Thread: Смертная казнь в России

Да здравствует наш суд, самый гуманный суд в мире?

За убийство сотрудника ИЯФа обвиняемые получили менее пяти лет

14 декабря Искитимский районный суд Новосибирской области вынес приговор в деле об убийстве сотрудника Института ядерной физики Линара Маркина на базе «Разлив» в августе 2008 года. Трое молодых людей обвинялись в жестоком избиении человека. Суд назначил двоим 4 года и 10 месяцев лишения свободы, одному – 160 часов исправительных работ.

Напомним, трагедия произошла в ночь на 11 августа 2008 года. Линар Маркин, сотрудник второго экспериментального производства ИЯФ СО РАН, приехал на базу отдыха «Разлив», расположенную недалеко от села Бурмистрово (Искитимский район), по путевке от профкома. Среди прочих отдыхающих была компания молодых людей (жители Новосибирска, двое несовершеннолетних – 15 и 16 лет и 20-летний молодой человек), которые вели себя вызывающе: нецензурно выражались, злоупотребляли спиртным и пр. По свидетельствам очевидцев, Линар Гарифулович сделал шумной компании корректное замечание и попросил не мешать отдыхать другим.

Ночью тело 47-летнего Линара Маркина с множественными ранами головы и туловища было обнаружено на берегу Обского водохранилища совершавшими обход охранниками. Преступление было раскрыто «по горячим следам»: молодых людей задержали.

Было возбуждено уголовное дело по ч. 4 ст. 111 УК РФ (Умышленное причинение тяжкого вреда здоровью, повлекшее смерть потерпевшего). Наказание по этой статье предусматривает от 5 до 15 лет лишения свободы.

В итоге, подсудимые 1991 и 1994 г.р. получили по 4 года 10 месяцев, подсудимый 1988 г.р. 160 часов работ. Суду не смогли доказать, что молодой человек 1988 г.р. избивал Маркина, защита настаивала, что он разнимал драку.

Заметим, что первое заседание суда должно было состояться в феврале 2009 года, но слушания постоянно откладывались из-за болезни подсудимых и их адвокатов.

Вынесенный приговор вызвал удивление у сотрудников ИЯФ СО РАН. Наталья Алексеева, возглавляющая профсоюзную ячейку второго экспериментального производства, считает, что приговор необоснованно мягок: «Недавно показывали сюжет в новостях, так за мошенничество 5 лет дали». Наталья Алексеева сообщила, что вместе с родственниками Линара Маркина будет добиваться пересмотра приговора.

Председатель исполкома ОКП ННЦ СО РАН Евгений Ковалев поддержал точку зрения Натальи Алексеевой. «Это возмутительно, я хорошо знал Линара, это был мягкий, непьющий, отзывчивый человек, душа компаний. Вы бы видели, что они (подсудимые), что с ним с ним сделали!» – возмущался профсоюзный лидер. И заявил, что профсоюзная организация приложит все усилия для пересмотра дела.

Алена Правдина, Ерлан Байжанов

Source -- http://academ.info/node/12629
discussion -- http://forum.academ.org/index.php?s=...2&st=0&start=0

In English -- in August last year a researcher from one of our local science institutions was beaten to death by three young imbeciles while on vacation in a local sanatorium. All he did was make a remark to them that they should behave themselves -- they were using foul language and being rowdy. Two of them got about 5 years apiece, the third -- 160 hours of correctional labour. The killed man was 47 years old. A kind responsible man by the accounts of his co-workers. I don't know what I'd feel if it was my father!

And another recent case:

За убийство таджика четверым из пяти скинхедов дали условные сроки

Вчера Новосибирский областной суд, руководствуясь обвинительным вердиктом присяжных, вынес приговор по делу об убийстве 24-летнего гастарбайтера осенью 2008 года. Четверо из пяти обвиняемых получили условные сроки, и лишь зачинщик драки, скинхед Алексей Носков по кличке Барс, получил 13 лет лишения свободы в колонии строгого режима.

Двоих его приятелей, Алексея Казакова и Анатолия Гладышева, суд приговорил к 1 году лишения свободы условно с испытательным сроком на 2 года. В течение этого времени им запрещено появляться в общественных местах в нетрезвом виде.

Еще двое преступников были освобождены от наказания, поскольку не достигли совершеннолетия. Суд, правда, назначил им исправительные работы, но тут же снял наказание: истек срок давности привлечения к уголовной ответственности.

