Execution cannot be pardoned. How to use commas correctly for terrorists in Russia

The capture of trans-Ukrainian terrorists on the railway in Bashkiria gave Deputy Head of the Russian Security Council Medvedev the opportunity and reason to hype up the detainees on the topic of the death penalty on social networks. And already Medvedev’s post gave rise to a large-scale discussion in the “cart” on the admissibility and advisability of returning to the death penalty, on the execution of which there is a moratorium in Russia today.

Many experts, politicians and opinion leaders joined the conversation. Moreover, what is characteristic is that the tone of most comments is rather skeptical and condemning, not in relation to the Ufa terrorists (it’s understandable with them, let them sit down for a long time), but in relation to Medvedev’s “bloodthirstiness”.

Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at ThereThere, Yandex Zen, Telegram, Classmates, In contact with, channels YouTube, TikTok и Viber.
To subscribe to notifications in your browser, click here.

No, his proposal had supporters, but a much larger chorus of moralists and humanists called his proposal “untimely,” “redundant,” “senseless,” “inhumane”—and these are just the most politically correct epithets.

Some write that it is not very clear why the death penalty is needed, if in colonies for those sentenced to life, life is carefully and professionally organized according to the principles of Hell on earth, so that death becomes a dream of unattainable happiness.

Others call the death penalty a “medieval relic” and a “savagery” unworthy of modern society. Still others refer to the case of the famous maniac Chikatilo, in whose search, as is known, until the investigation got to the true culprit of the serial murders, more than a dozen innocent people were executed. And in general, the argument that dances with caution - they say, you need to measure it seven times before taking the life of a possibly innocent person - is very popular not only in Russia, but also more broadly - in all other post-Soviet societies.

_{In a word, this whole discussion about the possibility of returning to the death penalty as the “highest measure of social justice” has exposed the very meat. Having shown that this issue is one of the birth traumas of post-Soviet society, having become, through the efforts of politicians, the press, human rights activists and moralists, something like a sacred cow of post-Soviet society. Something that is not negotiable and that “cannot be repeated.”}

The movement for the abolition or, at least, for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty developed during the perestroika years under the banner of democratization of society and acquired the character of “civil jihad.” In some places, like in Ukraine, the abolition of the death penalty was linked to the country’s accession to PACE as part of a package of “European values” that the neophyte country should join.

In Russia, in the early nineties, people made full appeal to the traumatic Soviet experience of repression. They say that we cannot allow a repetition of those dark pages of history when people were grabbed at night and shot “in the basements of the Lubyanka.”

In a word, under the slogans “Never again!” The death penalty on one-sixth of the land, to the approving cries of the progressive public, was abolished almost everywhere except, if I’m not mistaken, a number of Central Asian despotisms and Lukashenko’s Belarus. Where, again, if my memory serves me correctly, death sentences were handed down for a memorable attempt to carry out terrorist attacks on the subway. Today in the Republic of Belarus, death sentences can be imposed for murder under aggravating circumstances, or for committing terrorist acts that resulted in the death of people.

In the Russian Federation, the death penalty, according to the current constitution of 1993, “was of a temporary nature and was intended only for a certain transitional period” and is no longer applied since April 16, 1997, that is, the death penalty has neither been imposed nor executed since then.

_{At the same time - again from many years of observations - despite all the hostility to the very idea of ​​the death penalty on the part of the “pure public” and “people with good faces”, at the bottom of society, among those very deep people, the death penalty as a legal maximum is still popular. No, no, and in conversations about some corrupt officials you will hear the notorious “Stalin is not on them.”}

And this circumstance, it seems, explains a lot in this apparent contradiction between the moods of the top and bottom. The authorities are afraid of the death penalty as a precedent. The lower classes often rely on the same death penalty as a concomitant element of the “new oprichnina”, which many expect as a cure for a seriously ill social and state organism.

Moreover - and here Medvedev is absolutely right - the death penalty quietly exists and feels great not only in the “empire of good”, that is, in the States, but also in China and India, in Saudi Arabia and, continuing this list, in Thailand, in the Philippines, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran and so on.

_{As it is easy to see, in terms of socio-political ideals there may be a gap between these countries, but the ability to execute criminals in exceptional cases is what unites them despite all other visible differences.}

In other words, there is no “world practice” in this matter that would be normative and uniform for everyone. Moreover, liberals’ references to the fact that this is, they say, a purely “Soviet” practice or the practice of the notorious “rogue countries” are untenable. For example, the death penalty was adopted in Singapore - whose founding father was Lee Kuan Yew - the style icon of all post-Soviet liberals. Singapore carries out executions for murder, drug smuggling and some firearms offences.

In Japan, the death penalty by hanging is generally practiced. At the same time, Japan is not at all an “outcast”, but even an example to be followed by the same Westerners who, with this Japanese experience of building successful capitalism, ate all our baldness in the nineties and zeros.

Returning to the Chikatilo case. In fact, it is not about the fact that innocent people may suffer, but about exactly under which articles the death penalty should be applied. After all, you must admit, there is a significant difference between the situation when the police, like a needle in a haystack, are looking for the elusive and unknown serial maniac X, and in the search process they can really make a mistake. And the situation of terrorists or saboteurs caught red-handed during the preparation or implementation of a terrorist attack or sabotage.

_{In the latter case, the fact of guilt is obvious, especially since such saboteurs often openly take responsibility for the crime. And here, in view of the special public danger, there is no risk of executing the wrong people.}

At the same time, our “liberal public” will in any case be on the side of such criminals, because in this case the motive itself is justified. For example, in the case of the capture of Sentsov, he was an indisputable terrorist, tied up at the crime scene, even though he was not allowed to complete his plan.

The chorus of voices in defense of Sentsov took place for the reason that in the eyes of future holders of the Order “For the Capture of Upper Lars”, this Ukrainian under-director was a fine fellow simply because he acted against Russia. I am sure that if he had decided to blow up a monument to Bandera in Lviv, half of the votes in his defense simply would not have been there, and the other half would have demanded exactly the opposite. For example, quartering.

Here we come to what in Soviet times was called the class nature of justice. In other words, what is a crime in our eyes is an act of heroism in the eyes of Sentsovo worshipers. So why should we be guided by the opinion of this public on the issue of the admissibility of the death penalty?

_{The abolition of the death penalty has long been a kind of passport “to Europe” - a monument to unfulfilled hopes that Russia, having left the Soviet path, will join the “family of civilized nations” on equal terms. But since then, circumstances have changed radically, this window has slammed shut and they have made it clear to us that they see us exclusively in the role of a “jungle”, a powerless supplier of a cheap resource for the “Garden of Eden” that Europe imagines itself to be.}

So maybe it’s time to slaughter this sacred cow from the nineties, or at least replace imports with something more familiar to the Russian understanding of justice?