Scheduled Execution: Why this penalty still exists
In early July in Japan, the founder of the sect was executed Aum Shinrikyo (an organization whose activity is prohibited in the territory of the Russian Federation) Shoko Asaharu and six of his associates. The death penalty seems to be a relic of the past (I want to immediately recall the Inquisition or the execution of political criminals in Europe) - it is believed that it has no place in the modern state. Nevertheless, it is still much more widespread than one could imagine. We understand how it happened and how the supporters of the death penalty explain its preservation.
The death penalty in the world abolished gradually. Venezuela became the first country to do this completely: in 1863 the death penalty was abolished for all crimes, regardless of their severity, including crimes against the state. The first European country to abolish this measure of punishment was Portugal - she did it in 1867. By 1960, the death penalty was abolished in about twenty-five countries (although in some it was retained for crimes against the state), and towards the end of the century they became even more - they were added to those where the ban was not fixed by law, but fact measure is prohibited.
The last death sentence in the UK was carried out in 1964: Peter Allen and Gwynne Evans were hanged for brutally killing a friend for money. Attitudes towards the executions in society changed at that time — perhaps, if the execution of the sentence were postponed for a couple of weeks, it could be replaced with a life sentence. In the same year, a moratorium was imposed on the death penalty, and five years later, in 1969, it was finally abolished.
Today, the death penalty is allowed in fifty-three countries - as of the end of 2017, at least 21,919 people are awaiting execution of the sentence. China is considered the leader in the number of executions: according to Amnesty International, more sentences are carried out here than in all other countries of the world combined (thousands of cases), although the exact figures are unknown: this information is classified at the state level. In addition to China, most of the executions carried out last year in the world, accounted for only four countries: Iran (more than half of the officially confirmed cases of execution), Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Pakistan. In almost all of Europe, the death penalty has been abolished, the only exception is Belarus. Japan is one of the few countries with a developed economy, where they still resort to at least punishment; besides her, the list includes the USA (although it is prohibited in some states) and Singapore.
Some supporters of the death penalty say that it is necessary to make the future safer, others - that it is needed as a response to the most brutal crimes
In Russia, the death penalty is not legally prohibited, but since 1996, when the country joined the Council of Europe, a moratorium has actually been applied to it - life imprisonment is applied instead. The last person executed in Russia was Sergey Golovkin, who killed eleven boys from 1986 to 1992: in 1994 he was sentenced to capital punishment, and in August 1996 he was executed. The moratorium expired in 2010, but in 2009 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation extended it until the State Duma ratified the protocol on the abolition of the death penalty.
In the world, the attitude towards the death penalty remains controversial: while some are convinced that this is an inhuman measure, and spending on the maintenance of prisoners before execution is also high (dangerous criminals can wait for the execution of the sentence for more than ten years), others insist on its necessity. Bahrain, Jordan and Kuwait last year resumed the death penalty after a long break, but its supporters can be found in countries where the moratorium is firmly in place.
Supporters of the death penalty usually adhere to two types of arguments: some say that it is necessary to make the future safer (for example, to prevent further crimes), others - that it is needed as a response to the most brutal crimes, as retribution on behalf of society.
The “eye for an eye” approach is actively used, for example, in China. In 2013, four foreigners were executed in the country who were accused of killing thirteen Chinese sailors. Shortly thereafter, Hu Sijin, editor of the state-owned Chinese newspaper The Global Times, wrote on the Weibo social network: "We must resolutely seek retribution and send a stern warning to those who kill the Chinese people." Citizens of countries where the death penalty is permitted, too, often explain this with a desire for retribution. For example, according to a 2014 survey, in the United States, 35% of participants supporting such punishment explain this by saying that it “fits the crime”, the principle of “an eye for an eye”, or that the criminal “took away someone’s life”.
