The right to life is the most important thing in the whole complex of human rights. The cost of human life is not compared to any other values. Criminal law takes an important role in the protection of an individual. It involves responsibility for the most serious violations of the law. Among the crimes that infringe on the individual, the crime against life is the most serious. Thus, the problem of the death penalty is acute in many countries. In any country, the death penalty is not only institute of criminal law, not only the institution of criminal policy, but a socio-cultural phenomenon. This idea is based on a complex interaction of various social factors.
The death penalty (capital punishment) is an execution of the offender convicted to death for committing heinous crimes and acting contrary to the public policy of the country. The death penalty is one of the oldest forms of punishment. At first, it was used according to the principle "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." The principle implies that the fair punishment for causing the death of another person was the death penalty. On the other hand, it played its role and existed in many societies as the custom of blood revenge, which had replaced the death penalty, carried out on behalf of the state.
Almost every society used the death penalty at a certain stage of its development. The prototype of the death penalty was barbaric custom of blood revenge. With the emergence of the state, it acquires a public character and becomes a criminal penalty, which was carried out on behalf of the government. Due to Tatar-Mongolian invasion, death penalty had been very widespread among the nomads as it was the main punishment. For many centuries, the list of crimes, for which the death penalty was provided, had increased and decreased, depending on the will of the master or any other leader. The death penalty was simple and qualified. The simple forms included hanging, drowning and shooting. More qualified forms included quartering, planting on a stake, tearing by animals, chariots or trees and so on. Peter I and many other leaders were known for extreme brutality. The attempt to replace the death penalty with bodily beatings did not bring the desired success. Thousands died in a terrible agony.
In many modern societies, the death penalty has been abolished as impermissible to the Council of Europe. Some countries have abolished the death penalty except for special circumstances such as treason during war. In other countries, the death penalty was abolished in practice, but it is still considered as a higher penalty. The states such as China, the U.S. and others retained the death penalty for offenses specifically identified by legislation. In the countries that practice the death penalty, the method of execution is determined by the law. Traditionally, the most common types of death: hanging, firing squad. The electric chair and lethal injection has become widespread in the United States since the 20th century.
On March 20, 1792, the National Assembly of France approved the use of the guillotine, as the most humane method of enforcement of the death penalty. At that time, burning at the stake, hanging and quartering were used as methods of the death penalty. On this background, guillotine seemed the most humane way of execution. It provided instant death, while the other options with insufficient qualifications of executioner could cause prolonged agony. Since 1890 the best-known method of execution, which can also be attributed to the humane - the electric chair – has been used in the United States. Since the 1920s, gas chamber had been applied for the execution of criminals, who were condemned to death. Within minutes, a man died of asphyxiation. It is a terrible, but the most rapid death. Lethal injection looks as if people just fall asleep. Another humane method of execution is hanging. It is used in more than seventy countries. A person should not die from suffocation, but from rupture of the cervical vertebrae, as it is less painful.
The relevance of the death penalty has changed throughout the history. It is believed that some crimes such as murder and rape deserve to be punished with the death penalty. People supported the use of capital punishment for murders as it could deter murders.
The attitudes towards the death penalty are not unanimous in many societies. In the countries, where it is practiced, there is a spreading movement for its abolition; in the countries, where it is canceled, there are many of supporters of its recovery. The death penalty was abolished on the basis of humanitarian principles, but not because of the people's will. In European countries, where the death penalty was abolished, there was a referendum, and according to the polls, the majority of the population supported the continuation of this type of punishment in all these countries at the time of its cancellation. The deterrent effect of the death penalty provided strong support to resist its abolition.
The presence of the death penalty in the history of mankind is the law of development of society. Being originated as an instrument of vendetta, the state has adopted it as a means of criminal sanctions for the most serious crimes. Throughout most of the stages of the historical development of human society, this sentence did not raise significant doubts. The need for the death penalty and its application is found even in the Bible. However, during the latest, relatively short, period of time, there was a trend towards condemnation of the death penalty as punishment. There were thoughts and arguments for the inappropriacy or injustice of the death penalty. The most important argument in support of capital punishment is a statement about its deterrent effect on potential offenders. Other arguments include prevention of new serious crimes and the principle of retribution for serious crimes. Sunstein and Vermeule argued that the death penalty was morally required.
Counter arguments include the belief that there are better ways to punish criminals and keep society safe. In the countries where the death penalty is legalized, the crime rate is much higher than in the countries where it is prohibited. The possibility of judicial error poses the danger that the innocent may suffer. Considering this argument, one cannot forget about the high level of corruption in all branches of government, which may affect the lives of innocent citizens. Moreover, the death penalty causes discrimination. It is applied mostly to poor people and the representatives of racial minorities. The death penalty in the U.S. is racist in its nature. Another argument against the death penalty is religious beliefs. Only God gives life and only He can take it. The ethic issue of the death penalty deals with the fact that many people, who value money more than life, state that the death penalty is a possibility to avoid spending money on life support. States spend huge sums on the maintenance of prisoners. The next most convincing argument is that the punishment cannot restore the position that existed before the crime. It does not mean that if there is no possibility to recover, then there is no need to punish. If the offender remains alive, there will be a chance for some compensation more than moral sense of revenge. The death penalty needs someone to do it. The execution of death is an action that is immoral for normal people. No technical tricks can make psyche recover and get feelings of relief after killing a defenseless human. Meanwhile, the executioners often admit that they find those whom they have to kill normal people. The existence of such profession is terrible. The death penalty precludes the possibility of rehabilitation.
Death is the evil for everyone. The destruction of the offender does not fill the loss of a loved one and will not bring solace in any way. The thirst for bloody revenge does not make a person of the 21st century civilized. The question of the death penalty is one of the most critical in the sense of justice. The decision to cancel it is an important testimony of the transformation of legal culture. The stabilization of power, the development of the national state will strengthen social and legal norms.
About the author
