The right to life is the fundamental foundation of modern jurisprudence. Most criminal codes of the twentieth century, one way or another, argued that no one had the right to kill people, however, with the proviso: if the court decided to execute someone, then so be it. This situation placed a huge responsibility on jurors and prosecutors. On the facade of the Palais de Justice in France there is an inscription calling to remember the miller, who was once sentenced to death by mistake. Unfortunately, no one is safe from the wrong sentence, but the reason why most countries that call themselves civilized have abandoned the practice of forcibly killing citizens, even those 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 the Second World War were most often revenge for the Wehrmacht soldiers killed by the underground and partisans. At the same time, there was a certain coefficient that clearly showed how many times the life of a German was valued higher than, for example, a Slav or a Frenchman. In a democratic state, this rule did not apply. A serial killer can still be shot only once, regardless of the number of his victims. However, any execution from this did not cease to be revenge. The executions of women and adolescents are especially disgusting, regardless of the gravity of the crimes they have committed. Does the state have a moral right to take such a position? Should it not be higher than the base instincts inherent in every person? If the goal is to prevent a specific killer from committing crimes in the future, then obviously he should be isolated from society until the end of his days.
Execution as the 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 had been resurrected after their death, such a decision could be considered fully justified. However, given the importance of their testimony regarding historical circumstances, many of which have not been clarified to this day, such an early massacre is very reminiscent of the elimination of witnesses, in which the heads of the victorious countries were interested. For approximately the same reasons, it seems that Saddam Hussein was also hastily hanged.
Humane executions
In relation to the guilty women, the most “more humane” methods of killing were most often used. The executions of women in the event of their pregnancy were postponed until the forty-first day after delivery. The custom of treating the condemned and leading to the scaffold only after he recovers is also interesting. It is no less entertaining and customary in some countries to treat a convicted person, regardless of gender, with a delicious lunch immediately before hanging, shooting or guillotining. The tradition clearly demonstrates the sophistication of the thoughts of the organizers of executions. In general, executions of women were carried out in much the same way as men, if the special gravity of “maternal” crimes, such as infanticide, which in the Middle Ages were punishable by burial alive, were not taken into account. At the same time, society understood the whole immorality of the spectacle, which was a public execution. Women in Germany, walking in the square to savor the painful death of the condemned, were awaiting public censure.