Thread: Смертная казнь в России

Originally Posted by Johanna

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I think ВарраВа has already mentioned that before Chikatillo was found several other people were executed for his actions. You haven't replied to that yet ...

OMG
Are you sure? That's terrible.

Yes, a party boss or minister wanted to obtain quick career, so he had to do something outstanding and he decided find a serial murderer as soon as possible.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Originally Posted by Оля

А насчет того, что это - не люди, у меня тоже вопрос: вот маньяк, он с самого начала своей жизни был маньяком, нравственным чудовищем, не достойным считаться человеком? С самого первого дня своего рождения? Или он постепенно превратился в монстра? Как это произошло?

Душу продал. (Между прочим, это случается сплошь и рядом). Телесная оболочка обычно достаётся дьяволу.

А можно, кстати, про продажу поподробнее?

Originally Posted by Johanna

Mischa - the prison video is really terrible. The prison guards are totally out of order. What they are doing is surely illegal, right? They ought to be sacked. I wonder who managed to film it - seems risky.

From what I know, the video was made by the press-cutting service of the prisoner camp for a purpose of intimadation and mamagement of the popullation. Then the video was given to Sokolov (head of a regional organization "Правовая основа") by one of the policemen and after that a well-known Russian human right activist L.Panamarev with a lawyer Robert Amsterdam started spreading the film. Amsterdam put the film on youtube where it was first censored, and restored shortly later for the sake of not hiding facts of human rights abuse in Russia (or something like that). Lev Panamarev also wrote a special article where he called Kalinin (head of that camp) the author of a new sadistic system of prisoner management for what police inspired proceedings against Ponomarev blaming him in honor abuse.

If anybody got beaten by the guards in a European prison and media found out:
---The prisoners would get compensation for "suffering".
---The guards would be suspended and sent on "sensitivity training"
---A prisoner would write a best-seller book about his experiences...

As for Russia, we can read that police didn't see any crimes in beating prisoners as shown in videomaterials.

In fact there's no protection against sadistic guards and policemen in Russia. By defending such policemen the system encourages sadists to continue violence.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Ваши слова лишь подтверждают мое мнение о нашем обществе. Нет здесь ни духовности, ни цивилизованности, ни морали. Люди делают бездумные решения, повинуясь не совсем понятным мотивам.

Не очень понимаю, как именно следует понять эти слова.

1) На основе социологических исследований (Гери, Вагнер, Кетле) доказано, что количество преступлений не является величиной случайной, но является результатом неизбежных причин, коренящихся как в природе человеческого психе, так и в природе самого общества. Эти исследования полностью опровергают казалось бы очевидное утверждение о том, что устрашение меры наказания способно снизить количество совершаемых преступлений. Кроме того, повсеместный опыт внедрения запрета на смертную казнь в Европе подтвердил эти теоретические изыскания.

Не следует так же забывать, что подавляющее большинство преступлений совершается в состоянии «псевдо аффекта». То есть сначала человек совершает преступление под воздействием каких-либо факторов (эмоциональных, например), и лишь потом начинает задумываться над тем, что же он натворил. Процент таких преступлений, в которых преступник заранее просчитывает все риски и возможные прибыли ничтожен, что полностью развенчивает миф борцов за смертную казнь о неком расчётливом преступнике, например, взяточнике, который полагает, что, выйдя через пять лет на свободу, он сможет воспользоваться своим имуществом. А как в образ расчётливого убийцы вставить маньяков, я вообще не представляю.

Таким образом, распространённое эмоциональное мнению общественности, что смертная казнь нас спасёт, уменьшив количество преступлений, — глубоко невежественное заблуждение. Любые обращения к этому аргументу заведомо ошибочны, и потому не могут быть приняты нами в расчёт.

2) Экономическая сторона вопроса. Каков бюджет всех тюрем и зон по сравнению с бюджетом всей страны? А какова доля этого бюджета, идущая на содержание «смертников»? Какова реальная цена вопроса? Неужели можно полагать, что содержание тюрем на фоне всех прочих расходов страны обходится нам слишком дорого?

Таким образом, рациональных доводов «за» смертную казнь не существует. И этот вопрос полностью переносится в плоскость морально-этическую. То есть, принимая решение о смертной казни, мы можем руководствоваться лишь аргументами из этой области, поскольку только они что-то значат.

