When we talk about the death penalty, we have to take a deep breath for a moment and understand that the right to carry out the death penalty means the right to take someone’s life. This is not an abstract argument and it concerns the principal, the most basic human right, the right that all other rights are based on - the right to life, the right to the opportunity to live, to understand one’s guilt, to repent for one’s sins, to analyze one’s own mistakes, and to reform oneself.

We have to understand that the death penalty, like any murder, is impossible to undo.

It seemed that afterArmenia’s accession to the Council of Europe, the issue of the death penalty should have been considered solved in our country. Should there be a death penalty or not, should it be applied or it should exist but not be applied? These issues would have been resolved in any country, from the moment of accession to the Council of Europe. Of course NO, of course the death penalty is unacceptable for any country that abides by the rules of the Council of Europe. For any state, but not for ours. Both our state and our society accept a version of the alleged Armenian cunning - let’s say yes, we agree, but in fact not accept it; let’s say that we won’t have the death penalty, but in reality, we will have it, and we will apply it if we must.

This simplistic cunning is the reason that today, so long since we became a member of the Council of Europe, we are still discussing this issue.

Lawyers maintain that the death penalty is a basic legal issue, that our entire legislation is built upon the principle of balance between crime and punishment, and that by abolishing the death penalty this principle will be disturbed.

That is to say that if you have killed a man, then be so kind as to pay with your life. Jurisprudence proposes specific types and terms of punishment for specific crimes. And there there are types of crime, for example, murder, for which only the death penalty is considered equivalent. “And what should we do with murderers, with those who committed murder with particular cruelty, with those who killed children, do they have a right to live, or do we have a right to allow them to live?” These are the main arguments of advocates of the death penalty.

But these are emotional responses, not legal arguments. As emotional as any act of revenge. We are not talking about the punishment fitting the crime here, but about revenge. That is to say, because we don’t know the value of a human life or how many years in prison can compensate for it, we will kill you. But is this a punishment?

When a thief is sent to prison and what he stole is confiscated - this is a punishment. Both society and the thief understand that. When ten times the bribe is confiscated from a bribe-taker and he is taken to prison, society considers it to be his punishment and the bribe-taker feels punished.

But who can say whether someone condemned to death feels punished? Suppose that society quenches its thirst for revenge and condemns a person to death, without understanding what death, which it punishes the criminal with, is. What about the criminal -- is he really punished? Is death a punishment?

The death penalty is a punishment that no one understands, neither the punished nor the punisher, and it is nothing other than premeditated and “legalized” murder. The death penalty as a method of punishment must not exist in our society or in any other. This is not only a humanitarian matter but an issue of rights. A society may entitle itself to the right to take from a criminal everything that it gave to him or that he obtained by the opportunities rendered to him - his property, his freedom -- but life is the only thing given to men from above, and nobody has the right to take it -- neither the murderer, nor the court. And more so because the courts are not infallible and we know of numerous examples of wrongful death sentences. It seems that this argument alone should have been enough to oppose the death penalty and to abolish it once and for all.

Instead, we discuss with all seriousness whether we have the right to kill a person with a court verdict or not. And a court verdict is necessary for our the sake of our conscience, to not be labeled murderers. It is through a verdict that society expects to appear justified, not to be considered murderers. But a verdict is simply a description of the circumstances of the crime committed by the murderer, nothing more, which is validated by law, and justifies us in our own eyes.

What is required of us today is the rejection of legalized murder. This is not even a subject for discussion; this is a condition, and any country which doesn’t meet it cannot become a member of the European family. From the moment we said “yes” to accession to the Council of Europe, we should have said “no” to the death penalty.