Half of Russians favor return of death penalty
Nearly half of all Russians are in favor of reinstating the death penalty, according to a survey published by the All-Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM) on Wednesday.
The death penalty was initially suspended in Russia in 1996 when the country sought to join the Council of Europe. In 1999, Russia's Constitutional Court placed a moratorium on the measure and extended it indefinitely in 2009. Legally, however, the practice has never been fully abolished. After Moscow withdrew from the Council of Europe in 2022, debates around lifting the moratorium were reignited among Russian politicians, lawmakers, and public figures.
In its latest study, which surveyed some 1,600 Russians over the age of 18 earlier this month, VCIOM found that capital punishment was still a significant issue for most respondents (73%). It also reported that the number of those for whom the topic is 'extremely important' has grown from 28% in 2010 to 36% in 2025.
According to the poll, nearly half of respondents (49%) said they were in favor of reinstating the death penalty while only around a quarter (26%) said it would be better to maintain a moratorium. Just 15% of respondents argued that capital punishment should be completely abolished, while 10% said they were unsure.
Pollsters noted that the older the respondents were, the more likely they were to support reinstating the death penalty. Among those born between 1948 and 1967, 62% argued in favor of lifting the moratorium.
Retaining the moratorium saw the most support among those born between 1982 and 2000, while the complete abolishment of the measure was mostly backed by those born after 2001.
The topic of the death penalty remains a point of contention in Russian society, although President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated that it would not be reintroduced. In December, he stressed that despite public calls to return the measure, Moscow is not seeking to bring back capital punishment and is instead looking to further liberalize the national penal code in order to reduce the number of convicts.
A number of Russian lawmakers have also pointed out that returning the death penalty would be legally impossible as the ban was issued by the Constitutional Court, whose decisions cannot be overturned by either chamber of Russia's parliament.
The head of Russia's Constitutional Court, Valery Zorkin, has explained that under the Russian Constitution, everyone has the right to life and therefore is guaranteed 'the right not to be sentenced to death.' He has suggested that the return of the measure would require the adoption of a new constitution.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
26 minutes ago
- Russia Today
Fyodor Lukyanov: Kiev's drone strikes prove Moscow's point
The second round of talks between Russian and Ukrainian delegations in Istanbul, and the events leading up to them, offer a clear snapshot of the current state of the conflict. It is far from over. Paradoxically, Ukraine's weekend attacks only reaffirmed Mocow's long-standing position: no ceasefire is possible without a basic agreement on the terms of a future settlement. Military force remains the key negotiating tool. In a confrontation of this scale and intensity, no party is willing to forfeit it. Russia has made this its official policy. Ukraine's latest actions confirm it in practice. If we look at the major drawn-out military confrontations of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, excluding interventions against vastly weaker foes, we see a consistent pattern: political negotiations don't follow a ceasefire, they run in parallel with military operations. In Korea and Vietnam, the process dragged on for years. This isn't cause for celebration, but realism dictates that only this path offers any hope for a durable outcome. It should come as no surprise that talk of ceasefires has now faded into the background. Despite vocal objections from Kiev and its Western allies, the talks are proceeding on Russia's terms. This means: no ultimatums, no artificial deadlines, and a carefully staged approach to dialogue. Washington, too, seems comfortable with this pace. What matters for President Trump is the appearance of progress, not dramatic breakthroughs. At least for now. Kiev, ideally, would prefer to disrupt this rhythm – to inject chaos and unpredictability, which aligns with its more improvisational political-military style. From that perspective, Russia's decision to proceed with the Istanbul meeting despite Ukraine's high-profile sabotage attempts was strategically sound. Kiev likely hoped the Russians would walk away. They didn't. The contrast between the actual tone of the Istanbul negotiations and the media frenzy surrounding them is stark. Each round was preceded by breathless hype and inflated expectations, only to be followed by muted results. This is partly media instinct, partly deliberate spin. People crave movement, even when none exists. Contact between the delegations deflates these illusions, and then the cycle begins anew. So, what came of the second meeting? Most notably: the process continues. Neither side wants to halt it. The theatrical posturing common to Ukrainian politics has been absent – for two reasons. First, the invisible presence of Donald Trump looms over the table. Both Moscow and Kiev see him as a vital third player. Trump wants talks. Both sides are happy to give the impression that talks are happening. Second, both know this channel may become indispensable. Circumstances will change. When they do, real conversations will be necessary. It's better to have the bridge already built. The so-called 'root causes of the conflict' remain untouched. Both sides are sticking to peripheral matters that can be addressed without triggering political landmines. From a humanitarian point of view, this is valuable, but it is far from a comprehensive settlement. Does this limited dialogue foster understanding between negotiators? Possibly. That may help later, when harder questions arise. But does it signal a narrowing of the vast gulf between Russia and