Russia bans death penalty

[Vympel]

A step forward

Russia's ban on the death penalty will remain when a current legal suspension expires on 1 January, the country's Constitutional Court has ruled.

It said the use of the death penalty was now impossible because Russia had signed international deals banning it.

Russian announced the moratorium in 1996 when it joined the Council of Europe, although it retains capital punishment in its criminal code.

Opinion polls suggest that a majority of Russians back the death penalty.

One recent survey showed that two-thirds of Russians backed the measure.

It said that one in four was against it, mainly because of the possibility that judges would make mistakes.

Chechnya jury trials

The court's head Valery Zorkin said that the end of the moratorium "does not make it possible to apply the death penalty on Russian territory".

He cited a number of international accords signed by Moscow, which banned the use of the capital punishment.

Mr Zorkin also said Russia must extend the moratorium on executions until it ratified Protocol Six of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits the use of the death penalty in peaceful times.

Russia's pledge to sign the protocol was a key condition of its membership in the Council of Europe in 1996.

However, the country's parliament is yet to officially outlaw executions.

In 1999 the Constitutional Court ruled that the death penalty could not be used until jury trials had been introduced in all of Russia's 89 regions.

Thursday's ruling was its response to the country's Supreme Court request, which had sought to clarify the future of the moratorium because the first jury trials would take place in Chechnya on 1 January.

Chechnya is the only remaining part of the Russian Federation where trials by jury have never been held.

Last week, President Dmitry Medvedev's representative at the Constitutional Court, Mikhail Krotov, said that the Kremlin was in favour of the gradual abolition of the death penalty.

[Feil]

So - the vast majority of Russians have serious doubts (for good reason) about the trustworthiness of the judicial system, but only 25% of them oppose the death penalty?

[fgalkin]

So - the vast majority of Russians have serious doubts (for good reason) about the trustworthiness of the judicial system, but only 25% of them oppose the death penalty?

Russians do not have the West's views on the sanctity of life- kinda hard to go along with that, given their history. So, their opposition to the death penalty comes not from any fundamental belief, but from their mistrust of the judicial system. So, they don't oppose it in principle, they oppose it being used wrongly.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Crossroads Inc.]

So - the vast majority of Russians have serious doubts (for good reason) about the trustworthiness of the judicial system, but only 25% of them oppose the death penalty?

Russians do not have the West's views on the sanctity of life- kinda hard to go along with that, given their history. So, their opposition to the death penalty comes not from any fundamental belief, but from their mistrust of the judicial system. So, they don't oppose it in principle, they oppose it being used wrongly.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

I might take some heat for this, but this is similar to my own belief.. In that I support the Death Penalty In Theroy
Those who usually are in favor of the Death Penalty have some valid points... If oyu have some horrible person, whose is convicted of really REALLY nasty crimes and shows no signs of redeemablitiy, what is the point of pay for food, clothing, and housing on said person for the next 60 to 70 years? Why not kill him and be done with it. It also saves on certain nutjobs cultivating a cult following of further wackos over the years...

That said, I also have a hefty distrust in our current judicial system. The amount of people who a court convicted of something terrible, who later have been fully exonerated is staggering, and thats not touch the amount of people on Death Row found to be utterly innocent fo a Crime that it SEEMED they were totally guilty of.

So basically, if there was some system that totally and without any form of question could show guilt or innocence, I would not be, totally, against the Death Penalty, that said, given our courts, I am looking forward to the day when America, if ever, bans its use as well.

[Sarevok]

It depends on the country. In USA or Europe you are afraid of executing an innocent person by mistake. In places Africa or latin America you are afraid the thug you put in jail would bribe his way out then shoot you. I don't know much about Russia but they do have some very powerful and slimy criminals with lots of connections. If Russia is as corrupt as some say it may be easy for them to get out eventually and carry on with crime. At least thats what usually happens in places with great deal of systematic corruption. There the really dangerous and powerful criminals don't stay in jail for long. The death penalty is the only way to remove such scum for sure.

[Eulogy]

It depends on the country. In USA or Europe you are afraid of executing an innocent person by mistake. In places Africa or latin America you are afraid the thug you put in jail would bribe his way out then shoot you. I don't know much about Russia but they do have some very powerful and slimy criminals with lots of connections. If Russia is as corrupt as some say it may be easy for them to get out eventually and carry on with crime. At least thats what usually happens in places with great deal of systematic corruption. There the really dangerous and powerful criminals don't stay in jail for long. The death penalty is the only way to remove such scum for sure.

