Invitation to an Execution (Приглашение
на казнь) by Nabokov is the first association I get when somebody mentions one
of the most crucial problems of our epoch – that of the need for capital punishment and,
consequently, the right of putting it into practice. Today’s world can be divided into
many parts – it depends on which criteria on we use to make this division: economics,
population, political systems and so on. In terms of attitudes towards capital punishment,
there are usually two sides: pro and con. I am likely to support those who are against the
death penalty, and I could name at least two points to illustrate why I hold to this
opinion.
First of all, religion. I do accept that there are many atheists, but,
at the same time, we still have lots of believers, and one of the major principles of all
religions is the prohibition killing people. Whatever a criminal did, normal and civilized
people must never resemble him/her and play the same game as he/she does. If we do, there
will be no difference between us and the man on the dock; and the need for courts would be
eliminated.
Just like birth, death is the supreme mystery of our lives, and no
violence must interfere with this natural process: we come into this world and leave it
according to rules that were created before man.
Secondly, the point concerning the understanding of what the real
punishment is. Do you really think that to deprive a criminal of the right to continue to
live is what we need? When he is dead, nothing bothers him anymore; so what does the
punishment consist of? On the other hand, to condemn a criminal to life imprisonment is,
in my opinion, the best way to punish him, especially in our country, where conditions of
existence (not life) in prisons are far from normal. If you are really interested in
viewing this kind of existence, there is a prison in Saint Petersburg where you can go on
an excursion. You will be impressed.
Just imagine for a minute a tiny cell where people, as ants in an ant
hill, have to live near each other every day, every minute, every second. Where tomorrow
nothing will change and you can be sure that in 10 years everything there will be the
same. Boredom and predictability are two things capable of driving everybody mad. These
are two feelings we always try to escape from, hence, we have lots of invented tricks to
amuse ourselves to make life a bit more interesting.
Even dogs can’t live in a cage, because iron bars contradict their
nature. Animals usually get sick and finally die. Man is, of course, stronger than
animals, but dozens of years spent in a closed space will destroy the most healthy person,
and this slow destruction will be a thousand times more terrible than a quick death with a
gun shot or an electric chair.
By Alevtina Kozina |
Have you ever thought why our state keeps
and protects the life of a criminal who has deprived his victim of life?
According to Voltaire, “When there is no other way to rescue the
lives of many people, the criminal should be destroyed physically”.
The death penalty is not revenge practiced on the criminal, but
punishment for a serious evil.
I can mention that the first sense of the term “punishment” is a
lecture.
When the Bible describes the Fall of Man, it describes in fact
the beginning of the death penalty. Because man, created for eternal life, for
immortality, broke the will of God.
At first murder in the USSR, even with aggravated circumstances, did
not always lead to the death penalty. From 10–15 thousand deliberate murders in the
USSR, there were only about 1 thousand persons executed. Hence, the criminal will think
well before committing another crime.
If the death penalty is cancelled, there will be no difference to the
gangster how many people he may kill. He can kill until he is caught. He can also kill
those who catch and judge him. And such criminals have established their “law” in
Russia.
As for innocent victims... I understand, it will sound cynical, but car
accidents, fires and natural disasters take many more lives of innocent people, than
miscarriages of justice. And this is considered to be acceptable.
What can a criminal figure out, sitting in a stuffy room where
prisoners even sleep in shifts? It is necessary to create conditions for rehabilitation
for him; good food and other blessings offer him a chance to understand that it is
possible to become a good, perfect man.
I could cite Switzerland, where as far as I know some prisoners are
even let home to have dinner. But do not forget that Switzerland is a tiny country, where
almost all people know each other; where there are no people complicating life to decent
citizens; hooligans are practically not present there, neither murders nor tyrants, of
course. It is already a civilized country and if I was asked about the necessity of the
death penalty there, I would be against it. But our country is different.
The death penalty does not carry out the basic function, of changing
the mentality of the condemned. But the state also does not aim at correcting a criminal.
Like a citizen that can kill a criminal to protect his relatives and himself, the state
can execute a criminal to protect the lives of its citizens.
What should the death penalty be in a society?
First of all the death penalty is based on law and can be applied only
in a case when any other verdict is impossible.
Secondly, if the judge is not sure about applying the death penalty, he
will replace it with imprisonment.
Thirdly, at our level of technical development, it is quite possible to
automate the process of execution, and, hence, to exclude tortures the executor carries
out.
Thus, everything above mentioned can be formulated in the following: if
the fear of the death penalty can stop even one potential criminal and rescue even one
human life, it means that the cancellation of the death penalty is more than a crime and
the price of this mistake is a human life.
By Kirill Mihailov |