24-летний уроженец Таджикистана Абдулатип Турсунов, возвращавшийся вечером 19 октября 2008 года с Центрального рынка домой, был забит насмерть группой скинхедов. Следствие установило, что зачинщиком драки был Алексей Носков – именно он ударил парня ножом. Свидетели избиения вызвали «скорую помощь», но Абдулатип Турсунов скончался по дороге в больницу.

Source -- http://academ.info/node/12622
discussion -- http://forum.academ.org/index.php?s=...7&st=0&start=0

In English -- 5 skinheads killed a Tajik. 4 of them were released on probation and only the ringleader got 13 year in a strict regime colony. Of course, we don't know all the particulars -- perhaps those other hoodlums are sorry now for what they've done, they're teenagers yet...

Originally Posted by starrysky

по делу об убийстве 24-летнего гастарбайтера осенью 2008 года.

Суд, правда, назначил им исправительные работы, но тут же снял наказание: истек срок давности привлечения к уголовной ответственности.

Простите... я не поняла - какой в данном случае срок давности?

Originally Posted by Оля

Простите... я не поняла - какой в данном случае срок давности?

Да мне тоже это показалось странным... Вон Демьянюка судят 50 лет спустя после Холокоста, уже седым старцем, а тут какой-то год прошёл... Ну да я не юрист. Конечно, в данном случае сложно определить какое именно наказание было бы хотя бы более-менее приемлемым, но 5 лет выглядит как-то уж очень мягко... Наш суд действительно гораздо снисходительней, чем американский, например. Что с одной стороны хорошо. С другой, иногда странно.

Вот ещё вычитала, что оказывается, если в СССР состояние алкогольного опьянения было отягчающим обстоятельством, теперь все наоборот. Не знаю, правда ли нет...

"Ага, ну то есть алкогольное опьянение сыграло в роли смягчающего фактора, вроде бы как отсутствие злобного умысла... Так что наматывайте граждане на ус. Круче только, когда человек просто подходит к случайно подвернувшемуся прохожему и пристреливает его так, без всякого умысла, просто потому что захотелось и подвернулась возможность".

"Может быть, сами того не подозревая, Вы высказали замечательную мысль: надо обязательно вернуть пункт УК РСФСР, где чётко и ясно было прописано - "состояние опьянения является ОТЯГЧАЮЩИМ обстоятельством". Точка! В нынешнем УК РФ этого, к сожалению, нет".

Originally Posted by Оля

Originally Posted by starrysky

по делу об убийстве 24-летнего гастарбайтера осенью 2008 года.

Суд, правда, назначил им исправительные работы, но тут же снял наказание: истек срок давности привлечения к уголовной ответственности.

Простите... я не поняла - какой в данном случае срок давности?

Надо полагать, по той статье, по которой получены исправительные работы.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

Your first and fundamental assumption that Justice is based on the Golden rule is wrong. And starting from there you got carried away (IMO). Justice has nothing to do with the Golden Rule. They are different concepts.

I think I explained the relationship rather simple. If you think those are different concepts, bring on your explanation.

Is your 'Golden Rule' concept written anywhere in the law? Probably not. It's a philosophical or religious concept.
Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged." Basing on this can we disband all courts, judges and lawers?
Basing on the assumption that there may be a judical error can we stop judging criminals? Imprisonment can ruin a man's life with almost equal efficiency in some cases. The mere fact of being alive doesn't change much, you know.

In spite of everything courts will continue their work and criminals will continue to commit crimes. What connection has your principle of relations between two people with the case when one of them is dead and the third one has to decide what to do with the first one? According to you the third one should leave the case alone and don't interfere.

The "sanitization of sub-humans" explanation is not an explanation. It's just an angry emotion and prevents the balanced thinking. You go on bringing the emotional side to it and make everyone angry (=poor judges). That's the way the propaganda usually works. And I have to admit it was quite successful with the "sub-humans" last time it was widely adopted by Nazis.

Sub-human thing is just a tool for pacifying assorted liberals. Since there are so called 'human rights' and if we want to keem the liberals happy (I would have preferred to send all liberals to mine uranium by hand /joking/) the solution seems pretty obvious - denying some beings the right to be called humans.

