The right to life and death penalty in the Russian Empire in the views of liberal legalists at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries

Introduction. In the early 20th and 21st centuries, researchers have studied and continue to study the problem of the struggle for the abolition of the death penalty in Russia. A special role in this struggle was played by liberal lawyerslegalists. Based on the experience of European countries, they persistently sought to ban the death penalty. Occupying a central position in the political system of the empire, they most consistently defended the principle of “thou shalt not kill”. The relevance of the work lies in the fact that the activities of legalists are first identified as a historical phenomenon of the early 20th century. The purpose of the study is to establish the main aspects of the legalist campaign to abolish the death penalty in 19051910. Materials and Methods. In conducting the study, we used the problem-chronological method. It is based on the sources that have not previously been included in scientific circulation. This determines the scientific novelty of the work. The published works of legalists and archival materials on political parties and organizations of the empire (GARF and RGIA) were used as sources. Analysis. The conducted research has specified that a negative attitude towards the death penalty was formed among Russian lawyers at the end of the 19th century. At the beginning of the 20th century, with their active participation, the issue of abolition of the death penalty became the most important topic of political battles between parties. Results. It can be concluded that liberal lawyers-legalists formed an important public discourse on the abolition of the death penalty. They put this issue in the category of the main party tasks. They distanced themselves from all parties that did not fully support the abolition. In a sense, the legalists’ tough position on abolition limited their ability to create coalitions with other parties. But they could not give up one of their main ideas. Otherwise, they would have compromised their principles.