantsev, sent on a special mission by Peter, agreed to return on condition that he was allowed to marry Euphrosyne and live in the village. Peter gave such consent, and

From the author's book

Zeal in the Mortal Abode (Liber I.XIII) I 1. Truly, the Mortal Abode is this entire Manifest World. 2. And everything that was born will die sooner or later, and, having passed the Path of the Dead, will be reborn again, in order to then die again, - and again, and again, - again and again being born and dying in

Discussions on this issue continue to this day. Let us first consider the arguments that some authors put forward “for” the death penalty, and then the possible objections to them.

We are talking here about ethical, moral arguments, given which the death penalty can be considered justified, not just accepted by force, possible. The key arguments are as follows.

1. The death penalty is a just retribution, it is a moral act, since it is used as a punishment for a murder.

3. The death penalty is good for society by freeing it from very dangerous criminals.

Probably the most acute and painful from the point of view of morality is the question of the justification of such a method of punishment as the death penalty. In the case of the death penalty, the main moral problem of punishment acquires the most acute sounding, because the punishment in this case does not consist in causing suffering or inconvenience to the offender, but in the destruction of his very personality. It should be remembered that, like any other punishment, the death penalty does not serve as a direct and immediate way to save other individuals. It follows from this that the moral arguments in favor of maintaining this punitive measure must be particularly strong and persuasive.

Three such arguments have emerged in the history of ethical thought. One is of a retrospective nature, the other two are prospective. It can be assumed that only the death penalty serves as a truly equivalent retribution for the most serious attempts against human life. It can be argued that only a real possibility of losing one's life by a court verdict is a sufficient deterrent for those who could commit such attempts. Finally, it can be assumed that only the death penalty is guaranteed to rid society of the most dangerous criminals who are prone to recidivism.

Opponents of the death penalty construct three lines of criticism of this line of argument, which can be seen as three interconnected lines of defense. The first is that neither equivalence nor the deterrent effect of the death penalty should even be discussed, since their discussion is a consequence of adopting morally unacceptable premises. The wording "the death penalty as a result of a fair judgment", or in other words," the violent killing of a person for moral reasons, "is a contradiction in concepts, since morality in general and justice in particular stand for the protection of human life, proclaim its sanctity and inviolability. According to V.S.Solovyov, the death penalty is "absolute murder" is "a fundamental denial of the fundamental moral attitude towards man."

The second line of criticism is aimed at discrediting specific arguments in favor of the death penalty. It is intended to demonstrate the advantage of other measures of punishment that occupy the top of the punitive pyramid, but at the same time are not associated with causing death (primarily life imprisonment). First, the death penalty cannot be considered an equivalent sanction even for the most serious, serial attempts against life, accompanied by humiliation and abuse of victims. After all, although the killing of a victim by a criminal is accompanied by acute negative experiences of despair, fear, pain, etc., causing death by court verdict, which does not give the sentenced person any hope of salvation, creates in him a feeling of complete helplessness, acts as a much more serious damage. To this it should be added that the death penalty eliminates the possibility of any gradations that ensure the correspondence between the severity of the crime and the punishment, and the only way to correct this deficiency is the shocking moral sense of the practice of "qualified" the death penalty. Second, the deterrent effect of the death penalty is not supported by sociological research. In this respect, it is a murder meaningless for the public interest. Thirdly, life imprisonment is no less effective way of permanently removing hardened criminals from society than the death penalty.

The third line of reasoning emphasizes the practical difficulties and negative consequences associated with the preservation of the institution of the death penalty. Application of this legal sanction turns into a value declaration of the state that misleads citizens. If the law, which is an expression of collective will and fixation regulatory framework coexistence, argues that human life is not always sacred, that murder can receive moral justification in some special cases, then it contributes to the emergence of a dangerous gap in the system of moral prohibitions. Citizens who receive such a "signal" from legislators develop an unjustifiably light attitude towards the use of deadly violence; they receive additional grounds to justify murders motivated by the need for revenge. Moreover, unlike other forms of punishment, the death penalty is truly irrevocable and final. A miscarriage of justice in the event that this type of punishment is carried out can no longer be corrected by canceling the sentence and reimbursing the harm to the innocent victim.

This deeply layered system of argumentation creates the impression that supporters of the death penalty continue to insist on their position not because of some reasonable conviction, but succumbing to those irrational psychological attitudes that still shape the opinion of the majority of the population in many countries of the world (including countries that have abolished this type of punishment). However, this is not quite true. It should be borne in mind that in modern discussions about the death penalty, its supporters use more complex and complex arguments than the triad presented above. It is this circumstance that preserves the status of an "open" ethical problem behind the question of the admissibility and obligatory nature of this institution. The modernized position of the defenders of the death penalty boils down to several main theses.

In response to the general objection that the death penalty is incompatible with moral respect for human life, it is thought that the death penalty may be the only way to show respect for the lives of victims of the most serious premeditated murders. It is supplemented by reasoning about the possibility of a guilty loss of a certain individual rights a person who shows disrespect for the rights of others. In this perspective, the death penalty acts as a completely permissible measure against those who have committed a deliberate, repeated attempt on human life, accompanied by humiliation or humiliation of the victim.