Or simply grease the fuckers when they're not in jail. If the police takes bribes from scum, chances are good that they'll take bribes from vigilantes.

After all, if the injustice system won't do it's job, then who will? Who, but for disillusioned citizens who feel that the only way to stop said scum from continuing to hurt others is to kill them?

[Oskuro]

^Indeed! Only a minor nitpick, though, what happens when said disgruntled citizens decide that killing their ex-wife's new husband is an act of justice? Or that due to their hard vigilante work they deserve a luxurious lifestyle and are willing to take things themselves if not payed?

All terrorist organizations are seen as freedom fighters by some (specially themselves).

[Eulogy]

^Indeed! Only a minor nitpick, though, what happens when said disgruntled citizens decide that killing their ex-wife's new husband is an act of justice? Or that due to their hard vigilante work they deserve a luxurious lifestyle and are willing to take things themselves if not payed?

All terrorist organizations are seen as freedom fighters by some (specially themselves).

Then they'd become hunted themselves, and the bereaved will take revenge.

Vigilantes don't have to be the brightest bulbs in the box, do they? Smart vigilantes will keep out of trouble if they can help it, and don't advertise their kills.

[Eulogy]

Accidental double post.

[K. A. Pital]

I think it's just the politicians fearing for their lives. Cynism over 9000, yeah, but what can one do? I live here.

[Oskuro]

Then they'd become hunted themselves, and the bereaved will take revenge.

Vigilantes don't have to be the brightest bulbs in the box, do they? Smart vigilantes will keep out of trouble if they can help it, and don't advertise their kills.

The problem with Vigilantes is that they operate outside the law, and as such, have zero accountability for their actions. In the end, given how easily people with power get corrupted, the problem is only perpetuated, I mean, the current thread is about a corrupt system that doesn't work as intended even with its laws and limitations, and you're suggesting a system with no laws and limitations, with no accountability for its constituents, would magically work better? There was a word for that.... Yes, Somalia. A shining example of justice for the opressed.

[Serafine666]

It is argued that the abolition of the death penalty is an uncivilized relic of a more brutal age, something that all the truly civilized societies in the world have risen above and abolished. Yet these high-minded "civilized" folks are shocked when a vigilante, deprived of justice for a loved one who is brutally slain by a monster, seeks justice that the legal system denied them. We smile and nod when judges decide that it is especially cruel and unusual to execute the mentally ill or someone whose brutal career started before they'd left minority. Nations celebrated when Governor Ryan of Illinois formally commuted the sentences of everyone on death row. Americans are constantly treated to high-minded condemnation of our commitment to human rights for our retention of capital punishment. Yet no one seems to be at all interested in the question of whether the death penalty, correctly applied, is a just punishment for certain crimes.
It is true that the state generally regards the murder of its own representatives as being especially heinous and often favors executing the murderer of, say, an FBI agent although there is nothing otherwise extraordinary about the murder. It is also true that a justice system administered by people is as fallible as the people although safeguards bordering on the paranoid are constantly introduced to save the innocent from an unjust conviction being improperly upheld. Regardless, it is beyond reasonable dispute that there exist criminals who feel no remorse and are in fact proud of their inhuman bloodthirst and brutality. To simply stick them in a cage for the rest of their lives with accommodations and sometimes luxuries provided by the people whom they wronged is utterly unjust; to regard them as candidates for rehabilitation is delusional. When confronted with such cases, it is cruel to the wronged to reach out with lordly disdain and forbid justice being rendered to them through the execution of the brutal criminal who has shown themselves to be beyond redemption. It is hardly an artifact of primitive morals to permit the justice system to mete out a full measure of justice against the guilty; the further we step from allowing the legitimate judicial system to avenge the wronged of their adversary, the further we step towards requisite vigilantism--and this is indeed a step backwards, not a step forwards.

[Teebs]

It is argued that the abolition of the death penalty is an uncivilized relic of a more brutal age, something that all the truly civilized societies in the world have risen above and abolished. Yet these high-minded "civilized" folks are shocked when a vigilante, deprived of justice for a loved one who is brutally slain by a monster, seeks justice that the legal system denied them.

You seem to be confusing justice systems that completely fail with ones that don't administer the death penalty.

We smile and nod when judges decide that it is especially cruel and unusual to execute the mentally ill or someone whose brutal career started before they'd left minority.

Do you have a point? Do you think the mentally ill and/or minors should be executed?

Nations celebrated when Governor Ryan of Illinois formally commuted the sentences of everyone on death row. Americans are constantly treated to high-minded condemnation of our commitment to human rights for our retention of capital punishment. Yet no one seems to be at all interested in the question of whether the death penalty, correctly applied, is a just punishment for certain crimes.

