Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
the issue is very interesting, and it concerns not only the judicial system. it is impossible to come to a definite opinion. and, ofc, you can't put an equal sign. “it is better to let 10 guilty people live than to execute one innocent person” – (c) E2. so I am inclined to answer that it is worse to convict an innocent person. a good example (for me, maybe for you too) is the film “the life of David Gale” and the TV series “mistakes of the past”. the movie is about (spoilers!) an unjustified death penalty, when a person was innocent, but the series is about how a person who was on death row for 20 years and was released, has to start life all over again. it's hard to realize that you have to die, it's hard. and it's also not easy to try to start living after the thought of being executed. I've gone off topic a bit, but the gist of my answer is, I hope, clear.
There is no clear answer to this question. It depends on what the person is suspected of. If we are talking about a serial killer or just a villain, then personally I would condemn a person even without 100% proof, because I would think first of all about the potential victims of the released person. By the way, almost no one ever thinks about the potential victims of the “released guilty”, but the evil reality is that they almost always happen.
So not convicting the guilty party is worse – who knows how many more people they will harm, or even how many they will kill?
3/177702907064 to V. V. Starodubov
111 111
[email protected]
4 Mar at 9:32 am
1 recipient:
GUSB of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia GUSB of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia
starodubov.zip
ZIP
This is Vladimir Viktorovich Starodubov born in 1966 who lives at 15 kv 45 Koroleva Ave Syzran
after receiving your email where you indicated that you need facts and proof of illegal actions against me to impose an illegal sentence on me
A criminal case was opened against me on January 3 1998 under Article 105 ch1 and I was sentenced to 9 years of imprisonment the term was served in full my criminal record was canceled
During the time I served my sentences, I filed more than 755 complaints about the verdict and the conduct of the investigation against me.
Oddly enough, but the proof of my innocence is a criminal case, BUT in the practice of Syzran courts, it is to have two criminal cases, one for checks where everything is drawn up and proved according to the law, and the other case is for the accused, who want to be illegally convicted, which happened to me, they are given it for review, and as a result, a person writes a complaint, I personally came across this practice not so long ago, not counting the moment when I was convicted under Article 105 of the Criminal Code
Now everything is in order.
1 I was detained immediately after the discovery of the body at 18.40, and the body was found according to the rows of documents starting from 1840 to 20.40, I filed a complaint to this question there was an answer that the investigator made a mistake nothing terrible this answer is in my personal file where I served my sentence UK272 / 3 of the city of Irkutsk
2 I was not provided with the victim for identification until recently, I did not see who he was and how he would look, for whom I was put, I filed a complaint to this question there was an answer that this identification was not necessary the completeness of the investigation was not affected by the answer in my personal file where I served my sentence UK272 / 3 of the city of Irkutsk
3 did not conduct an investigative experiment, I filed a complaint to this question there was an answer that this investigative experiment was not necessary, it did not affect the completeness of the investigation, the answer is in my personal file where I served my sentence UK272 / 3 of the city of Irkutsk
4 evidence was found at the crime scene, the examination of evidence was not carried out, I filed a complaint to this question there was an answer that this is an examination of the docks ' property it was not necessary for the completeness of the investigation this did not affect the answer in my personal file where I served my sentence UK272 / 3 of the city of Irkutsk
5 my clothes were immediately crumpled because the corpse has blood scattered within a radius of half a meter and I allegedly, according to the investigation and the court, trampled it, so I should have at least one drop of blood on me, but I did not conduct the examination. On this question I filed a complaint was the answer that this examination of my clothes was not necessary the completeness of the investigation was not affected. The answer is in my personal file where I served my sentence UK272 / 3 of the city of Irkutsk. But I know that there was this examination, because they took blood from me in the IVS, and since they didn't find anything on my clothes, they destroyed it, and during the court session, when the Chairman of the Syzran city Court Porunov was a judge at that time, he completely ignored my statements and petitions that I mentioned above to you
During the court session, Judge Porunov read out my testimony, I replied that it was not my testimony, he showed me this sheet of the case (the case was neatly stitched, numbered with a pen, sealed ). After viewing it, I said that this was not my signature ,the prosecutor immediately answered, nothing terrible, the investigator signed it, and Prorunov agreed with the prosecutor. After that, I filed a request to get acquainted with the case. I was given a chance to get acquainted, but not with the one I saw, but with another one (which was not sealed but numbered with a simple pencil) (I attach a copy of the application) and I was never able to see the original case that I saw in court. But the prosecutor's request was granted, as the first forensic examination did not establish that he died from hitting a horizontal surface from a fall, but not immediately he could move, and call for help, but this statement of judge Porunov did not suit appointed to conduct a second examination, and my application to conduct an examination of my clothes for spots that look like blood refused, the result came that, the prosecutor asked me for 8 years of imprisonment but in my last word I told Judge Porunov the whole truth in a cultural form and he gave me 9 years of imprisonment
Through the Internet, I submitted an application to the Syzran court for familiarization with the materials of the criminal case against me.