As for the destructive consequences for the moral climate of maintaining the death penalty, two circumstances should be borne in mind. First, any form of punishment can be presented as disrespect for the personality of the offender and as an "absolute" moral violation: if the death penalty is "absolute murder", then imprisonment is "an absolute attempt on freedom", and a fine or confiscation is "absolute robbery. " Thus, criticism of the death penalty should automatically grow into criticism of punishment as such, however, the position of the majority of supporters of the abolition of this form of punishment does not imply such radicalism. Second, the "brutalization" of a society that retains the death penalty is not a sociologically proven fact. But even if this fact is proved, the degree of "brutalization" may turn out to be negligible.

The lack of equivalence of retribution can also be challenged. If we are talking about the allegedly incomparable severity of damage that gives rise to the expectation and execution of the death penalty, then the hopelessness of the situation and the helplessness of the victim of a crime, according to a number of criteria, are much higher than the hopelessness of the situation and the helplessness of a criminal sentenced to death. The latter has legal guarantees in relation to torture and bullying, he had the opportunity to legally defend his interest, while the victim of a crime is often completely at the mercy of another person who does not comply with any rules and restrictions. If we turn to the absence of gradations, which makes it impossible to comply with the principle of correspondence between punishment and the severity of the crime, then life imprisonment has the same disadvantages as the death penalty, because the appointment of terms of imprisonment exceeding the possible duration of human life is purely symbolic.

Finally, the most controversial issue is that of the deterrent effect. Modern advocates of the death penalty are aware of the state of sociological research on this issue. They record the fact that sociologists continue to argue about the presence or absence of such an effect, constantly pointing out to each other that the conclusions pro and the conclusions contra do not take into account the actions of other factors that determine the level of crime in different countries and regions. Consequently, from the point of view of the science of society, the answer to the question about the relationship between the number of especially dangerous crimes and the persistence of the death penalty remains uncertain, and this should be the starting point for normative discourse on the necessity of the death penalty. When deciding on the fate of a social institution under conditions of uncertainty in the results of its functioning, it is possible to remove this uncertainty in favor of various social groups whose interests it affects. The justification for a decision in such situations is determined precisely by which group gets preference. The supporters of the death penalty retention remove the uncertainty in favor of the group of victims of the crime, the supporters of its abolition - in favor of the criminals. From the point of view of opponents of the death penalty, it is better to be responsible for additional cases murder, if it turns out that there is a deterrent effect, than for the useless execution of a criminal, if it turns out that there is no such effect. This choice raises serious moral doubts. Especially in communities with high levels of crimes against life.

Let's take a closer look at the arguments in favor of and against the death penalty.

Ethical arguments for the death penalty.

I believe that the most terrible crimes - monstrous, cynical - deserve the death penalty. Such criminals cannot be corrected or punished, because there is no punishment commensurate with their guilt. Such people have no right to live on earth.

The ethical arguments by virtue of which the death penalty is considered morally justified, that is, necessary from the point of view of public good, justice, humanism, include the following:

The death penalty is a just and moral deed, as it is used as a punishment for especially grave crimes against life.

The death penalty is an act of intimidation and therefore prevents the recurrence of such crimes.

The death penalty benefits society by freeing it from dangerous criminals.

The death penalty is humane, since life-long, hopeless, unbearably heavy confinement in solitary confinement is worse than instant death.

The death penalty is a simple and cheap way to get rid of a criminal, excluding the economic injustice of imprisonment.

The death penalty excludes the possibility of relapse

The terrorist threat is excluded in cases where hostages are taken with the aim of freeing life-sentenced Islamist terrorists.

The death penalty prevents the danger of life imprisonment, since it excludes the possibility of escape or commission of other crimes by convicts in custody

Ethical arguments against the death penalty

The death penalty has a morally corrupting effect on society. It has such an impact through the people involved in it, and the fact that in society the very fact of the existence of the death penalty affirms the idea that murder, at least in some cases, can be a just, good deed.

The death penalty is an anti-legal act. The right is based on the balance of personal freedom and the common good. The death penalty, destroying the individual, destroys the very legal relationship. This is not a right, but, in the words of C. Beccarria, "a war between a nation and a citizen."

The death penalty violates the limits of a person's competence. Man has no power over life. Life and death are not homogeneous, but that is why the problems of life cannot be solved with the help of death. Man chooses a form of life, a way of life, but he does not choose life itself. The appearance of an individual in the world is not due to his prior consent. He cannot be the master of life and death. Even the right of a person to control his own life (the right to suicide), let alone the lives of others, defies rational justification and moral justification.

The death penalty is an attempt on the fundamental moral principle of the intrinsic value of the human person, its holiness. Since the principle "Thou shalt not kill" exists, the death penalty may have a moral sanction, since it is something exactly the opposite.