It is true that the state generally regards the murder of its own representatives as being especially heinous and often favors executing the murderer of, say, an FBI agent although there is nothing otherwise extraordinary about the murder. It is also true that a justice system administered by people is as fallible as the people although safeguards bordering on the paranoid are constantly introduced to save the innocent from an unjust conviction being improperly upheld. Regardless, it is beyond reasonable dispute that there exist criminals who feel no remorse and are in fact proud of their inhuman bloodthirst and brutality. To simply stick them in a cage for the rest of their lives with accommodations and sometimes luxuries provided by the people whom they wronged is utterly unjust; to regard them as candidates for rehabilitation is delusional. When confronted with such cases, it is cruel to the wronged to reach out with lordly disdain and forbid justice being rendered to them through the execution of the brutal criminal who has shown themselves to be beyond redemption. It is hardly an artifact of primitive morals to permit the justice system to mete out a full measure of justice against the guilty; the further we step from allowing the legitimate judicial system to avenge the wronged of their adversary, the further we step towards requisite vigilantism--and this is indeed a step backwards, not a step forwards.

Why is it unjust? You also seem to be confusing state administration of justice with revenge for victims.

[Serafine666]

You seem to be confusing justice systems that completely fail with ones that don't administer the death penalty.

What's the difference if the death penalty is justice and the system refuses to apply it?

Do you have a point? Do you think the mentally ill and/or minors should be executed?

I think the mentally ill, up to the previous standard of "idiocy," are culpable for their actions. I do not believe that someone under 18 should be executed but think that someone who committed their crimes before they were 18 but after they were 8 should be. My point is that the concept of the mildly mentally ill or a 17-and-11-months person being less than culpable is a very recent invention descending from the general assumption of the death penalty as an outdated relic.

Why is it unjust? You also seem to be confusing state administration of justice with revenge for victims.

I did not say that the death penalty is inherently just or unjust, only that to deny its application when it is just is an example of injustice and is a step backwards for any legal system in which the objective is to render justice. I also argue that a justice system which is designed such that it will not always render justice encourages those so denied to render justice because they have no other recourse to obtain it.

[Starglider]

I did not say that the death penalty is inherently just or unjust, only that to deny its application when it is just is an example of injustice and is a step backwards for any legal system in which the objective is to render justice.

This is nonsensical. Any sane system of punishment establishes a code of which punishments apply to which crimes. An 'inherently unjust' punishment would be one which is not appropriate for any crime, obviously you do not think executing people falls into this category. I assume by 'inherently just' you do not mean the ridiculous strawman of executing people for any crime at all, so presumably you mean that execution is justified when the crime is murder. Which leads directly to the question that other posters had already raied; sufficient standards of guilt and the sad fact that first-world governments don't have a great track-record for executing the right people, never mind random lynch mobs.

I also argue that a justice system which is designed such that it will not always render justice encourages those so denied to render justice because they have no other recourse to obtain it.

That hardly needs arguing, it's stating the obvious. However in Russia questions of design seem to be of minor importance compared to questions of practical implementation.

[Serafine666]

This is nonsensical. Any sane system of punishment establishes a code of which punishments apply to which crimes. An 'inherently unjust' punishment would be one which is not appropriate for any crime, obviously you do not think executing people falls into this category. I assume by 'inherently just' you do not mean the ridiculous strawman of executing people for any crime at all, so presumably you mean that execution is justified when the crime is murder. Which leads directly to the question that other posters had already raied; sufficient standards of guilt and the sad fact that first-world governments don't have a great track-record for executing the right people, never mind random lynch mobs.

Well, actually, what I was trying to say is that I was not trying to argue the merits of capital punishment in and of itself, just that it seemed unjust to apply a blanket prohibition against it since such a blanket prohibition would ban it when it is actually just, thus denying justice. My point after that was simply that any system where there is a built-in prohibition against rendering justice added is one that has taken a step backwards.

That hardly needs arguing, it's stating the obvious. However in Russia questions of design seem to be of minor importance compared to questions of practical implementation.

Naturally. I just didn't get the impression that this thread was meant to be a discussion about Russia's policy specifically but, rather, the death penalty generally.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, actually, what I was trying to say is that I was not trying to argue the merits of capital punishment in and of itself, just that it seemed unjust to apply a blanket prohibition against it since such a blanket prohibition would ban it when it is actually just, thus denying justice. My point after that was simply that any system where there is a built-in prohibition against rendering justice added is one that has taken a step backwards.