I want to illustrate my point with an example. I read a sci-fi story some time ago. Unfortunately I remember neither the author nor the title. But I'll try to give you a summary:

As we know Isaac Asimov has defined three robot laws and one of them was something like 'Thou shall not kill or harm a human being'. And as the story went on, we saw a squad of soldiers in some point of the future having a robot in their ranks. Following the Asimov's law I've mentioned earlier this robot could only defend the soldiers and help them in various tasks. He couldn't shoot at humans. The commander of the squad was a cruel man and after storming some god forgotten village he started committing atrocities. After some argument with one of his officers he tried to make this poor robot to execute some native but the robot shielded the man with his body and shot the commander instead. This was a SHOCK. A robot killed a man! This incident became known and technicians disassembled the robot and tried to find the reason for this 'malfunction'. They failed. They couldn't explain the robot's behavior. They checked and re-checked the programming and hardware and confirmed that the robot could only kill animals and simply COULD NOT KILL A HUMAN BEING. The story ends here.

But what makes us human? Genes only?

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Originally Posted by Ramil

You may not believe it but it does work.

This is interesting. I heard there was statistical research proved that it doesn't work. But I did not find any link now so I wrote just "I believe". Do you have some reference to the research results confirming that it works?

If you investigate further, you'll eventually understand that all research that proved otherwise was conducted by the British scientists.

Statistics is the vilest of lies. When you give me the results of any statistical research I'll ask you: 'Who paid for it?'
Whe you actually pay some real amounts of money to some people to conduct a statistical research you don't need actual results. You need the results that confirm your point of view.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Is your 'Golden Rule' concept written anywhere in the law? Probably not. It's a philosophical or religious concept.

That's the best definition (=everyone agrees) for the justice. So, if you had bothered to read what I said earlier, you might have noticed that I said our judicial system has nothing to do with that. That meant to refute your usage of the term "deserves" which you tend to use in a wrong context to justify the capital punishment. So, from the judicial point of view, there's no "deserves" (=no justice), there are other concerns that the law addresses.

The pros and cons of the capital punishment is always a hotly debated issue, and there are many sincere and open-minded participating people who have solid background in law, ethics, and history.

I do not intent to address the rest of your "sub-human" theory.

My 'deserves' thing was my own. It was my feeling. It was you who suggested to rape and shoot a criminal several times for his doing the same. But the main point of law (IMHO) is the provision that everybody follows it. And the main point of justice is seeing to obeying the law. From the formal point of view justice is blind. And to me justice is a very formal thing. Its only function is compelling everyone to obey the law.
The law, from the other hand, is a product of Man's will. Here we can debate and argue about whether killing murderers and rapists is moral or not. And if I say that according to my views on this world executing a murderer is moral and the bastard 'deserves' it - it's just my opinion. Morality, by the way, is also is a very flexible thing and tend to change with time.

Thus, on the seven pages of this thread I disclosed my view on this subject. I think I said enough to be understood. Not agreed with, but understood at least. And judging by the poll results I'm not alone in my views. I am willing to respect 'cultural traditions of others' since they, being 'humans', have accepted them willingly and I respect their choice.

Originally Posted by Ramil

If you investigate further, you'll eventually understand that all research that proved otherwise was conducted by the British scientists.

Statistics is the vilest of lies. When you give me the results of any statistical research I'll ask you: 'Who paid for it?'
Whe you actually pay some real amounts of money to some people to conduct a statistical research you don't need actual results. You need the results that confirm your point of view.

Yep, everything is bought and sold. Still we have our own heads which can be applied to check the logic and input data of any research. Sometimes statistical science is not so complicated. That's why I asked for the reference.

How can be checked if "it works" or doesn't. Say, in Canada death penalty was prohibited in 1975. Let's take number of murders per unit population per unit time before and after. If "it works", the burst of violence is unavoidable. Let's see... No burst, number of murders is slowly going down. Conclusion: in Canada it did not work. Logic is simple, input data are official data of Canadian government. I don't believe that Canadian government falsified data to make some pleasure to British scientists TM. (Will you say that it did, no matter of what I believe? )

Originally Posted by it-ogo

How can be checked if "it works" or doesn't. Say, in Canada death penalty was prohibited in 1975. Let's take number of murders per unit population per unit time before and after. If "it works", the burst of violence is unavoidable. Let's see... No burst, number of murders is slowly going down. Conclusion: in Canada it did not work.

My opinion about statistical researches are given in my second quote (below). Here I only want to ask: has anybody cared to consider other factors that might have played a role in lowering the crime level? Surely your law enforcement machine does many other things that help to reduce the crime level? No, the British scientists (TM) just compared the number of crimes 'before' and 'after'. And they made the conclusion basing upon this? You're not serious. Has anyone of them bothered to read at least this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_and_dependence.
Well, if they did prove that the correlation existed mathematically and they have conducted a multi-factor variance analysis and actually proved anything and also conducted a psychological research at the same time on a large number of criminals (not 100 as it is usually the case) I would respect them and may even listen to them. Otherwise - it doesn't prove anything.

