Difficult talk about the death penalty in Russia

302
This week, with a new force, not only in society, but also among the representatives, if it is possible to put it this way to the power corps, there was a discussion about whether Russia needs a moratorium on the death penalty, or is it time to stop the restrictive period on the action of the highest measure. Perhaps the discussion would once again fall on the philosophical, rather than on quite substantive rails, if it were not for the statement of the head of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, Alexander Bastrykin, who, expressing his opinion, noted that he was in favor of the death penalty.

Information Agency TASS cites the words of Alexander Bastrykin expressed by the head of the Investigative Committee of Russia in Izhevsk during the event in memory of 13-year-old Andrei Kasimov, who, together with his sister, was the victim of a rapist and a murderer:

I personally advocate the death penalty, especially as a person. I am not afraid of critics when they begin to criticize me or those who express such thoughts. Do not be hypocritical. Evil must be punished. He took someone else's life, especially the life of a child, and you pay with your own. People who commit such serious crimes are not a place on earth.


The chairman of the Investigative Committee was, for obvious reasons, emotional. Alexander Bastrykin arrived in the Republic of Udmurtia to hand over the medal “For the Salvation of the Perished” to the mother of the dead, Andrei Kasimov.

Difficult talk about the death penalty in Russia


It is worth recalling that last fall, the investigative authorities of Udmurtia received a message about the disappearance of two children - 13-year-old Andrey and 11-year-old Alexandra Kasimov. On the following day, the bodies of children with signs of violent death were found in a wooded area near the village of Balezino. Investigators managed to establish that the conviction of Konstantin Russkikh who had previously been convicted of a crime. The offender tried to commit an act of sexual violence against 11-year-old Sasha Kasimova, but Andrei tried to prevent the offender, as a result of which a fight ensued. Russian killed the boy, then raped Alexandra Kasimova and killed her, throwing the bodies of children in the forest.

Subsequently, the fault of K.Russkikh was fully proved, and the court sentenced the rapist and murderer to the death penalty, which according to the Constitution of the Russian Federation is the death penalty. In connection with the current moratorium, the death penalty for a recidivist criminal who took the life of two children, was replaced by life imprisonment ...

Something in quality reference information.

The last case of the application of the death penalty in the form of the death penalty in Russia was recorded in 1996. In 1996, the Russian Federation joins the Convention on the Establishment of the Council of Europe, and undertakes to abolish the death penalty. The moratorium on the use of the death penalty was introduced by a decree of the first Russian President Boris Yeltsin. The State Duma decides to support a moratorium on the use of the death penalty as the death penalty, but at the same time, the Russian parliament did not ratify the signed sixth protocol of the so-called Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, adopted in Strasbourg in 1983 year and slightly modified in 1994

Article 1 Protocol No. XXUMX is called "The abolition of the death penalty" and looks like this:

The death penalty is abolished. No one can be sentenced to death or executed.

However, the same protocol allows states to use the death penalty, for example, in wartime.

Article 2: "The use of the death penalty in wartime."

The state may provide in its legislation the death penalty for acts committed during a war or in case of imminent threat of war; similar punishment is applied only in cases established by law and in accordance with its provisions. The State shall inform the Secretary General of the Council of Europe of the relevant provisions of this legislation.

And this is from Article 20 of the Russian Constitution:

1. Everyone has the right to life.
2. The death penalty, pending its abolition, may be established by federal law as an exceptional measure of punishment for especially grave crimes against life, provided that the accused has the right to have his case heard by a jury.


In other words, the death penalty itself as the death penalty for especially grave crimes does not contradict the Russian Basic Law. The main thing that the case was considered by the jury. And, taking into account the fact that for some time, Russian laws have finally begun to be considered above the so-called “international” (precedent of the rule of the decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation over the decisions of the ECHR), that is, there is every reason to say that the same sixth protocol of the Council of Europe is indisputable.

So, Alexander Bastrykin was emotional in Izhevsk. There are clear reasons for this. When you face a grieving mother who has lost two children at the hands of the real scum itself, for which there is no understanding of the value of human dignity, human life, after all, the life of a child; and when this scum currently lives and is kept on it, as an ordinary taxpayer, the means (while the children are in graves for more than a year), you will be emotional ...