Взглянем на историю развития человеческой культуры. Важнейшее открытие, которое мы сделаем, будет заключаться в том, что постепенно ценность жизни отдельного человека стала значительно более весомой. В Древнем мире это было не так, что очень хорошо видно на основе анализа религиозных и мистико-оккультных воззрений на природу человека. В Древнем мире только цари имели индивидуальную судьбу и волю, в то время как простые люди были «людьми маленькими», не только не равными в правах с правителями, но даже не равными перед богами. Это вообще был так сказать другой вид разумных прямоходящих существ. Так в Древнем Египте до кризиса VIII — XI династий, говорить всерьёз о том, что кто-то кроме фараона мог иметь божественную душу не приходится. Важной вехой в развитии человеческой мысли на этом пути стало христианство, которое уравняло всех перед лицом бога, и утвердило существование бессмертной души у КАЖДОГО человека.

Если даже мы забудем гностические учения об эонах, а будем оставаться в области рациональных «земных» суждений, то мы будем вынуждены признать, что в природе человека существует некая, имманентная потребность, требующая признания каждой жизни, каждого сознания значимым, не зависимо от социального статуса человека (принцип: «Каждый мужчина и каждая женщина — это звезда!»). Проигнорировать эту потребность, значит нанести огромный ущерб самим себе. Не менее ужасный, как если мы проигнорируем любые другие более очевидные физиологические потребности. Таким образом, права человека — это логическое завершение процесса, который начался ещё во времена XI династии фараонов. Простой, «среднестатистический человек» вполне может игнорировать этот факт, ввиду своей недальновидности, но принимающий важные решения человек не может позволить себе такой неосведомлённости. Он должен смотреть на несколько шагов вперёд. Введение смертной казни — это откат назад от принципов прав человека, за которые было отдано так много человечеством (пример с Америкой не корректен, поскольку не она является полноценным законодателем в этой области, чтобы нам не пытались внушить о счастливой и свободной American life).

P.S.

Ваши слова

Ко мне множно на ты.

Punishment should work, that's the criteria whether it's to be used or not.

1. Use of execution for a single crime should be limited to sentences with first-class proof. The other should prison terms, including the life-long one.
2. Professional criminals (who're convicted three times for acquisitive crimes and did two terms in prison) should be executed no matter the crimes were as minor as pick-pocketing. Because they have given exhaustive prove they're worthless members of society.

That's it. There will be no crimes pubishable by death in Russia.

http://rian.ru/constitutional_court/200 ... 74346.html

МОСКВА, 19 ноя - РИА Новости. Конституционный суд (КС) РФ запретил применять смертную казнь в России и после 1 января 2010 года, когда истекает введенный в стране мораторий на применение высшей меры наказания. Соответствующее определение КС огласил в четверг.

"Настоящее определение окончательное и обжалованию не подлежит", - сказал председатель КС Валерий Зорькин.

Согласно определению Конституционного суда, введение с 1 января 2010 года судов присяжных на всей территории РФ не создает возможность назначения смертной казни, заявил судья.

Мораторий на смертную казнь был введен десять лет назад до того времени, пока на всей территории России не начнут работать суды присяжных. Сейчас только в одном регионе России - в Чеченской Республике - нет суда присяжных. Здесь его планируется ввести с 1 января 2010 года.

"В течение 10 лет в РФ действует комплексный мораторий на смертную казнь. За это время сформировались устойчивые гарантии права не быть подвергнутым смертной казни и сложился легитимный конституционно-правовой режим, в рамках которого - с учетом международно-правовой тенденции и обязательств, взятых на себя Россией, - происходит необратимый процесс, направленный на отмену смертной казни как исключительной меры наказания, носящей временный характер и рассчитанной лишь на некоторый переходный период", - говорится в определении Конституционного суда.

Well Ramil, I know you didn't want this outcome and I thought you were arguing it well even if I didn't agree with your standpoint, on principle.

So who actually took the decision? A judge after considering the legal issues?

I couldn't really understand the above, but it seems that BOTH the death penalty and jury trials are going to disappear?

Personally I have never understood why Jury trials are supposed to be so great... I know the UK and US think it's more fair.. But as long as the Judges are honest and everybody has legal representation it might be better not to have a jury that is easily manipulated...

Anyway - if Russia wasn't so big you could have had a REFERENDUM on the death penalty - i.e. all adults get the chance to give their vote on that specific issue.

Originally Posted by Johanna

So who actually took the decision? A judge after considering the legal issues?

The Constitutional Court. There is a provision in the Constitution that this type punishment is temporary and will be eventually banned. That's it, i think.

I couldn't really understand the above, but it seems that BOTH the death penalty and jury trials are going to disappear?

No, Jury trials will remain.

But as long as the Judges are honest...

Yeah! Honest! That's the problem!

Anyway - if Russia wasn't so big you could have had a REFERENDUM on the death penalty - i.e. all adults get the chance to give their vote on that specific issue.