Ukraine? No. Are the public memorandums issued by each side, despite their contradictions, worthwhile? Yes. Diplomatically, it is better to stake out clear positions than wallow in strategic ambiguity. True, the documents clash on nearly every point. But history shows that changing conditions often soften even the most rigid positions. Ultimately, battlefield developments will shape diplomacy. Military operations are expanding – both in geography and in the sophistication of tactics and weaponry. Each side has its advantages and will press them. There is no sign of the war ending anytime soon. A response from Russia to Sunday's bridge and airfield attacks is inevitable. It will likely be proportional to the scale of Ukraine's strikes. Importantly, this response will not be aimed solely at Kiev. It will be a message to all involved parties – including the United States and Western Europe. Russia's reply must reflect the multifaceted nature of the conflict and its many audiences. But none of this means the negotiations will stop. In fact, the talks may become more valuable precisely because the conflict article was first published in the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and was translated and edited by the RT team
Russia Today
26 minutes ago
- Russia Today
Zelensky takes apparent dig at Trump for calling Putin
Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky has claimed that there is no value in trying to reach a peace deal with Moscow if powerful countries do not put pressure on Russia, in an apparent reference to US President Donald Trump's recent phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin. On Wednesday, the Russian and American leaders held a 75-minute call to discuss the Ukraine conflict. Trump described the conversation as 'good,' but noted that it would not lead to 'immediate peace' after Putin had told him 'very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on [Russian] airfields.' Ukrainian drones struck several Russian airbases across five regions on Sunday, ranging from Murmansk in the Arctic to Irkutsk in Siberia. Kiev claimed to have destroyed or damaged some 40 aircraft, including long-range bombers. Moscow has denied both the numbers and the extent of the damage. Writing on X on Wednesday, several hours after Trump disclosed the content of his conversation with Putin, Zelensky claimed that 'many have spoken with Russia at various levels. But none of these talks have brought a reliable peace, or even stopped the war.' The Ukrainian leader criticized 'those who still hesitate to increase pressure' on Russia and suggested that if 'the powerful do not stop Putin, it means they share responsibility with him,' apparently referring to Trump and the fact that he has yet to impose additional sanctions on Moscow. Zelensky's post comes after the New York Times reported, citing sources, that Trump regularly describes the Ukrainian leader as a 'bad guy' who is pushing the world closer to a nuclear conflict. Advisers told the outlet that while Trump has grown 'exasperated' with both Moscow and Kiev, he 'reserves special animosity' for Zelensky. Meanwhile, Russian officials have repeatedly expressed their appreciation for Trump's efforts to end the conflict and have reiterated Moscow's openness to negotiations. However, Russia has insisted that a final peace deal with Kiev would have to take into account the realities on the ground and address the root causes of the conflict, such as Kiev's efforts to join NATO, the spread of neo-Nazism within the country, and the infringement of the rights of Ukraine's Russian-speaking population.
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
Ukraine failed to destroy Russian planes in drone raid
None of the Russian aircraft targeted in Ukraine's recent drone attacks were destroyed, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov has said. The aircraft sustained damage but will be repaired, he told TASS In an interview published on Wednesday. Ukrainian drones struck several Russian airbases on Sunday, in a coordinated assault across five regions, from Murmansk in the Arctic to Irkutsk in Siberia. Kiev has claimed that the strikes damaged or destroyed approximately 40 Russian military aircraft, including Tu-95 and Tu-22 long-range bombers. Moscow, however, has dismissed both the numbers and extent of damage. 'The equipment in question, as also stated by the Defense Ministry, was not destroyed, but damaged. It will be restored,' Ryabkov said, responding to a question about whether the strikes had affected strategic stability. Kiev's claims about the results of the attack have been inconsistent, Ryabkov claimed. 'There is nothing even remotely close' to the damage levels quoted by Kiev, he said, urging reporters to rely only on information shared through the Russian Defense Ministry's official channels. The official also stated that prior to the recent phone call between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Moscow had raised concerns with Washington that US officials had not responded to the attack. Trump had reportedly insisted to Putin that the US had no prior knowledge of Kiev's plans to strike Russian airfields, according to the Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov. On Thursday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also confirmed that Putin and had told Trump a Russian response to the strikes is inevitable and that it would be carried out at the discretion of the Russian military. Putin has accused the 'illegitimate regime in Kiev' of carrying out terrorist attacks and 'gradually turning into a terrorist organization.' Shortly after the Trump-Putin phone call on Wednesday, the US Embassy in Kiev issued a security alert, warning of a 'continued risk of significant air attacks.' The US State Department has advised Americans currently in Ukraine to identify shelter locations in advance and keep reserves of water, food, and medication. Moscow has repeatedly condemned Ukraine's continued drone strikes and acts of sabotage on Russian territories, claiming that they undermine ongoing efforts to find a diplomatic resolution to the conflict.
