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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
А можно, кстати, про продажу поподробнее?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
As for Russia, we can read that police didn't see any crimes in beating prisoners as shown in videomaterials.Quote:
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...
In fact there's no protection against sadistic guards and policemen in Russia. By defending such policemen the system encourages sadists to continue violence.
Не очень понимаю, как именно следует понять эти слова.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
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.
Ко мне множно на ты. :DQuote:
Ваши слова
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
No, Jury trials will remain.Quote:
I couldn't really understand the above, but it seems that BOTH the death penalty and jury trials are going to disappear?
:ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: Yeah! Honest! That's the problem!Quote:
But as long as the Judges are honest...
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)Quote:
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.
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...
:ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: Yeah! Honest! That's the problem![/quote:1ym9hssa]Quote:
[quote:1ym9hssa]But as long as the Judges are honest...
:angel: :) 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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
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!)
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
:thumbs: Good for them. I bet there's minimum drug trafficking there.Quote:
(They also have automatic death penalty for drug smuggling!)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
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? :unknown:
Do you have any comparative figures of drug addicts in Singapore and other countries?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
Unfortunately, I don't. Do you? :tease:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
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.
A police state, huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
:mosking:Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
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...
http://www2.gol.com/users/harasho/singapore-fine.jpg
A Singaporean poster (it's an English-speaking country)
http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r...Society/dp.png
The more I read about Singapore the more I like this country.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/168/3...c546a2e53c.jpg
Well I have had some very good times in Singapore - I like it.
There are no beggars, no crime, no very poor people, no drugs, no prostitution. Just a very sunny place where people think that shopping is a hobby and where people leave their wallets on the table at McDonald's to mark their seat.
It's got a slightly surreal feeling to it though, like a little miniature "perfect city". Indonesia which is quite poor, is close by - big contrast. Every other family has a maid from the Phillipines. Hm...
The man who kicked off modern Singapore is called Lee Kuan Yew; he is basically a "super-bureacrat". He seems in interviews like a modest, educated and decent person although obviously there is more to him than what meets the eye. He had the good sense to step down before he got senile or too old to run the country efficiently.
The interesting thing is that the whol country was a DUMP in 1965 or so - abandoned by Britain, and with people from all over the world who had nothing in common. It was dirty, dangerous and unpleasant.
Now it's one of the richest countries in the world with good standards of living for everyone and quite a patriotic population. The "price" that they have paid is that the government is rather autocratic. Lately the pro-democracy movement there has started growing though.
I suppose there might be people who might say that Russia actually doesn't necessarily NEED a Western democracy right now. They might think that it really needs a government that can put a stop to corruption, criminality etc.
1. Russia does not need democracy (Western or not).Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
2. A government can't stop corruption because it the source of corruption.
But how can you be positive about a strong government in a place like Singapore and be against it in Russia?
It IS possible for a government not to be corrupt. I guarantee that the Scandinavian governments aren't. The worst scandal for a decade was when one politician was found to have bought snacks at a petrol station with her government credit card, and another had used a nanny who was paid cash-in hand and not declared - only for a month.
Of course, there could be scandals going on that I don't know of: But all the top politicians live in normal neighbourhoods, next door to regular people like electricians and teachers... They don't get rich from being a politician.
The only other thing that I think they do which is a bit "underhand" is making countries that recieve financial aid use it to buy Swedish products. But this has only happened in a few cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statoil_corruption_caseQuote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
А правительство со спецслужбами ничегошеньки не знали?
Oops that's Norway... We (Sweden) should never have let them go...
Now they are too rich with their oil... I guess that's corrupted them.
Frankly I didn't know about that since I have lived in the UK for a while.
But this kind of thing is very much the exception though.
Because there is no real corruption, media blows up the instances that they can find to gigantic proportions. Like the woman who bought snacks at a petrol station.. That story ran for MONTHS and was covered from every imaginable angle. She has since resigned.
There is a popular reference in Karl Marx "Capital" vol.1Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... 31.htm#n15
Quote:
With adequate profit, capital is very bold....