As a general rule, it is more just to not kill someone who deserves to die than to kill someone who deserves to not die.

So if we're optimizing our system for justice, abolishing the death penalty will bring is closer to the goal unless we can get the reliability rate of the death penalty down to the level where it would be more just to kill one innocent person than to allow X people who deserve death to live.

I submit that X is such a large number that we may never be able to put together a criminal justice system efficient enough to make reinstating the death penalty more just than not having it.

[Starglider]

Well, actually, what I was trying to say is that I was not trying to argue the merits of capital punishment in and of itself, just that it seemed unjust to apply a blanket prohibition against it since such a blanket prohibition would ban it when it is actually just, thus denying justice.

This adds absolutely nothing to your original post and continues your trend of playing vacuous semantic games rather than actually arguing for a position. Either you support the death penalty (in some set of cirsumstances, for some set of reasons), or you do not.

My point after that was simply that any system where there is a built-in prohibition against rendering justice added is one that has taken a step backwards.

Which is superficially ludicrous since what sane system of justice would have a 'prohibition against rendering justice' - it will only have prohibitions against things that system defines to be unjust - but I am sure you are going to try and twist it around to mean something else entirely in your next post.

[Serafine666]

This adds absolutely nothing to your original post and continues your trend of playing vacuous semantic games rather than actually arguing for a position. Either you support the death penalty (in some set of cirsumstances, for some set of reasons), or you do not.

OK then... if "it seemed unjust to apply a blanket prohibition against it since such a blanket prohibition would ban it when it is actually just" doesn't constitute a position in your eyes? If it's not a position, as you say, then why do I have someone arguing that I'm incorrect right above your post?

Which is superficially ludicrous since what sane system of justice would have a 'prohibition against rendering justice' - it will only have prohibitions against things that system defines to be unjust - but I am sure you are going to try and twist it around to mean something else entirely in your next post.

No need. You understood what I said so why try to say it means something different?

[Serafine666]

As a general rule, it is more just to not kill someone who deserves to die than to kill someone who deserves to not die.

So if we're optimizing our system for justice, abolishing the death penalty will bring is closer to the goal unless we can get the reliability rate of the death penalty down to the level where it would be more just to kill one innocent person than to allow X people who deserve death to live.

I submit that X is such a large number that we may never be able to put together a criminal justice system efficient enough to make reinstating the death penalty more just than not having it.

So the death penalty can never be justly applied because the system is imperfect, if I understand you correctly. I submit, however, that the United States has already reached your number X although, in a rather amusing irony, the fact that so many safeguards have been imposed on the system by people fearful that the innocent might be killed (thus making it more expensive and difficult to execute something) is being used as an argument to abolish the death penalty altogether.

[Simon_Jester]

So the death penalty can never be justly applied because the system is imperfect, if I understand you correctly.

Oh no; the problem is not that the system is imperfect, but that it is too imperfect.

Is it worth the death of one innocent man to ensure that one man who deserves to die for his crimes dies, rather than being imprisoned for life? I hope you'd agree that the answer is no. What about two men who deserve to die? Five? Ten? A hundred? A thousand?

I'd say that the number is very large, above 100, and I don't think we've gotten to an error rate below 1% in the American system of executions.

What do you think the number is? If you think X equals three, then obviously we're going to disagree on whether death row is reliable enough, because we disagree on "enough."

I submit, however, that the United States has already reached your number X although, in a rather amusing irony, the fact that so many safeguards have been imposed on the system by people fearful that the innocent might be killed (thus making it more expensive and difficult to execute something) is being used as an argument to abolish the death penalty altogether.

If we can't have acceptable quality control on death row at a price we're willing to pay to operate death row, why should we have it at all? Most other institutions that cost more than their product is worth to the people that pay for it don't last very long; why should a gallows?

*(making sure that only people who deserve it die, and that they die in an appropriate manner)

[Serafine666]

Is it worth the death of one innocent man to ensure that one man who deserves to die for his crimes dies, rather than being imprisoned for life? I hope you'd agree that the answer is no. What about two men who deserve to die? Five? Ten? A hundred? A thousand?

I'd say that the number is very large, above 100, and I don't think we've gotten to an error rate below 1% in the American system of executions. What do you think the number is? If you think X equals three, then obviously we're going to disagree on whether death row is reliable enough, because we disagree on "enough."

