The issue of the death penalty as an exceptional form of punishment has a long history and has elicited opposing views. The watershed between the organic perception of the death penalty as a common instrument of punishment for the most serious crimes and the denial of the very fact of its application is considered to be the general civilizational development of society, associated with the education of society and “healthy skepticism” that allowed people to distance themselves from the bloody customs of the Dark Ages.The original understanding of just retribution for the most serious crimes was reduced to blood revenge, the elimination of which resulted in the state gaining the right to legal murder. The fulfillment of this state function was understandable to the society of the time and was considered necessary by it from the standpoint of revenge, fear, and the inevitable wrath of the gods if retribution for the crime did not come.Instead, in contrast to revenge as a universal argument in favor of the death penalty, the idea of the sanctity of human life and the state’s inability to take it away —since it was not given by the state—emerged. Since then, both diametrically opposed points of view on the use of the death penalty have existed and been debated, not without rational arguments.From the standpoint of impartiality to both sides, which is required by the scientific approach, the authors examined the main philosophical issue of the sanctity of human life from the standpoint of justice, the ability of the death penalty to prevent new crimes and deter criminal ones, as well as views on the possibility of miscarriages of justice and execution of the innocent.First, the authors review and analyze the cases of abolition of the death penalty in different periods and in different states in order to establish the fact that there is no inextricable link between the crime and the mandatory just retribution for its commission, as well as the reasons for such abolition: religious, economic, social, etc. It is also established that the abolition of the death penalty took place both in the form of abolition itself and a moratorium on its application.The study found that the concept of “justice” is relative in nature, since if we consider the execution of a criminal (equal for equal) as a fair punishment, it cannot but be recognized as a modern version of the ancient bloody revenge. After all, the life of the victim cannot be returned with the execution of the criminal, even if the execution is carried out humanely.Proponents of the death penalty insist that its use is important for the families of victims because it allows them to obtain a sense of justice (closure). In addition, the execution of a criminal, in their opinion, will save the lives of his future potential victims, and they should be taken care of first and foremost, not the criminal. As for possible miscarriages of justice, they are denied (innocence is not proven) or considered an inherent property of human nature.Opponents of the death penalty insist on the value of human life and present many other equally valid arguments.The analysis of the argument regarding the death penalty’s ability to prevent future crimes did not reveal any additional support for it it, highlighting the need for further study.
Zvieriev et al. (Sun,) studied this question.