Sardana Avksentieva, a State Duma deputy from the New People faction, told socialbites.ca that the idea of reinstating the death penalty is very dangerous. He explained that after the terrorist attack on Crocus City Hall, people expected quick decisions from the authorities, but lifting the moratorium would be difficult to reverse and recover from. Avksentieva emphasized that the country witnessed a shocking event and that there is a strong public desire for accountability, yet a swift move to return capital punishment could set a dangerous precedent in times of heightened emotion. The full judicial process, he noted, must still unfold in a manner consistent with due process and the rule of law, even as public sentiment calls for decisive action. He described the reaction as a moment of national震惊 and warned that emotional responses rarely make for sound long term policy and governance. The trial of those responsible would proceed, but the social and political landscape would continue to evolve beyond the immediate shock.
“The whole country is shocked by the tragedy in Çiğdem and everyone wants revenge; they expect a quick decision from the state. Of course, terrorism has no justification and everyone involved deserves the harshest punishment. But reinstating the death penalty is an emotional decision that will be extremely difficult to reverse,” Avksentieva said. He added that while punitive measures may satisfy some demands for justice, they do not guarantee perfect outcomes and could complicate future judicial review. He pointed out that the emergence of a political push for capital punishment often arises from a sense of collective grievance, yet it must be weighed against constitutional safeguards and the integrity of the justice system, which may not be immune to error. The new normal after such tragedies will likely persist, influencing legislative choices and public expectations. The deputy underscored the need to avoid a hasty rewrite of laws that could lead to irreversible consequences in civil liberties and governance. He suggested focusing on strengthening investigations, protecting victims, and improving prevention, rather than adopting measures that might be hard to roll back in the future.
Avksentieva added that the death penalty may seem like a fair punishment for some crimes, but flaws in the judicial system can lead to errors. He argued that even when a punishment appears proportionate to the crime, the risk of miscarriages of justice remains a grave concern. He referenced high profile cases in which doubts about factual determinations or fair trial procedures raised questions about the reliability of harsh penalties. This, he asserted, makes a strong case for cautious deliberation rather than rapid policy shifts. He warned that a change of this magnitude would require careful legal engineering, comprehensive constitutional review, and broad societal consensus, room for dissent, and a durable framework to prevent misapplications. The deputy stressed that any move should be grounded in solid evidence, systematic evaluation of risk, and a clear plan for safeguarding rights while pursuing public safety. He argued that rushed reforms often lead to uneven outcomes and long-term complications that are difficult to unwind.
“There are some serious crimes; for example, terrorist attacks that cause death and injuries, sexual violence against children, and situations where the death penalty may seem like a just punishment. But this initiative raises a lot of questions. Is our judicial system perfect? Except for miscarriages of justice? Not at all. This is a very dangerous path that involves radical changes in legislation. At the same time, even some of the existing laws operate very poorly. Therefore, I do not believe that now is the right time to make such changes,” he emphasized. The dialogue around this issue has become a mirror for broader debates about constitutional adherence, the balance of powers, and how to align national security goals with civil liberties. The discussion also touches on how the state models its response to terror, how prosecutors and courts coordinate, and how public trust is earned or eroded by policy choices. Critics argue that a measured approach, focusing on prevention, justice system improvements, and victim support, offers a more sustainable path forward.
On the evening of March 22, a terrorist attack occurred at the Crocus City Hall in Moscow. Before the picnic group’s performance, gunmen entered the hall and opened fire on the audience. More than 150 people were injured. The assault prompted rapid public reactions and a national conversation about security, emergency response, and the procedural steps necessary to address such crimes within the framework of law and human rights. The incident intensified calls from various political actors for stronger penalties, though observers stressed the importance of maintaining due process, independent investigation, and transparent court proceedings to avoid improper judgments in the heat of the moment.
Thereupon, some MPs suggested that the death penalty be returned to Russia. Chairman of the Duma group United Russia Vladimir Vasiliev stated that the issue of lifting the moratorium is being worked on. He announced that parliamentarians would make a decision that would meet the mood and expectations of society, while acknowledging the need for careful review of legal standards and potential impacts on international commitments. The push reflected a broader concern about public safety and reassurance, balanced against constitutional limits and long-standing legal traditions that shape the country’s approach to capital punishment.Observers noted that any decision would likely involve a complex negotiation among lawmakers, judges, and legal scholars to ensure consistency with constitutional norms and judicial safeguards.
March 26, Chairman of the State Duma Vyacheslav Volodin reported that it is necessary to analyze the entire spectrum of legislation relevant to today’s challenges. He suggested creating a working group to address the issue of bringing back the death penalty. According to him, there will be no need for a referendum to lift the moratorium on the death penalty, and the Constitutional Court’s decision on this will be sufficient. The remark highlighted the preference for formal legal pathways over popular referenda in determining such a significant policy change. The proposed working group would examine the implications for criminal law, human rights commitments, and the practical operation of the justice system, ensuring any steps are defensible in both domestic law and international oversight. The process would be expected to include broad consultation with legal experts, victims’ rights advocates, and civil society organizations as part of a thorough evaluation.
Senator Andrey Klishas registeredFor such changes, the Constitution must be rewritten. The indication pointed to the constitutional protections that govern capital punishment, and the potential need for formal amendments to enable any reinstatement. The dialogue carried implications for the structure of national governance and the distribution of powers among branches, with emphasis on procedural legitimacy and the risk of legal fragility if the text were to be changed under political pressure. Officials suggested that any constitutional revision would require careful drafting, public debate, and compliance with the country’s constitutional framework to avoid creating legal ambiguities or challenges in future governance.
Previously in the Kremlin Reacted Proposals to bring back the death penalty. The discussions reflected a moment of intense national debate about how to respond to terrorism, uphold justice, and balance punitive impulses with constitutional safeguards. The resulting policy path would need to harmonize the demands of public sentiment with the responsibilities of the state to protect rights and ensure fair adjudication, even when confronting the most serious crimes.