From the other hand, I know that nothing works better on a man than a threat of physical violence. That's why I maintain that death penalty threat should work.

Logic is simple, input data are official data of Canadian government. I don't believe that Canadian government falsified data to make some pleasure to British scientists TM. (Will you say that it did, no matter of what I believe? )

I just mentioned my attitude towards statistical researches in general. I've studied general statistics theory, math statistics, probability theory and applied statistics for 3 years after all and I think I know about it a little bit more than just how to calculate an average value. And I think that you can't cross-relate two factors with so many additional 'noise' factors and get some meaningful result out of it if you speculating upon such a vague thing as human psychology. You can use a crystall ball with better efficiency.

I for one accepts Ramil's different opinion. Although I don't share it, his argument make a lot of sense. This is not a completely black and white issue.

My reasons for being against it have to do with my upbringing in a country where death penalty has been unthinkable for over 100 years. This is an unusual situation in Europe. My views are also influenced by Christian values (against death penalty) and fear of miscarriage of justice.

I think countries that participated in the wars of the 20th century developed a different view on death penalty - at least partly - due to the need to deal with traitors in the harshest possible way (execution), and also because of the amount of unfair death and destruction that took place in the war. It probably hardened peoples views.

Like I said; I have a lot of respect for Singapore, which happens to use the death penalty. Ramil's theory is applicable in their case. Thanks to tough laws (mainly) Singapore developed from a poor third world nation to very successful modern welfare state in under 25 years. It could never have happened if the state had not had the power to put a stop to drug smuggling, Chinese triads and other serious problems that were going on there.

This said, I am very glad that death penalty is not used in Europe. I view it as a temporary solution that might be needed in a situation where lawlessness in a particular country is out of control. I think that was probably true for ex-USSR in the 1990s but lately it seems that things are slowly improving. I have split feelings about extremely dangerous and violent people.

I doubt very much that anybody is going to be convinced to change their minds here, but it's been interesting to read the comments.

It's a known fact that in American prisons convicted child murderers and molesters do not survive for long.

" ...
Warnings
...
* Do not admit or discuss any crime against a minor. Child molesters, abusers, and murderers are considered the lowest forms of life in prison and subject to frequent attacks. If you are convicted of a crime against a child, insist on being placed in Protective Custody immediately. You will not be able to hide the nature of your crime in a general population prison for long. You risk your life when (not if) other prisoners find out.
... http://www.wikihow.com/Deal-with-Being-in-Prison

Originally Posted by Lampada

It's a known fact that in American prisons convicted child murderers and molesters do not survive for long.

The same with former cops.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Here I only want to ask: has anybody cared to consider other factors that might have played a role in lowering the crime level? Surely your law enforcement machine does many other things that help to reduce the crime level?

You think there were some magic means to reduce crime drastically which somewhy had not been applied before the death penalty prohibition?

Has anyone of them bothered to read at least this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_and_dependence.

The real problem of BS TM is that they do not apply more fundamental principles like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor or, say, http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Принцип_актуализма (English link is wrong there). This makes any other knowledge vain.

Well, if they did prove that the correlation existed mathematically and they have conducted a multi-factor variance analysis and actually proved anything

Now this is the way to make statistics lie (see below). Congratulations! You are ready to take exams for BS!

From the other hand, I know that nothing works better on a man than a threat of physical violence. That's why I maintain that death penalty threat should work.

You have lost a keyword: "threat of immediate physical violence".

I've studied general statistics theory, math statistics, probability theory and applied statistics for 3 years after all and I think I know about it a little bit more

Then you should know that the complexity of mathematical model applied should correspond the volume of essential data under analysis. Otherwise it becomes metaphysics and as such is widely used by BS TM. Here we have just ONE essential event (death penalty prohibition), or just a few (in several countries) so anyone who applies here more complex mathematics than simple logic is obviously a BS.

(About myself: I spent several years interpreting experimental results in physics. To do it in a sane way one should feel statistics with whole body and using all senses. )

and also conducted a psychological research at the same time...

Here is another obvious way to make statistics lie. If you need objective results avoid Psychological Research TM by all means. Either with 100 criminals or with 1e6.

than just how to calculate an average value. And I think that you can't cross-relate two factors with so many additional 'noise' factors and get some meaningful result out of it if you speculating upon such a vague thing as human psychology. You can use a crystall ball with better efficiency.

