The right to life is the fundamental basis of modern jurisprudence. Most of the twentieth century penal codes, in one way or another, argued that no one has the right to kill people, however, with a caveat: if the court ordered someone to be executed, then so be it. This situation placed an enormous responsibility on jurors and prosecutors. On the facade of the Palace of Justice in France, there is an inscription calling for the memory of a miller who was once sentenced to death by mistake. Unfortunately, no one is immune from the wrong sentence, but the reason why most countries that call themselves civilized have abandoned the practice of violent killing of citizens, even if they are guilty, lies in the moral and ethical plane.
Execution as a kind of revenge
The mass executions of women, children and the elderly, organized by the Nazis during World War II, were most often revenge for the Wehrmacht soldiers killed by underground fighters and partisans. At the same time, there was a certain coefficient that clearly showed how many times the life of a German is valued higher than, for example, a Slav or a Frenchman. Under the democratic structure of the state, this rule did not work. Seri althe murderer can still only be shot once, regardless of the number of his victims. However, any execution from this did not cease to be revenge. The executions of women and teenagers are especially disgusting, regardless of the gravity of their crimes. Does the state have a moral right to take such positions? Shouldn't it be higher than the baser instincts inherent in every person? If the task is to prevent a specific killer from committing crimes in the future, then, obviously, he should simply be isolated from society until the end of his days.
Execution as elimination of witnesses
The execution by hanging of the main Nazi criminals by the verdict of the Nuremberg court also served to restore justice. If tens of millions of victims of the war were resurrected after their death, then such a decision could be considered fully justified. However, given the importance of their testimony in relation to historical circumstances, many of which have not been clarified to this day, such an early reprisal is very reminiscent of the elimination of witnesses, in which the heads of the victorious countries were interested. Apparently, Saddam Hussein was hastily hanged for the same reason.
"Humane" executions
In relation to the delinquent representatives of the fair sex, "more humane" methods of killing were most often used. The execution of women in the event of their pregnancy was postponed until the forty-first day after childbirth. Also interesting is the custom to treat the condemned and lead toscaffold only after he recovers. No less entertaining is the custom in some countries to treat the convict, regardless of gender, with a delicious dinner immediately before his hanging, execution or guillotining. The tradition clearly demonstrates the sophistication of the thought of the organizers of executions. In general, the executions of women were carried out in much the same way as men, if the special severity of “maternal” crimes, such as infanticide, which in the Middle Ages was punished by being buried alive, was not taken into account. At the same time, society understood the whole immorality of the spectacle, which was represented by public executions. Women in Germany, walking on the square to savor the painful death of the condemned, were expected to be publicly reprimanded.
