Thread: Смертная казнь в России

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

Can you give me an example where the "100%" is there?

The president of Georgia pops in mind. )))

Generally there are cases when there are plenty of evidence, traces of blood, fingerprints, DNA samples, eyewitnesses, camera recordings, etc. If we listen to you we can assume that prisons are full of innocents now.

Originally Posted by Ленивец

How many divisions does Crocodile have?

Umm.. can you elaborate? I'm not sure I get it.

Originally Posted by Ленивец

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Also, I highly doubt there would be much legal defense in case of Grechushkin.

We don't have enough information to make a judgement on this.

That's true. That's why I said that I "highly doubt", not that he hadn't in fact had much legal defense. The "highly" is based on my assumption that he's probably not Berezovsky. And the other side (the state = the police) would probably be represented much better as they are desperate to close the case as soon as possible.

Originally Posted by Ramil

If we listen to you we can assume that prisons are full of innocents now.

The "full of innocents" is definitely stretching is out, but there are some who are innocent. And killing them would be irresponsible. You see, you have to give the meaning for their death. Basically, you mentioned two different things:

1. You want the justice - so the "non-humans" ought to be punished.
2. You want "non-humans" exterminated (the "sanitization").

In the former case, I think unless a "non-human" gets it exactly like he'd done to his victim, there's no justice (as outlined by the Golden Rule and intuitively accepted by everyone). And if there were ten victims he should get it ten times. Otherwise, there's no justice. Other means (e.g. 9gr of lead, the euthanasia, the uranium mines, etc.) are too soft. So, advocating either of those means, you prevent the justice to take place.

In the latter case, you stopped short of realizing the society advocating the "sanitization" becomes the non-human society. I was looking for the extent you can accept treating the "non-humans" and for some reason burning them alive was hard on you to accept. So, that indicates to me that you ARE human and you think the executioners ARE humans too.

I just want to point out that you cannot say "innocents".
The word cannot be bent in that way. You have to say "innocent people" or "wrongly convicted people" or something like that...

Anyway, my view is that no man is so perfect that he has the right to decide who should die. There is a religious aspect to this.

Same thing with saying that some people are sub-human. There is a good precedent in history from Germany which shows that things quickly get very nasty if society takes it upon itself to say that some people are unworthy for some reason.

I mean, where do you draw the line? Killings can be manslaughter, pre-meditated, accidental etc, etc. What about euthanasia... What if the person was acting under threat, under influence of drugs...

Originally Posted by Johanna

Anyway, my view is that no man is so perfect that he has the right to decide who should die. There is a religious aspect to this.

There are lots of "unless" that almost any religion would recognize. Unless you're threatened to be killed, unless you see that someone who's dear to you is threatened to be killed (or killed in front of you), unless ... and so on.

True... But this discussion is about whether the state has the right to kill people, isn't it? The state is just (supposedly..) a representation of all the citizens in the country... So the question is, in this respect, is it right for it to decide to kill those who cross certain boundaries? I say it's not.

I say, get them out of they way so they can't hurt anyone else.. and make them work to redeem themselves to the rest of society. But I don't want any killing done in my name, as a citizen.

Obviously if somebody was about to kill somebody I loved and I could stop it by killing them, then I'd do that. But that's a "spontaneous" situation that cannot be planned for.. Whereas state executions are very much a conscious policy.

I DO think it is important to have tough sentences for certain crimes though - just to deter people - particularly those that have no morals of their own, or who are driven by perversion or ruthless greed.

I also think that young offenders should be given rehabilitation if possible - it may not be too late to turn them arond and make them change their lives. They may have been pushed into a life of crime by circumstances they couldn't contro.

Older people have had more opportunity to think reflect on the choices they make and are completely responsible for their action -- and should take the consequences of their actions -- which should be tough for serious crimes, but nor death.

This is my view.

Originally Posted by Johanna

But I don't want any killing done in my name, as a citizen.

I think you somehow miss the point that Ramil was stressing. Do you think there are certain actions that deserve the death as their punishment in principle? Yes or no? If yes (as you mentioned in your "spontaneous" situation), then who can kill (the state or the individual) is just a matter of seek-n-hide with your own consciousness. If no (as you mentioned in your "religious aspect"), then you should deny all killings and punish those who administered it (even as a result of their self-defense).

So, I'm trying to propose the compromise. I'd say YES there are actions which deserve the capital punishment in principle, but since the judicial system cannot ensure the 100% accuracy, when in doubt - act conservatively (do not kill). If there's enough evidence though, the life imprisonment (as the means of the further crime prevention) is legitimate in my opinion.

