Almost 50 thousand people escaped prosecution for minor crimes

As Chairman of the Russian Supreme court Vyacheslav Lebedev, last year at the request of the investigation was terminated 33 thousands of criminal cases with the appointment of a judicial fine. Another 16 thousand cases were terminated on the initiative of the court. That is, the prosecution filed with the court, law enforcement officers asked to condemn the citizen, but the courts believed that it is possible to do with soft measure.

There are three conditions that the case was closed: minor a crime has been committed and the accused for the first time compensated for the damage

Thus, almost 50 thousand people, somehow stumbled in life, hadn’t broken his life.

No, no one is going to condone the criminals. The person is given a chance and this chance might occur once in your life.

New rules were introduced on the initiative of the Supreme court of Russia three and a half years ago. If the man has committed a minor crime, pleaded guilty and compensated, it is possible to exempt from criminal liability. The case will be dismissed.

this person will appoint a judicial fine. So what about any of the impunity of the question. But in the form of the culprit does not appear the mark of a criminal record.

Photo: iStock constitutional court confirmed the independence of the bar

“the Main tendency of development of criminal proceedings in Russia is its humanization, in connection with what is annually reduced the number of prisoners, a significant number of defendants released by the court from criminal liability, limited to the application of penalties”, said Vyacheslav Lebedev.

He reminded that the Presidium of the Supreme court of the Russian Federation approved an Overview of court practice according to which a judicial fine may be designated including in the Commission for the first time, of several crimes small and average weight.

the Procedure works even if the victim has not suffered material injury. For example, during one of the civil litigation in Adygea H someone insulted the representative of the plaintiff. As stated by the prosecution, he spoke “in a rough, rude form of the word, degrading its honor and dignity, thus showed contempt of court, expressed in insult of the trial participants”.

This behavior, incidentally, is regarded as a crime against justice. As previously criminal for the sins of man was not found, he fell under the humane rules. The fact that there is no material damage to the victim of the crime is not caused, the problem was gone. Enough was to apologize and be forgiven.

“the court to satisfy the petition of the defendant and his lawyer about the termination of criminal proceedings, pointed out that there is a set statutory conditions for the release of defendant from criminal responsibility with the appointment of a judicial fine, since he first held criminally liable for committing a minor offence, admits guilt, make amends for the victim moral damages the apology, claims of property character of the victim to the defendant is not stated what the Complainant has notified the court in writing”, told the court.

Photo: Mikhail Voskresensky/ RIA Novosti Members of the working group will seek to extend the work on the new Cao

In the end, the citizen was appointed to a judicial fine of 40 thousand rubles. But technically the person is not convicted, could safely write in the survey that were not judged.

it Happens that the victims in the case are not in principle, and it is also not an obstacle for humanity. In the Republic of Mordovia citizen K. was busted for drug possession. The number was enough for legal action, but also to the severe category did not reach. The drug dealer the woman also didn’t appear before the court were not. Therefore, the case was dismissed with the appointment of a judicial fine of 10 thousand rubles.

“the Court motivated its decision by the fact that K. make amends for a crime harm by volunteering for community service “Social rehabilitation center for minors” and donations of funds to this institution for charity,” said the Supreme court in judicial review.