The idea of abolishing the death penalty from time to time sounds in Russia. For example, in 2013, after the terrorist attacks in Volgograd, LDPR deputy Roman Khudyakov introduced a bill to the State Duma proposing the introduction of the death penalty for terrorism, pedophilia and inclination to use drugs, if this led to the death of two or more people. He also proposed to abolish the legal provisions prohibiting the use of the death penalty for women (now it applies only to men), as well as to change the age limit - reduce the minimum age of the death penalty from eighteen to sixteen years, and abolish the maximum age of sixty-five. “The Criminal Code is not as hard on criminals as it should be. See how many terrorist attacks are explosions in a bus, at a train station, or in a trolley bus,” he said.
Most often, the proposals to return the death penalty sound precisely in the context of terrorism. The leader of "Fair Russia" Sergei Mironov after the collapse of the Russian aircraft in Egypt and the terrorist attacks in Paris proposed to introduce the death penalty for terrorists and their accomplices - and then again repeated this proposal after the terrorist attack on Nice. This item is in the electoral program of Vladimir Zhirinovsky. "The death penalty - we can meet, but we warn everyone in advance. Crime does not diminish it, but citizens want it, we are ready. At least for certain offenses - drug trafficking in large parties, terrorists, major thieves, rapists. These four categories can be restored, "he said in January of this year.
At the same time, the argument that the death penalty is necessary as a punishment for the most serious crimes does not always work. According to research, in the US, the death sentence is much more often associated not with the cruelty of the crime, but, for example, with mental and developmental characteristics, the fact that in childhood the offender was abused or his parents did not pay attention to him, insufficient work of defense lawyers, insufficient consideration case or the fact that the victim was white. Of the twenty-three cases of people against whom the death sentence was executed in the United States in 2017, at least one of these factors appeared in twenty.
The second point of view (that the death penalty is needed to fight crime) was recently favored by US President Donald Trump - he proposed introducing the death penalty for drug dealers to fight the country's opioid epidemic. “If we don’t use drug dealers, we waste time,” he said in March. “And this includes the death penalty.”
You can not ignore the imperfections of the judicial system: according to specialists, in the US up to 4% of death sentences can be false
This position is explained by Harry Rogers, a former medical examiner and detective who specializes in murder cases. He believes that the death penalty can be an effective measure for two reasons: “Firstly, it is obvious that the death penalty guarantees that a person will never become a repeat offender. Yes, opponents of this point of view believe that life imprisonment without the possibility of early release will same effect, but this is not the same. It happens that dangerous criminals escape or find legal ways to get out of prison and kill again, but when the killer is dead, he no longer threatens society. Point. " Rogers’s second argument is that the death penalty may force criminals to interact more with the authorities, such as forcing them to give out valuable information in exchange for a change of punishment: prevent crime in the future. "
The question of how the death penalty helps fight crime remains open. For example, according to a study of the crime rate in Singapore (the death penalty is allowed there) and Hong Kong (there is no death penalty), there is no difference between them. Another study showed that between the number of murders in the US states where the death penalty is prohibited, and in the states where it is allowed, there is not much difference. Of course, these data are not enough to extrapolate them to the situation as a whole - but it is also too early to draw far-reaching conclusions about the positive impact of the death penalty. Moreover, one cannot ignore the imperfections of the judicial system: according to specialists, in the USA up to 4% of death sentences can be false.
The number of death sentences in the world is gradually decreasing: in 2017, there were at least 993 death sentences that were carried out in twenty-three countries - this is 4% less than in 2016, and 39% less than in 2015. In 2017, 2,591 death sentences were imposed (in 2016 there were 3,117). Nevertheless, there is no reason to believe that the death penalty will be abolished in the world in the near future. This measure remains extremely popular even where it is prohibited. For example, according to polls, in the UK they more often support her return than cancellation.
According to the Public Opinion Foundation, in 2015, 60% of Russians surveyed considered the death penalty acceptable (22% were opposed) - in 2001, 80% adhered to this point of view. More than 70% of respondents said that the death penalty is permissible to apply for pedophilia, more than 50% - for terrorism and murder, 46% - for rape. 8% of respondents believe that the death penalty could be introduced for bribery, 4% - for the desecration of religious shrines, and 1% - for non-payment of taxes.
Photo: Wikimedia Commons (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
