A historian of the death penalty in Russia cannot help but be interested in the question of what motives and motives guided Empress Elizabeth when she abolished the death penalty. Elizabeth was not literary educated like Catherine II, who generally had a greater tendency to mitigate punishments; she did not receive such a humane education as Emperor Alexander I, the enemy of cruelty, possessed; she was not even a representative of the people, who at that time were particularly gentle; the beginning of her reign even began earlier than the ideas of the humanists of the 19th century. received the credit in the European world that they subsequently began to use. What is the reason for this? It seems that the explanation of this important event made by the Russian historian KHIPI table, Shcherbatov, who could know the truth from the time of his life, is closest to the truth: “Although it cannot be said, he says, that Empress Elisaveta Petrovna did not have a heart filled with love of humanity, posthumous executions, upon her very accession to the throne, were not postponed on the basis system of philanthropy, but out of a single piety. For it is known that by indoctrination of the Preobrazhensky Guard regiment of the grenadier company, she, having overthrown John III, was elevated to the Russian throne. Going to this undertaking, where she was in extreme danger, she, bringing her prayers to the Almighty, promised that if she was able to ascend to the parental throne, then throughout her reign she would not take the life of any guilty person. A vow that she kept, and it was easy for her to keep it due to her heart inclined to mercy*.
N RUSSIA.
So, apparently, the death penalty was abolished. The fact that Catherine II soon ascended the throne, who at the beginning of her reign most sincerely adhered to the ideas of the encyclopedists, with whom she had long been in friendly correspondence, greatly contributed to the approval of the apparent abolition of the death penalty. She was a fan of Beccaria’s essay on crimes and punishments, whom she even invited to Russia for service. Her famous Nawaz contains a literal translation of the chapter of the mentioned work on the death penalty. Thus, the apparent abolition of the death penalty, caused by the external circumstances of Russian history, was consolidated by the authority of European thought, more mature, deeper, and, moreover, caused by the more internal and conscious needs of the public of Western peoples. I will not give Nawaz’s arguments against the death penalty, for the reason that they are purely theoretical in content, but the purpose of my report is to provide historical information.
Despite, however, the apparent abolition of the death penalty, it was used, starting from the reign of Catherine II, more than once for state crimes. So in 1764, Lieutenant Mirovich, who wanted to elevate Ex-Emperor John III to the throne, was executed. In 1771, those responsible for the Moscow rebellion and the murder of Archbishop Ambrose Zertis-Kamensky were executed; this crime was caused by a pestilence. In 1775, Pugachov and Perfilyev were executed for rebellion and rebellion. In 1825, five people were executed: Ryleev, Pestel, Kakhovsky, Muravyov and Bestuzhev, for rebellion. Many of the participants in the Polish rebellion of 1830 and 1863 were also executed. In 1839, Kanarsky was executed. The number of those executed during the last Polish revolt was very significant. Judging by the information recently published about the women's revolt in Sevastopol in the thirties, which resulted in several death sentences, there were probably other cases of death penalties for political crimes that still remain unknown.
Why the death penalty was applied for political crimes after the publication of the aforementioned decrees of Elizabeth, an explanation was later derived from the interpretation of the letter of Elizabeth’s decrees and their relationship to previous laws. These decrees stated
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
about the execution of death sentences without the approval of the empress. Until that time, all death sentences for general crimes did not require the approval of the supreme authority to be carried out. For state crimes, death sentences were previously carried out only with the approval of the imperial power. Consequently, it was interpreted, Elizabeth’s decrees do not concern the death penalty for political crimes; therefore, they interpreted, the death penalty remained not abolished for those crimes. This interpretation is correct from a formal point of view, although in reality it did not correspond to either the motives or the breadth of the plan with which Empress Elizabeth issued her decrees on the suspension and abolition of the death penalty.