The head of the Sledkoma adds that he repeatedly had a duty to deal with lawbreakers (murderers, terrorists), for whom there was one single priority — their own life. Alexander Bastrykin says that these “people”, sobbing, literally begged to save their lives, despite the fact that they themselves took the lives of other people without much regret. That is why, as a man, Bastrykin declares the need to return to the practice of the death penalty, in particular, for such as the same rapist and murderer, whose victims were children in Udmurtia.
At the same time, Alexander Bastrykin himself added that the Investigation Committee always obeys the spirit and letter of the law, making it clear that his personal opinion should not be confused with the official position of the RF IC.

However, if the need to return the death penalty to the system of execution of punishments is said, to put it mildly, by no means the last person in the law enforcement system, then this is already a precedent.

In the Kremlin, speaking out against the return of the death penalty, in 2013 it was said that “toughening punishment does not lead to the eradication of crime”. The statement is somewhat crafty. After all, to eradicate crime, as shown historical practice, nothing leads at all. Crime was, is and unfortunately will be. But the commensurability of the punishment of the crime (and Bastrykin, incidentally, also spoke about this) is sometimes the only tool that can still sober up a person who is aiming at a terrible act. All the pathos and state humanism towards those who committed serious crimes against citizens of the state is something from a series of “European values” - those values ​​when a killer of dozens of people is appointed to the Breivik terrorist in a three-room “cell” with a gym and personal the library. One would think that if Breivik had suddenly left the place of his "imprisonment", then he would have abandoned his views and guaranteed would not set about the crime again.

In Russia itself, by the way, there are many examples of the current “state humanism”. And one of them is a living and practically healthy Nurpasha Kulayev. If someone has forgotten, then this is, excuse me, a nit who participated in the terrorist attack on the Beslan school No. XXUMX in 1.



Kulayev as part of a gang committed one of the most heinous crimes in the recent history of Russia. More than 330 people became victims of the terrorist act, most of whom are children. And the death penalty, to which Kulaev was sentenced by the court, on the basis of the current moratorium was replaced by a life sentence. Now Kulaev writes petitions stating that he, you see, is not satisfied with certain cellmates, and he needs another - a separate camera. And the petitions are granted ... For he, you know, is a man ... He is a citizen ... 6-th paragraph ... Ugh! ..

Of course, you need to hold back emotions, because the main underwater reef of the abolition of the death penalty, by definition, is corruption. The fact is that the corrupt environment, to which so far, unfortunately also applies to the judicial system, by definition, can send a different and innocent person to the world. And the probability of a judicial error is also great. But emotions cannot be held back when the Russians or Kulayevs are alive, and their numerous victims are not. This time. And two things that still need to sometimes look into the Constitution. The main law is a thing that is also criticized, but still ... As already noted in the 20-th constitutional article, it is said that the issue is resolved during a court session with jurors. Russian statistics indicate that the use of a jury actually reduces the risk of errors, miscalculations or excesses to a minimum. There is no ideal system, a court with a jury would hardly have left at least some chance to the same K.Russkikh, whose guilt was proven, what is called, with interest.

And the possibility of returning the death penalty for repeat offenders and terrorists is not a thirst for blood, but following international practice. If the death penalty is abolished in the EU countries, but this does not mean that it is abolished everywhere. Especially dangerous criminals are executed in Belarus, Nigeria, India, Indonesia, China, Japan, Iran, Pakistan, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and a number of US states.

By the way, one should not forget that Russia is a federal state, and therefore, at least as an experiment, certain subjects of the federation (especially those in which the crime rate is the highest), based on the Constitution, could certainly receive the right to hold court sessions invitation of the jury and the possibility of imposing the most severe sentence.