Such is certainly possible but according to Wikipedia, "The Espy file lists 15,269 people executed in the United States and its predecessors between 1608 and 1991. 4,661 executions occurred in the U.S. in the period from 1930 to 2002 with about two-thirds of the executions occurring in the first 20 years. Additionally the United States Army executed 135 soldiers between 1916 and 1999. (Number of executed.)" Thus, around 19,000 people have been executed in the United States in the period from 1608-2002. The largest allegation of innocents executed is around 12 while an additional 111 have been freed before execution (Innocents executed). So, using these numbers, for ever 1 innocent person alleged to have been executed, well over 100 guilty are. By your standards, the US has reached the threshold.

If we can't have acceptable quality control on death row at a price we're willing to pay to operate death row, why should we have it at all? Most other institutions that cost more than their product is worth to the people that pay for it don't last very long; why should a gallows?

It's not that the safeguards exists that's the amusing irony. It's the fact that the people who have led the way to imposing the safeguards are using the safeguards they imposed as a justification for a complete ban. Obviously, if the numbers I cited above are accurate, the safeguards are effective and meet the standard of "above 100" that you suggested.

*(making sure that only people who deserve it die, and that they die in an appropriate manner)

That depends upon your definition of "appropriate." I'm a bad person; I support sending everyone slated for execution to a firing squad. Frankly, there are few methods that are always painless and always instant (which is how I'm interpreting your question of appropriateness); I think that a firing squad and a hanging are the only two in which someone dies as close to "instantly" as humanly possible. I suppose that if you could induce a massive cerebral hemorrhage (which supposedly hits suddenly and kills without suffering), that would be the most appropriate means.

[Duckie]

You're kidding, right? You cite wikianswers of all bloody things and then cherrypick your website to claim that only 11 innocents have every been executed in America?

1. That list refers only to Texans.
2. That list is not a complete list of all executed persons who were innocent, nor does it claim to be.

Are you that fucking retarded, that you think that a list of a few innocent texans executed is or was meant to be an exhaustive list rather than just exemplary, and that you think wikianswers is a reliable source even though the question was "Have any (ie, find me an example of a few)" rather than "How many (ie, find me the proportion)"? My wikianswers contribution will say Yes if anyone asks.

Using that same website, if you want to play that game- 50% of deathrow inmates are innocent according to a study by the state of Illinois. 90% of deathrow inmates according to you (12 killed, 120ish released) who are innocent are freed before execution. Thus, 5% of executed persons are innocent. Basic math can be done by anyone not stupid enough to think "Here's a few examples of people executed in America who are innocent from a single US state" means "Here's the only examples from all of history"

Edit- Oh, haha, I get it. You're just too retarded to do anything other than google, so you didn't even follow that link on wikianswers to read it. You'll notice on that very goddamn page it notes 214 other innocent persons via the Innocence Project, yet you used the 111 number and didn't even bother with noting the 50% fact that would cause basic math to make it at least 5% or more innocents executed. Why?

Because you didn't even read the goddamn source, you lazy fuck. You just googled "Have any innocent persons been executed in the united states" or something similar, because that wikianswers page is the first result. Try it, viewers at home.

[Duckie]

Ghetto Edit- I would like the record to note that the other source he sites, Wikipedia, is the second google result for that example search query, and that the preview text for wikipedia's capital punishment page in the Google search results is in fact the bit he's quoting about the Expy file. Personally, if I were going to pretend to be knowledgeable about such things, I'd go to page two of Google and/or follow some footnotes first, but that's just me.

[Serafine666]

You're kidding, right? You cite wikianswers of all bloody things and then cherrypick your website to claim that only 11 innocents have every been executed in America?

1. That list refers only to Texans.
2. That list is not a complete list of all executed persons who were innocent, nor does it claim to be.
-snip-

I evidently made an error on the number of innocents executed (I've hit upon numbers from 12 to 38 thus far) but I stand by the number of total executions unless the statement on that footnote

The "Espy File" is a database of executions in the United States and the earlier colonies from 1608 to 2002. This list of 15,269 executions was compiled by M. Watt Espy and John Ortiz Smykla, and was made available through the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.

is outdated. I threw in the number of exonerated people just as a factoid because if I'm answering Simon's challenge about the rate of innocent people executed per every guilty person executed, the number of innocent people who are not executed isn't relevant because those constitute the number of people that the current safeguards have managed to catch and save. Since his point was "the US has not gotten its system to the point where there is an acceptable margin of error" (which he defined as over 100 guilty executed per innocent person), those that have been saved from execution on the basis of proven innocence don't count. We could quadruple the highest number I could find (to 150) and still have over 100 guilty people executed per innocent person. If you can find better numbers than mine to whack me over the head with, feel free, Duckie. However, ranting about how stupid I am doesn't actually rebut my reasoning.