Conclusion: when processing statistics don't speculate upon psychology. Only after you obtain the result.

it-ogo, that was a strange post. It confirmed everything I stated previously, but somehow argued with it at the same time.

You state that: we had stopped executing criminals (fact A) in 1975 and the number of murders did not increase, but has been slowly going down (fact B). Are you saying that there is a connection between A and B?

P.S.

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Принцип актуализма — в науке — презумпция, состоящая в том, что в прошлом действовали те же самые законы природы, что и в настоящее время.

И как этот принцип относится к социологии? Я уже сказал, что понятия о морали меняются со временем. Также изменяется условия жизни, техническое оснащение и пр. Я не соглашусь с тем, что 30 лет назад и сейчас полиция применяла одни и те же методы профилактики преступности. Да и криминогенные условия также могли меняться со временем.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Originally Posted by Ramil

From the other hand, I know that nothing works better on a man than a threat of physical violence. That's why I maintain that death penalty threat should work.

You have lost a keyword: "threat of immediate physical violence".

+1
More specifically, a threat of inevitable not distant physical violence. If the serial killers would know they would be caught for sure in a year, they might be more sober about their actions.

Originally Posted by Ramil

And judging by the poll results I'm not alone in my views.

There's a lie, a big lie, the statistics, and the interpretation. As of today, there are 7 people who think like you, and 13 who do not. So, YES, technically you're not alone...

Originally Posted by Ramil

I am willing to respect 'cultural traditions of others' since they, being 'humans', have accepted them willingly and I respect their choice.

Nice words. But what do they practically mean? For you, it would probably justify the 9gr-of-lead, for me, the ability to deal with the humans the way they had done to their human victims. At some point you mentioned sophistry (=subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation), didn't you?


PS. If I had been "trolling you for lulz", I would have said that (judging by the results) your poll had been sponsored by the liberals who advocate the abolition of the capital punishment.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Originally Posted by Ramil

From the other hand, I know that nothing works better on a man than a threat of physical violence. That's why I maintain that death penalty threat should work.

You have lost a keyword: "threat of immediate physical violence".

+1
More specifically, a threat of inevitable not distant physical violence. If the serial killers would know they would be caught for sure in a year, they might be more sober about their actions.

Crimes are committed for not to be caught. Nobody wants to spend the rest of his life in prison either but nevertheless criminals exist. I would agree with 'inevitable' part, but object with 'immediate'. If a serial killer knows that he can play crazy and go to asylum instead of execution chamber or else he knows that even a lifetime sentence can be objected I doubt this would make him to reconsider. Compare it to the 'no other option than death' concept. What threat will play its role better -death or imprisonment for life? (If they both fail then why do we need courts and justice?) If a street robber knows that if things would turn to worse he'd get 9-15 years in prison for murder and they'll let him out for good behavior long before that term is expired or he knows that he'd be executed if caught - what option would be stronger? There are risks and there are RISKS.

Originally Posted by Ramil

What threat will play its role better death or imprisonment for life?

That's subjective. Even the opinions on this thread were different. Some said the life sentence (depending on the conditions, of course) is tougher than an easy death.

Originally Posted by Ramil

If they both fail then why do we need courts and justice?

IMHO, it's much more important to have good detectives who would be able to collect enough evidence. The courts are interpreting the law with respect to the evidence presented, so the judicial errors in the most cases are rooted in the courts.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

What threat will play its role better death or imprisonment for life?

That's subjective. Even the opinions on this thread were different. Some said the life sentence (depending on the conditions, of course) is tougher than an easy death.

What would you prefer? Even in cell life can be sweet compared with the prospect of imminent death. Generally people are afraid of death (I say 'generally', but I suspect that the law is universal even though someone may think he's not afraid). And people tend not to lose hope even in severest conditions. Everything can change while you're alive but everything is finished for you once you're dead.

P.S. In many countries 'imprisonment for life' doesn't really mean that the man will be locked forever. In certain situations they may let them free after some time.

Originally Posted by Ramil

In many countries 'imprisonment for life' doesn't really mean that the man will be locked forever. In certain situations they may let them free after some time.

So, THAT should be unacceptable in cases where the person deserves the death penalty, which was substituted by life imprisonment. However, if the new evidence pops up (e.g. the serial killings continue in the similar way) there's a door open back.