Yeltsin has written the Constitution in such a way that holding out a referendum became an extremely difficult task. Even amending the Constitution is very difficult (even though you don't need a referendum for that, you need one only if you want to change the fundamental articles)

Barshevsky is against death penalty.

http://top.rbc.ru/politics/16/02/2002/47731.shtml

http://www.treli.ru/newstext.mhtml?Part=20&PubID=13509

A few weeks ago I heard on the news that a poll was conducted according to which more than half of those polled were "for" death penalty (that's to say, if I didn't mix it up with "for" the moratorium... but I don't think I did)

I'm still undecided. I'm pretty sure that if one of my close relatives were killed (not as a result of medical mistake or negligence, but murdered) I wouldn't want the murderer to continue living...

[quote:1ym9hssa]But as long as the Judges are honest...

Yeah! Honest! That's the problem![/quote:1ym9hssa]

ok...

When did the problem with corrupt judges start? Do you think that they were generally corrupt during the Soviet era as well? Or did the problem start in the 1990s?

Do you think that almost ALL judges are corrupt now, or just some?

I guess there are two forms of corruption of judges:

1) Economic corruption (financial gains for the judge, personally)
2) Political corruption (the judge is in a situation where he "must" make a certain decision in order not to hurt his career).

Do you think that both cases are applicable right now, or just one?

Starrysky --- I think that on an issue like death penalty you have support one side or the other based on principle. Meaning; regardless of whether you have been personally affected or not.

Say for example you had two brothers:

1) Brother "A" got killed by violent hooligans in a robbery (the hooligans got caught....) Do you insist on the death penalty for the killer?

but at the same time..

2) Your other brother "B" got involved with some bad people, got drawn into criminality and ended up in a situation were somebody innocent got killed. The relatives of the killed person insists on the death penalty for your brother...

In such a scenario you couldn't say that you wanted the killer of "A" to get the death sentence, but that "B" should be spared...

The only principled position would be to accept that "A"'s killer would live on... (in prison) OR that "B" would have to face the consequences of his actions...

Principles are all fine as long as it doesn't get personal. I think you can only say that your principles are firm enough only after you've been in a similar situation yourself. That's why I'm not certain how I feel on this subject. I am not advocating death penalty in all sorts of cases. But when the person was found guilty of pre-meditated murder, pleads guilty, and there are absolutely no extenuating circumstances...

Originally Posted by Johanna

1) Brother "A" got killed by violent hooligans in a robbery (the hooligans got caught....) Do you insist on the death penalty for the killer?

but at the same time..

2) Your other brother "B" got involved with some bad people, got drawn into criminality and ended up in a situation were somebody innocent got killed. The relatives of the killed person insists on the death penalty for your brother...

These situations are way too vague, because the degree of involvement of "brother B" and "hooligans" is not clear. What does it mean "got killed"? Does it mean that the robbed person just sort of fell and took a blow to the head which proved fatal while the robbers didn't actually mean to kill? No, such a case doen't seem to warrant death penalty. Or was he beaten to death by a gang or senseless, crazed animals? If my brother actually personally murdered somebody and it wasn't self-defence, then, you know... If he's of age, he must bear the full responsibility for his actions. What does it mean -- "got involved with some bad people"? Doesn't he have a mind of his own? It all depends, you see. I am only "for" letting teenagers escape prison in the case of petty crimes, like, stealing, when nobody was seriously hurt.

What I'm talking about is deliberate, pre-meditated murder. My grandmother was strangled with a rope in her own flat by a would-be tenant. Apparently he was just looking for money. He hasn't been found and never will be found now because many years have passed. I wasn't very close to her, she lives in another city and I've only came to stay with her about 2 times in my life, but even so I don't think that person deserves to live. What if it was my mother?

A 12 year-old girl was killed a few years ago in my district. She was coming from school and her mother saw her entering the hall (подъезд -- don't know what it's called in English They lived in an appartment block). This maniac was waiting for her on a landing. She never came to her flat. Her father found her seconds after bleeding to death. The murderer was seen by a lot of people running out onto the street, covered in blood. He hasn't been found. I don't think he deserves to live either.

подъезд = Staircase (I think)... Stairs or staircase is the expression that is used for the common entrance to blocks of flats. I think that's what you mean?

Anyway, that's a terrible story.. If you think the killer of the girl should get the death penalty, then that means that you are really FOR the death penalty.

I agree that my example was vague. But to be clear, let's say instead that your brother was with some friends, got very drunk or stoned and actually DID kill someone.... Let's say it was an old woman or a priest... Something that really shocked people.

Would you accept that he was sentenced to death?

My own brother got in terrible trouble once, in Singapore, which has very strict laws. Our father lived there for a while, and we went to visit over the summer. While we were there, my brother and two other boys shoplifted at a "mall" and got caught by the security guards.