I was provided with it for review, but this is the third variant of the case, I read it (copies are attached) and made an application for receiving copies from sheet 1 to sheet 140, as well as copies of the court session minutes.
The chairman of the court Porunov refused me, allegedly I'm not supposed to, allegedly in his opinion.
(I enclose a copy)
he couldn't think of anything else, and giving me such copies is like death for him, it will immediately become clear that he condemned me knowing that I am not guilty!!
if you make a request to the archive of forensic medical expertise, on the question of whether they conducted an examination of my clothes and things from the docks found at the crime scene, then I think everything will immediately fall into place
and also if you force you to fulfill my legitimate demands on receiving copies of the ones I have declared, then there will be no problems with proving my innocence
“it is better to release 300 guilty persons than to convict one innocent person” Any judicial system is imperfect! Justice is worthless if even one innocent person gets hurt. All the merits of justice before this are immediately crossed out!!! Therefore, any doubt, any inconsistencies, any facts justifying a person should release the defendant from punishment.�
“evaluating evidence based on inner conviction” is an example of lawlessness, when a person can be convicted without special facts. I think it's disgusting when a person can be convicted based only on the testimony of the victim. In the US, for example, such cases are frequent. A woman can accuse a man of rape without any evidence, and they can only be accused based on the words “victims”.
History gives an unambiguous answer to this question and the answer is expressed in the principle of “presumption of innocence”. Deliberate and fundamental bias – “it is not proven that guilty means innocent” in full compliance with “it is better to release the guilty than to convict the innocent”. This is the best solution that has passed the test of time. This is a fair and correct decision. And rushing employees of the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation, judges of the Russian Federation should not be listened to at all. Professional deformity happened to them and here in the response of the prosecutor's office employee substitution, which is expressed in the willingness to apply the specified “inevitability of punishment” to an innocent person (allegedly this is required by the doctrine). That is, the question of inevitability here is like a dog's fifth leg, but the valiant employee of the prosecutor's office does not see this. Russian law is rotten, and they don't even know what they're talking about. Everyone should be sent to lustration, and someone should be imprisoned for concrete practical enforcement of their practical doctrine of “put everyone in jail”.
It is impossible to answer this question correctly by choosing one of the possible options.
Russian criminal law (and legal doctrine in general) is based on the principles of the inevitability of punishment for a crime committed, as well as the possibility of rehabilitation for an illegally imposed punishment. The fact of rehabilitation is considered negatively, it is an indicator of the incompetence of law enforcement agencies and the court, and also gives an innocent convict the opportunity to compensate for moral and material damage suffered as a result of illegal criminal prosecution at the expense of the state.
Thus, in both situations, the principles of criminal law will be violated. The legislator does not specify what is “better” or”worse”.
equally bad.
Worse, of course, is to convict an innocent person.�
If you take it upon yourself to administer justice, then be kind enough to administer it fairly. The conviction of innocent people makes me extremely angry and hate the system in which we live (not just the judicial system). Because human rights and freedoms are of the highest value to me.
Not a conviction of the culprit, just unpleasant. But in the end, what is done by a person is done, and if a person does not repeat the crime, then there is nothing fatal in his impunity, although it would be better if he got what he deserved.
I understand this question as follows: we have a suspect whose guilt is not exactly proven, and we are faced with a dilemma: to convict him, not being sure that he is guilty, or to release him, risking the fact that the criminal will be released. This can be answered from two points of view: from a legal point of view and from a moral point of view. From the point of view of the law, it is impossible to convict a suspect without sufficient evidence. From the point of view of morality, I think it is necessary to consider each case in particular, first of all from the point of view of whether the suspect is dangerous to others. You didn't specify what crime the person committed. If a person stole a car, it is difficult to prove his guilt, in this case it is better to risk releasing the guilty person than to spoil the life of an innocent person, because this is just theft, it is not worth a spoiled human life. If we are talking about something more serious, like murder, and there is a risk that a person will kill again, then in this case you can probably be safe.
But the irony is that in fact this question is meaningless, because by condemning the innocent, we automatically leave the guilty free. Conclusion: it is necessary to conduct more thorough police investigations, and in order not to suffer from God syndrome, you need to be guided by the law, and not by your own ideas about justice.
If you convict an innocent person, you destroy their life, and if you leave a guilty person free, you can't say how many innocent people's lives they will take away or spoil.