When someone declares, and who, they say, gave the right to state structures to take away the life of a criminal, then a counter-question arises: did the criminal have a right to take away the lives of other people a priori? ..
302 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    11 December 2015 16: 25
    Quote: cuzmin.mihail2013
    Unfortunately, I was not able to read all the comments. But I have a question for those who believe that we cannot take away, according to the law of the state in which we live, not according to the laws of blood feud, not based on imposed religious dogmas, but precisely according to the law of the state, which must ensure our integrity and right to life . Why, I, a law-abiding citizen, should be in danger of being killed (or my relatives)! Why should I pay from my own pocket for the maintenance of this murderer for life (by the way, there are many people in Russia whose income is comparable to the maintenance of these scumbags - we are bashfully silent about this!).
    Why does he wake up every morning and hope that something will change in his life (some kind of unprecedented amnesty, parole, or revolution).
    In the end, when you get out, at least at 50, at least at 70, there is always a chance to take revenge (send a suicide belt or KAMAZ at full speed into a bus filled with children). You can also dream about escape.
    I'm not even talking about the diet (on which besieged Leningrad would have survived without problems!).
    Why does he dream every night when he falls asleep?
    And now, gentlemen, opponents of the death penalty, answer me:
    How do the relatives of their victims feel?
    Those they killed wake up in their graves and what do they dream about?
    And how do most of those present feel about the verdict?
    And most importantly, why a criminal can take a life at his own request, but the state cannot execute this scumbag on the basis of the law.





    Exactly. I couldn't have formulated it better myself.
  2. -1
    11 December 2015 17: 57
    The death penalty is meaningless as a measure of punishment and a means of preventing serious crimes. The death penalty has existed for millennia, and has proven its uselessness, otherwise there would be no crime long ago. The only question is what to do with such criminals. There is another way, much more productive and useful for society: life imprisonment with assignment to indefinite hard labor, that is, to work in especially difficult, harmful and dangerous conditions.
    1. 0
      13 December 2015 02: 51
      Life imprisonment has existed for millennia, and has proven its uselessness, otherwise crime would not have existed long ago.

      indefinite hard labor has existed for millennia, and has proven its uselessness, otherwise crime would not have existed long ago.

      You need to think with your head before you write ;-)
    2. 0
      13 December 2015 02: 51
      Life imprisonment has existed for millennia, and has proven its uselessness, otherwise crime would not have existed long ago.

      indefinite hard labor has existed for millennia, and has proven its uselessness, otherwise crime would not have existed long ago.

      You need to think with your head before you write ;-)
  3. 0
    11 December 2015 19: 05
    The moratorium should be lifted for many reasons:

    - It’s more humane to take a life than to rot for 30 years in a particularly strict prison...
    - A lot of resources will be freed up, which are used to support life and conditions of imprisonment under especially serious charges...
    - Society is deprived of another liberal “achievement”...
    - Increases motivation not to commit serious acts...

    I think many people think the same way, we spend taxes on maintaining multiple murderers and rapists...
  4. +1
    11 December 2015 21: 52
    I believe that serial maniacs and pedophiles are not only possible, but SHOULD be sentenced to death!!
    As for the corruption of the investigative bodies... I have personal experience: they imprisoned me for show. The investigator screwed up the case, the assistant prosecutor (her friend) constantly supported requests to extend the terms of arrest, the judges (five!!!) didn’t even bother to figure it out and agreed. The result is that the investigator was given another star for successful work and she closed the case “due to the expiration of the deadline.”
    Do you think someone apologized? Yeah, just a minute!
  5. 0
    12 December 2015 12: 12
    Quote: shasherin.pavel
    Quote: Onotolle
    And there the average tenure is 3-7 years.

