E-catalog        

Библиогр.: 14 назв.

Рассматривается аргументация русского философа права Н.С. Таганцева против смертной казни. Показаны спорные моменты его позиции, которые сравниваются с мнением в защиту смертной казни, выраженным Дж.Ст. Миллем. Анализируются философские и правовые аргументы в пользу и против смертной казни. The question of the death penalty has repeatedly arisen in Russia and other countries. In 1906, the First State Duma and the State Council of the Russian Empire considered a bill to abolish the death penalty. Nikolai Tagantsev supported the bill. The inexpediency of the death penalty as a form of punishment, statistical data, the specifics of the historical moment and the shortcomings of the Russian judicial system, inconsistency with Christian teachings, and the death penalty’s defenders weak reasoning were Tagantsev’s arguments. In 1868, the British Parliament considered the proposal to abolish the death penalty. John Stuart Mill supported the exceptional measure of punishment for especially grievous murders. He spoke about the value of human life, the sacredness of human feelings that make up this value, about punishment, the right to life and the grounds for depriving of this right. Mill argued that the alternative to the death penalty in the form of life imprisonment is not in line with considerations of humanism. Aleksandr Kistyakovsky described the approach to solving the death penalty question the British used throughout the 19th century as “philosophical positive”. Mill’s argument about the inconsistency of life imprisonment with humanism considerations is consistent with modern science, which confirms the extreme degree of gravity and severity of this type of punishment. Tagantsev’s opinion primarily reflects the interests of the state. Mill is building his arguments based on philosophical concepts that are close to human beings. Historically, the death penalty evolved from the custom of blood feud, and people used it as a retribution (recognized as just) and punishment for murders. Over time, in Russia, this type of punishment became mainly a means of protecting the state. Mill’s position seems to be a more proper approach to addressing the issue of the death penalty as an exceptional measure applied to a person guilty of an especially grievous murder.