I'll use the term 'Subhumans', if everyone agrees to use it to describe people who do not fall under the definition of 'human beings' in its non-biological context. Yes, you can draw some parallels to the nazis, but this is a matter of terminology. The nazis were obsessed with the notion of some 'higher race' and tried to breed one. So there's a vast difference. Nobody suggests to cast out people by some ideological or biological features. Only by harm or damage they have done to the society and/or individuals.
Ok, to the 'where to draw the line question'. Incidental killing is one thing, but deliberate murder is another one. That's why every court considers so called aggravating and attenuating circumstances. They are well defined and have been used for centuries by assorted courts.
Crocodile, I don't advocate torture or some exotic ways of killing. It is simply a matter of principle: if you take a life then we will take yours. Period.

And the last thing about the executioners. People manage to get by with so called 'collective responsibility'. That's why there are several people in the firing squad and there are several people who close the electric chair circuit, etc. They don't become 'subhumans' because they don't kill for their personal motive. This is I think is the main difference. And this is where 'that line' should be drawn.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Crocodile, I don't advocate torture or some exotic ways of killing. It is simply a matter of principle: if you take a life then we will take yours. Period.

Based on what grounds?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

Crocodile, I don't advocate torture or some exotic ways of killing. It is simply a matter of principle: if you take a life then we will take yours. Period.

Based on what grounds?

Read above.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

Crocodile, I don't advocate torture or some exotic ways of killing. It is simply a matter of principle: if you take a life then we will take yours. Period.

Based on what grounds?

Read above.

Justice? (Your "sub-humans" theory doesn't speak to me.)

Originally Posted by Ramil

I'll use the term 'Subhumans', if everyone agrees to use it to describe people who do not fall under the definition of 'human beings' in its non-biological context.

There is no objective definition of 'human beings' in its non-biological context.

Originally Posted by Ramil

if you take a life then we will take yours. Period.

Then lives of those "we" should also be taken. This logic can only be justified with the immediate suicide of the judge.

I like "10 little ni99ers" (in English AKA "And then there were none"), the film by Govorukhin rather than original book by dame Agatha. Only the one who sacrifices his own life has a right to judge.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Justice? (Your "sub-humans" theory doesn't speak to me.)

Yes, the jury verdict in the official court.

it-ogo - that is a simplified version, a figure of speech if you want. I defined the criteria in my posts above if you had only bothered to read.

Well to answer the Croc's question I'd say I'd rather err on the side of caution.
I'd rather a bad person "got away" than somebody innocent was executed.

And if I have to choose whether it is OK to kill somebody who is about to rape you.. I'd say "no", even if it the victim was my sister or myself. But that doesn't mean that I would blame somebody who killed a person under such circumstances, or that I wouldn't try my best to stop him. I might accidently kill him, for example, while I tried to defend myself... and I don't think I'd feel particularly guilty about that.

I think it is a sign of a moral, advanced, sophisticated society that it can deal with violent and maladjusted people in a better way than killing them.

In a very rich country there is no excuse for solving a problem in this type of "quick-fix" way, when the person could perhaps be completely rehabilitated through therapy etc. Obviously a poor country cannot afford this.

Here is a very interesting report about a Norwegian prison. I have heard about this prison and it actually "rehabilitates" a lot of people. But Ramil will feel sick when he sees this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSaoirOdZOQ

I remember from school something about "crime and punishment" in other countries. There was a horrible film about an American black man from poor circumstances who grew up to be a criminal, accidentally killed somebody and got executed in the electrical chair. The execution was incredibly scary to watch. In the same class their was also a story about a writer in the USSR who was critisising the governement and refused to work. He got sent to a mental institution and given drugs against his will. At the end of the film he had become crazy for real.

Nasty stuff all of it. Justice is such a difficult question.. The point of that lesson was that both the people had in fact broken the laws of the society in which they lived but both could be said to have mitigating circumstances.

The matter of what is "right" and "wrong" varies from culture to culture and from between different times.

Originally Posted by Johanna

Well to answer the Croc's question I'd say I'd rather err on the side of caution.
I'd rather a bad person "got away" than somebody innocent was executed.

How would you feel if you release a prisoner giving him the 'benefit of doubt' and hear he kills another ten people afterwards?

when the person could perhaps be completely rehabilitated through therapy etc

http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,1296676,00.html
I don't really want to give [s:2d8208dr]people[/s:2d8208dr] animals who did this and who ordered this ANY chance. THEY DO NOT DESERVE IT.

Watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eJDUVkJS6g

Originally Posted by Ramil

it-ogo - that is a simplified version, a figure of speech if you want. I defined the criteria in my posts above if you had only bothered to read.

Yep, you rely on the state punitive machine (jury is a part of that machine anyway). A strange thing for an anarchist.

Machine is used to avoid personal responsibility for the killing. OK, let's assume that sometimes it is necessary. What for? For someone to enjoy sweet revenge? I believe it is unacceptable.

To make the society safe. This is OK. Will the life imprisonment be less safe for the society than killing? Only if the state punitive machine fails to afford the life imprisonment. That is if the machine is ineffective in general. If the machine is ineffective in general how it can be effective in selecting whom to kill?

