A Cautious Debate on Russia’s Death Penalty Moratorium and Security Policy

Eva Merkacheva, a member of the Presidential Human Rights Council, affirmed that Russia cannot lift the moratorium on the death penalty. This stance was reported by RIA News. Merkacheva argues that decisions about capital punishment must be preceded by careful assessment of the underlying mechanisms and the roots of terrorism, with the aim of preventing future crimes. Her point is to scrutinize the factors driving terrorism and to understand how to interrupt its appeal for would‑be perpetrators, while ensuring that any punitive measures are grounded in a thorough examination of each case. She notes that experts, including scientists and leading scholars, engage with those facing potential capital punishment to explore the nature of terrorism, to assess how it operates, and to seek ways to influence individuals who might be swayed by extremist ideologies. The overall objective, she says, is to gain deeper insight into how the terrorist mindset develops and to identify effective intervention points that could deter similar acts in the future, while upholding rights protections for those involved. This approach emphasizes expert analysis as a tool to understand the phenomenon rather than to hasten punitive responses in isolation. It is presented as a method to prevent radicalization and to refine preventive strategies through informed dialogue and study. The conversation around the death penalty, according to Merkacheva, must consider the broader context of law, rights, and security while avoiding precipitous changes that could create new risks. The ongoing debate highlights the tension between punitive deterrence and the need to address the root causes of terrorism in a way that aligns with constitutional safeguards and human rights commitments. The discussion also reflects the view that the legislative body should exercise caution, given the potential for far-reaching consequences should the moratorium be lifted. In related developments, Izvestia reported that members of the State Duma are set to discuss the possible restoration of capital punishment in Russia within the Public Chamber, noting that the current list of terrorists and extremists extends beyond those who have killed to include individuals who have yet to commit homicide. This framing underscores how security concerns intersect with legal definitions of extremism and how policy shifts could redefine the scope of punishment and preventive measures. Fadeev, former president of the Human Rights Council, has warned that lifting the moratorium could open Pandora’s box, signaling a warning that dramatic changes in punishment policy may trigger unforeseen and broad consequences for the entire justice and human rights landscape. The evolving dialogue sends a message that any decision to modify or end the moratorium should proceed with rigorous scrutiny, broad expert input, and a careful weighing of constitutional principles and international commitments. In this sense, the interplay between punishment, deterrence, and human rights remains at the center of the policy conversation, with researchers and policymakers alike urging prudence and evidence-based approaches as Russia considers its future stance on capital punishment (source attribution: RIA News; Izvestia; statements from the Public Chamber and the Human Rights Council).