    You would also be told how much the table of the arrested state costs. For what price do they buy new mattresses and beds.
    The Internet cannot answer the question of how much to spend on feeding a prisoner, but there are opinions that 22 per month, there is an opinion that 000, compared with the minimum pension of 17 rubles.
  6. 0
    12 December 2015 17: 19
    The death penalty is necessary. If only for the simple reason that, purely mathematically, there will be fewer criminals. After. Russia is in a state of almost (permanent) war with terrorism, and more precisely with turechina, with kakla, with pintosia and glycans from Albion. And if there is war, then the Laws are up to par with wartime - if in peacetime - 25 years, then in wartime, excuse me - execution. Something like this. At the same time, socially dangerous crimes should be sentenced to death - distribution of drugs and their derivatives, such as spice, etc., betrayal (espionage), anti-Russian statements with calls for violence and insults, and economic ones - for theft of budget funds, the creation of organizations such as horns and hoofs, etc. War is war, and act like it’s war. And we are at war.....
  7. +1
    12 December 2015 20: 49
    How much is a person's life worth? Three, five, seven, eight or ten, or maybe twelve years in prison? It is clear that there are murders due to negligence. Let's leave them out. How old do you estimate a child's life to be? Ask their mom or dad? He served 15 years, was released, lives, but this one or those? They deprive a person of a future, we are all endowed with this right and wealth from birth, and we ourselves, even if it’s difficult, retain this right. But behind the death of a person there is also the continuation of his family. So how many people does a criminal kill when he kills a child? One? Or two? Three? Even if not a child, maybe a man or a woman. SO HOW MUCH IS A HUMAN LIFE WORTH - HOW MANY YEARS? I don't understand the word tolerance - it's indifference. I don't understand sexual minorities - they are a threat to the human race. I don’t understand the West - it’s Sodom and Gomorrah. I don’t want my children to know the words gay and lesbian, pedophile and maniac - these are taboos. Why do people need these non-humans? After all, the word beasts is not suitable for them. Grief fuels hatred and revenge, but what can you say to the parents and relatives of those innocently killed? Put yourself in their shoes. Imagine for a second your child in the clutches of these non-humans? Now judge...
  8. +1
    13 December 2015 02: 41
    Although I agree with the following - given the current state of affairs in the police regarding interrogation and conducting investigative and operational activities, there is a very great danger in accusing an innocent person..... it is necessary to thin out the ranks of valiant policemen (I would like to add - and the SS).... once every three years, because they are attached and corrupted - they protect, knock out, accompany ....
  9. +1
    13 December 2015 03: 40
    People have a mess in their heads. The moratorium issue should be resolved by professionals, not bloggers or headless commentators. This requires political will. You will see that with the return of the death penalty, the revival of Russia will begin. The revival is not due to the death penalty, but execution will be returned due to the revival of the country.

    Professionals have statistics on serious crimes and know how much their number decreases when the death penalty is introduced. They are also familiar with the psychotypes of those against whom the death penalty is aimed, their motives and behavioral patterns. If the number of deaths as a result of serious crimes decreases, then, taking into account only isolated cases of innocent people convicted, the death penalty should be introduced. The rest of the reasoning is simply stupid.

    Those who, hiding behind humanism, shout about the innocently convicted, actually tremble with the thought “what if I?” I can recommend that they start fighting against prisons and hospitals because innocent people are imprisoned there or they make incorrect diagnoses. In fact, according to this logic, all prisons and hospitals should be demolished. Schizophrenia? Yes, that's her.

    Once again: execution is not revenge for what was done and not punishment in the form of retribution. This is just a tool to reduce the number of serious crimes. And there is no need to remember here “what is it like for the relatives of the victims?”, their emotions are a completely extraneous problem. Many criminals are not afraid of serving time, but are superstitiously afraid of death. And they do not commit evil because of this. That's the essence!

    A fresh proposal: it is possible to separate high-profile verdicts into separate jury trials, the members of which will be recruited from people who have deep knowledge of the topic. For example, serial killers must be tried by investigators who specialize in serial killers. They can be collected from all over the country for trial and verdict. They know this contingent like crazy and will be able to determine whether they are guilty or incriminating themselves. For specialists this is quite realistic. And ordinary jurors are most likely insane. They will listen to the cries of the parents of girls savagely raped to death and begin to stamp guilty verdicts.
  10. 0
    13 December 2015 11: 39
    When someone declares, and who, they say, gave the right to state structures to take away the life of a criminal, then a counter-question arises: did the criminal have a right to take away the lives of other people a priori? ..

    I would like to take a machine gun.
  11. 0
    12 January 2017 03: 40
    In such disputes, heatedly discussing the fate of criminal freaks, both “humanists” and their opponents usually forget the MOST IMPORTANT.
    Ordinary citizens who make up the vast majority of the population of any country.
    Protecting them from criminals is the main task of the state.

    Every act of “humanism” towards criminals is an act of mockery of crime victims, propaganda of crimes that can be committed with impunity.

    Therefore, real humanism would be an extremely harsh (but certainly fair and legal) attitude towards criminals, up to and including the inevitable death penalty for especially serious crimes. It's not the criminals you need to worry about *alternatively reasonable* chattering “humanists”, but about honest citizens who suffer from criminals.