Russian lawmakers are turning their attention to the possibility of reinstating the death penalty, a topic slated for discussion in the Public Chamber. The development was reported as part of ongoing coverage on the situation in Russia, illustrating how legislative bodies are weighing irreversible measures amid security concerns.
In parallel, a deputy from United Russia in the State Duma, Alexander Spiridonov, indicated that the discussion on lifting the moratorium on capital punishment in the Russian Federation was positioned on the OP platform as a preliminary step toward any potential legislative move. Observers note that a concrete draft would be prepared should there be consensus to end the moratorium, signaling that the issue is still in the exploratory phase rather than imminent enactment.
One notable comment from the deputies emphasized due process concerns. Vladislav Davankov, Deputy Chairman of the State Duma, pointed to the country’s relatively low acquittal rate of around 0.33 percent and argued that errors in judgment can affect anyone, including those wrongly labeled as terrorists or extremists. He suggested that if the justice system misjudges, the stakes become extraordinarily high, raising questions about how to balance security with fundamental rights.
Another perspective argues that if a decision is required, it should not hinge on restoring the death penalty. Instead, the emphasis would be better placed on practical policy tools—strengthening gun control measures and tightening immigration laws to address security threats more precisely without resorting to irreversible penalties.
Earlier comments by Federation Council members, including Senator Afanasyeva, referenced a push to Lift the moratorium on the death penalty for terrorists. The discussion was intensified in the wake of a high-profile terrorist attack that targeted a major venue, underscoring the fear and urgency felt across political and security circles.
On the evening of March 22, a violent assault occurred at the Crocus City Hall complex in Krasnogorsk, where gunmen opened fire on a concert audience before a series of explosions and a fire broke out. The incident prompted the detention of four suspects connected to the attack, with additional authorities identifying more persons of interest in the Bryansk region the following day. The Investigative Committee of Russia opened a criminal case under Article 205 of the Criminal Code, detailing the terrorist act and initiating a broader inquiry into the network and motivations behind the assault.
Municipal and national authorities reacted decisively: Moscow’s mayor, Sergei Sobyanin, suspended public entertainment events for the coming weekend, and March 24 was proclaimed a national day of mourning, reflecting a shared moment of national concern and solidarity. As discussions continued, the country watched closely how lawmakers would balance punitive law with civil liberties and the practical realities of security governance.
Commentators have framed the current debate as a test of Russia’s legal and moral boundaries. Some observers warned that lifting a moratorium could set a dangerous precedent, potentially opening a Pandora’s box of future penalties and legal ambiguities. Others argued for a measured approach that prioritizes evidence-based policy, transparent judicial processes, and robust counterterrorism strategies that do not rely on broad or irreversible measures. The dialogue remained open, with public interest and political prudence guiding the tone of the debate while officials sought to align security imperatives with constitutional safeguards and human rights considerations.