300 per cent., and there is not a crime at which it will scruple, nor a risk it will not run, even to the chance of its owner being hanged
I don't mind strict laws if EVERYONE obeys them. But as it was once said 'the severity of Russian laws is mitigated by their non-observance'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
Thousand years of history proved the fact. It might be that in Singapore they can guarantee total law obedience but this just wouldn't work in Russia.
:D I am SO GLAD to hear that. Your words are reassuring for some reason. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
Power is a crime. Take the North Stream project for example. I can practically guarantee that there were bribes of some sort.
How do you know? Greed is a universal vice and I doubt Scandinavian politicians are immune to that.Quote:
Of course, there could be scandals going on that I don't know of: But all the top politicians live in normal neighbourhoods, next door to regular people like electricians and teachers... They don't get rich from being a politician.
So, be a slave!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
A wine of slavery is sweeter than bitter poison of the Freedom, isn't it?!
:evil:
I just can't belive in it. Where is your pride? Do not forget: only internal weakness searches for an external strength!
Your mind cannot comprehend any other alternative to democracy? Is it going to be slave or a free man? I'll tell you that I AM A SLAVE NOW JUST LIKE YOU ARE. Democracy is a vilest form of slavery when slaves think they are free.Quote:
Originally Posted by Звездочёт
Oh, yes, I know this "demagogy". However, please, say me, what's your slavery? And do not forget, slave does not have the speech freedom like you.
Only sovereign! =@Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
What for?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wowik
Those were ancient slaves. The modern ones can tallk the s.it out of their minds but nobody really cares. 90% of our population works for food. What 'rights' are you talking about? Who would be really interested in your opinion about any major political issue? Who will win if you sue the Moscow mayor? :D What exactly are you free to do? Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Звездочёт
This subject is purely philosophic. You can just equally say a person who has nothing has a real freedom. :"":Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
First of all. You confuse slavery and injustice.
You said "Those were ancient slaves". "Ancient?" -- I ask you. But what will you say about this:
This is slavery. Do you whant say me, that your "slavery" situation obeys these three signs?Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.humanities.edu.ru/db/msg/80132
Indeed! We are talking philosophy here. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
Звездочет, I don't quite understand what your point is. You did say (well, implied): either we have democracy or we will be slaves (at least this was how I understood your point). I mentioned that present 'democratic' living standards went not too far away from the ones the slaves were in 2000 years ago. There's more, some slaves in Rome lived in quite comfortable conditions - some were even better than ours (not everyone, of course, but there were some).
I still remain at the point that democracy is an hypocritic and evil form of government. Any soft 'authoritorian' form of government is better than this Western democratic model.
Philosophically speaking, one could say that the only freedom a person has is to choose a form of his slavery. :"":Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Luckily, we don't have to resort to the casuistic reasoning as the slavery has a decisive test: CAN YOU LEAVE IT OR NOT? :instruct:
Think about it: a person who escaped a "correctional working facility" and dies in taiga alone would die feeling free. (And it's true that for the fact the person is still enslaved by the force of gravity, for example. :roll: )
So, the USSR of the past would not allow its citizens to leave at their will, and modern Russia would. Therefore, the USSR was effectively a slavery and Russia is not. Period. No speculations. Feel free to apply that rule to any "soft authoritarian form of government". :hlop:
My problem lies with the 'kratía' part of the term dēmokratía. This term is hypocrisy all by itself. I could agree with the notion that the only freedom we have is to choose whom to obey, but why call it peoples' rule?
In reality people don't rule, their voting is just a show and does not decide anything. Besides, as it is known, the majority just can't be right because as a mass any number of people are as dumb as the dumbest of them. (Remember that 95% of population are idiots :D :D :D ). Why submit to the will of criminals or idiots?
I think what's more important is the substance and not the way you name it. The USSR proclaimed that the factories belonged to the workers and the land belonged to the farmers, but was it true for the fact? There are all kind of "blue pills" in the world, so that people's conscience is freed to live their own lives and deal with their own affairs. Don't take it too harshly. *)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
The idiots are only repeating what the criminals said, so it's the rule of the criminals only. In any form of the "cratia" only the criminals can survive at the top. (I think we had a mutual agreement on that.) :hlop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil