Two recent verdicts
So. Mikhail Khodorkovski and Platon Lebedev were found guilty on almost all charges, and sentenced almost to the longest term available: 9 years of 10 years possible.
Today, another defendant was found guilty: Alexandra Ivannikova, a Moscow young wife and mother who inadvertently killed a would-be rapist. She got two years on probation and must pay $9000 to the late rapist's relatives.
In both cases the society and blogosphere as a part of it are split. Heated arguments, ad hominem attacks, questioning of opponents' motives are rampant. But in the essence, both cases share one cause: the mindset of Russian courts which prevents them from acquitting anyone who was charged. Juries alleviate this a bit, but in some cases (such as of Sutyagin, a defense analyst convicted for espionage) judges dismiss juries which look like potentially pro-defendant and call new ones with abnormally high percentage of former governmental, security and defense officials. In other cases, such as that of colonel Budanov and captain Ulman, charged with war crimes in Chechnya, acquittals are reverted, and new trials continue until the defendant is convicted. Sometimes, like in Ivannikova case, the defendant gets some years in probation. This way, judges try to prevent appeals while still convicting the indicted. Virtually the only way to acquit oneself is to prove self not guilty before prosecutor, before the indictment. Otherwise one is guilty.
That is why the trial of Khodorkovski was so important for Russia and that's why the sentence was so shocking even for those of his supporters who were sure that he would be incarcerated. When a judge doesn't even try to show that he has his own mind, but simply retells the indictment almost verbatim, it is bad. But when he does it in a case that got such publicity, it is the sentence on Russian judicial system, which is publicly pronounced dead.
While prosecutors were as bad in Yeltsin's tenure, judges then were a way more independent. Several high-publicity cases ended in acquittals, and some of the Presidential decrees and Duma's laws were overturned by the Constitutional Court. While many problems persisted, when a court was sentencing someone back then, most of the public accepted their judgment. Now it's all over. The destruction of the Russian state by attempts to strengthen it continues.
Today, another defendant was found guilty: Alexandra Ivannikova, a Moscow young wife and mother who inadvertently killed a would-be rapist. She got two years on probation and must pay $9000 to the late rapist's relatives.
In both cases the society and blogosphere as a part of it are split. Heated arguments, ad hominem attacks, questioning of opponents' motives are rampant. But in the essence, both cases share one cause: the mindset of Russian courts which prevents them from acquitting anyone who was charged. Juries alleviate this a bit, but in some cases (such as of Sutyagin, a defense analyst convicted for espionage) judges dismiss juries which look like potentially pro-defendant and call new ones with abnormally high percentage of former governmental, security and defense officials. In other cases, such as that of colonel Budanov and captain Ulman, charged with war crimes in Chechnya, acquittals are reverted, and new trials continue until the defendant is convicted. Sometimes, like in Ivannikova case, the defendant gets some years in probation. This way, judges try to prevent appeals while still convicting the indicted. Virtually the only way to acquit oneself is to prove self not guilty before prosecutor, before the indictment. Otherwise one is guilty.
That is why the trial of Khodorkovski was so important for Russia and that's why the sentence was so shocking even for those of his supporters who were sure that he would be incarcerated. When a judge doesn't even try to show that he has his own mind, but simply retells the indictment almost verbatim, it is bad. But when he does it in a case that got such publicity, it is the sentence on Russian judicial system, which is publicly pronounced dead.
While prosecutors were as bad in Yeltsin's tenure, judges then were a way more independent. Several high-publicity cases ended in acquittals, and some of the Presidential decrees and Duma's laws were overturned by the Constitutional Court. While many problems persisted, when a court was sentencing someone back then, most of the public accepted their judgment. Now it's all over. The destruction of the Russian state by attempts to strengthen it continues.
posted by Mike Tyukanov at 7:36 PM
<< Home