Execution a criminal is an act of love and compassion - to the crime's victims and their relatives. If there's a grave crime (e.g. a murder) and we have direct evidence against someone, death penalty must be administered.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Originally Posted by Ramil

it-ogo - that is a simplified version, a figure of speech if you want. I defined the criteria in my posts above if you had only bothered to read.

Yep, you rely on the state punitive machine (jury is a part of that machine anyway). A strange thing for an anarchist.

Indeed. I'm just trying to find a compromise. You wouldn't want me administering justice accoding to my own views on morale. Ideally, people should perceive the truth and deal with the criminals without the state intervention. But alas, this option will not be available to us in the forseeable future. So if we can't get rid of the state we can at least utilize its functionality.

Machine is used to avoid personal responsibility for the killing. OK, let's assume that sometimes it is necessary. What for? For someone to enjoy sweet revenge? I believe it is unacceptable.

No. To instill fear of possible punishment to potential criminals. And what will be wrong if the victim's relatives know that at least the justice is done properly? I don't see any problem with that. Yes, maybe some will call it 'revenge' - I still don't see anything wrong with that.

To make the society safe. This is OK. Will the life imprisonment be less safe for the society than killing?

Yes. A life imprisonment sentence can be reviewed, altered or softened.

Originally Posted by Johanna

I remember from school something about "crime and punishment" in other countries. There was a horrible film about an American black man from poor circumstances who grew up to be a criminal, accidentally killed somebody and got executed in the electrical chair. The execution was incredibly scary to watch.

It is horrible. But I suppose it must have happened half a century ago, when blacks were still discriminated. Even in tzarist Russia people weren't necessarily executed if they committed just one murder and if there were mitigating circumstances -- like a state of affect, previous clear record, etc. Raskolnikov comes to mind, and some other cases. Their sentences would often be commuted to penal servitude.

I do not believe in taking someone's life just because he did it to someone else, each case needs individual treatment. I've recently re-watched that Sherlock Holmes episode (they're almost constantly on our tv ), where a woman kills a vile, unrepentant blackmailer, Charles Augustus Milverton, who has destroyed not only her life (her husband died of grief/heart attack? when her letters written god knows how long ago were sent him by this blackmailer) but also the lives of dozens of other women. Holmes and Watson saw this woman kill that scoundrel with their own eyes. Yet they do not betray her to the police. I say, they did right! And any normal person will say the same. The same story is if, for example, an alcoholic husband has been beating his wife and children to pulp until finally she loses it and kills her oppressor -- in my opinion, she should be acquitted -- he asked for it. And it's no good saying she should have left him instead of killing him -- in Russia, it is often very difficult to leave one's spouse due to poor housing conditions, and living with an alcoholic is hell.

BUT when we are talking of a person who has killed many times, maybe with special ferocity, and doesn't show any signs of repentance -- I'm just trying to work out the logic of letting him live. I am not personally vindictive, as far as I know, but I don't know how I'd feel if I was a victim's relative and knew that the murderer continued to live...
Chikatilo had a difficult childhood, too. I feel extremely sorry for those children who do not have a normal, happy childhood, but he can't possibly be excused by it for what he's done while being an adult, mature person with family.

I totally agree with the judge:

Taking into consideration the monstrous crimes he committed, this court has no alternative but to impose the only sentence that he deserves. I therefore sentence him to death.

And out of those two persons, who were executed instead if Chikatilo, at least one wasn't a furry bunny either, but a person who'd served a prison sentence for a similar crime -- rape and murder. Which doesn't mean, of course, that his execution wasn't a horrible mistake.

Chikatilo may be a relatively rare case, but just this May a girl went missing in my neighbourhood. She was last seen coming out of a nightclub with some unknown guy. She was found only in September -- raped and murdered -- by a man who was gathering mushrooms in the nearby forest. To be sure, you can say that she should have been more cautious -- the club had a bad reputation and anyway, going anywhere late at night with a stranger is not a good idea. But that's just a lesson for others, which will not be heeded, either. By my logic, the person who did this doesn't really deserve to live. It's another matter that he might not be caught. Or caught only years later, after he's killed a good many other girls. Or caught, found crazy, and therefore not responsible, treated for a couple years in a lunatic asylum and then released to commit more crimes.

Another woman went missing this very spring -- there was a huge uproar. She was last seen going into her appartment block (подъезд) at 00:00 but didn't make it to her flat (her boyfriend just gave her a lift in his car to her house but didn't accompany her to the flat). Later, her keys were found in the lift/elevator. Search groups were organised but it all proved useless. She hasn't been found and we know nothing of her fate but it is utterly impossible she just left without saying anybody because she had a ten year old son and she was by all accounts a very responsible mother who would never have left her child like that.

That said, I'm glad that the punishments aren't so severe now as they used to be. For example, it is my understanding from classic literature that in the 19th century England, people could be hanged for as slight a breach of law as mere stealing.

A link to the discussion in "Литературная газета" -- http://www.lgz.ru/article/10959/