Singapore's standard penalty for shoplifting is to WHIP the person and then send them to prison for two years. They don't take bribes either.
We seriously thought he would have to go to prison in Singapore. Luckily he got off on a technicality, thanks to a good solicitor, and perhaps intentionally because they didn't want to punish a European boy in this way.

Before this happened, I had thought that Singapore had effective laws for dealing with hooliganism (the result is that there is hardly no crime or public drinking at all there). But that was before I had to face the prospect of my own brother being subject to their justice!

(They also have automatic death penalty for drug smuggling!)

Originally Posted by Johanna

We seriously thought he would have to go to prison in Singapore. Luckily he got off on a technicality, thanks to a good solicitor, and perhaps intentionally because they didn't want to punish a European boy in this way.

Well, all his guilt was stupitidy and nobody got harmed. But let's slighty modify the argument and throw it back at you. Would you object the death sentence for your brother if you've heard once that your brother had stopped a car on a highway and deliberately shot the driver, his wife and their two children just for the sake of $700?

(They also have automatic death penalty for drug smuggling!)

Good for them. I bet there's minimum drug trafficking there.

Originally Posted by Ramil

(They also have automatic death penalty for drug smuggling!)

Good for them. I bet there's minimum drug trafficking there.

Harsh laws do not stop the drug traffic. I would say the drugs would be VERY expensive there, that's all. And the trade is probably fully controlled by the corrupt officials who'd benefit from that situation in two ways: first, the profit margins are really high, and second, their monopoly is protected by the taxpayer's money.

Also, how many robberies it would take for an addict to get their dose? And what would they inject into themselves if they don't get it?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

(They also have automatic death penalty for drug smuggling!)

Good for them. I bet there's minimum drug trafficking there.

Harsh laws do not stop the drug traffic. I would say the drugs would be VERY expensive there, that's all. And the trade is probably fully controlled by the corrupt officials who'd benefit from that situation in two ways: first, the profit margins are really high, and second, their monopoly is protected by the taxpayer's money.

Also, how many robberies it would take for an addict to get their dose? And what would they inject into themselves if they don't get it?

Do you have any comparative figures of drug addicts in Singapore and other countries?

Originally Posted by Ramil

Do you have any comparative figures of drug addicts in Singapore and other countries?

Unfortunately, I don't. Do you?

Well I have spent a fair bit of time there and I like it. The policies do work very well. It's a very small country, but nevertheless, practically no serious crimes are committed by native Singaporeans. They have a good standard of living and it's just not worth the risk for them.

They DO catch smugglers sometimes though - Philippino, Indonesian and Chinese people. I don't know the figures.

But there is absolutely no drug selling visible, no drunk people, no hooligans ETC. It's completely clean everywhere, no graffiti etc. 100% safe after dark. Nobody even crosses the street unless the "green man" shows - even when there are no cars.

When you fly in to Singapore, they hand out a little card with a skull symbol on it, to explain the anti-drug policy in several languages -- to warn the smugglers. That way, if anybody "didn't know" about the policy, they can still back out - all they need to do is leave thedrugs on the airport and not try to bring them through customs.

It IS a dictatorship for sure, but the people like it because it works very well and the government is not corrupt. The newspapers don't "attack" the government or strongly critisise it but they do write about problems.

Most of the people there are super-proud to be Singaporean and they get annoyed if anybody criticises their country. A popular Singapore song, some cute kids.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXhxMj4fFgY

People there think that they need tough laws to prevent racism, bad hygien, drugs and other problems that were common there before the current government.

Originally Posted by Johanna

Nobody even crosses the street unless the "green man" shows - even when there are no cars.

A police state, huh?

Originally Posted by Johanna

It IS a dictatorship for sure, but the people like it because it works very well and the government is not corrupt.

Well if you mention to the average Singaporean that it's silly to make chewing gum illegal and fine people $500 for not flushing the toilet.... then they get angry! They think that their strict laws are the reason they are more successful than all other countries in the area. Singapore is definitely a rich country - they have achieved enormous economic success. It's not an annoying or intrusive dictatorship and normal people don't feel oppressed.

It's absolutely PACKED with Europeans and American expats there... Nobody sees the policies as problematic unless you are a drug addict or like to spit on the street or litter...

Plus you can joke about it -- and protest the death penalty (below). So there is freedom of expression apart from explicit agitation against the government. Corrupt politicians get sentenced to really long prison terms so there is not a lot of corruption. Sstory about a teenager who is about to be executed for drugs crimes. http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking...4.html?vgnmr=1

The executed an Australian one time when I was there though, for smuggling...



A Singaporean poster (it's an English-speaking country)