The court of the people

The hero of Iskander, I remember, exclaimed about the order to take the Kozlotur: “So that I ate this bastard (goat) at the commemoration of the one who invented all this!” I am far from such a certainty in relation to the jury in Russia, although from the very beginning I said that this imitation of Western clothing is not for our climate.

I do not have the general statistics of “jury affairs” - how many sentences were sentenced, how many appeals were, how are the sentences of “bourgeois jury” in comparison with the sentences of “Basmanny Judges”. Moreover, I am not even sure that such statistics are generally collected somewhere and is available for analysis. Therefore, I will limit myself to "notes from nature."

The last case. The court in St. Petersburg over the killers of the Tajik girl. 8 people were convicted of the “hooligan” (Ai, Fulyugans!), The main accused is justified for unprovenness. The latter could actually only be welcomed-they are strictly approaching the study of evidence, there is no indictment, but how the investigation and the prosecutor’s office are incomprehensible, and everyone knows so.

And I fully admit that it was all the way that it was really St. Petersburg jury showed the best qualities, in the hope of which this court was created. But! Recognizing the "presumption of the innocence of jury", nevertheless, I can not get rid of suspicion.

The jury does not have an indictment against the accused. Fine. Do they have an indictment against the victims of the tragedy? And the accusation is serious: not the Aryans! And the evidence is straight, as they say, there is no turnout. In short, if Tajiks were accused of killing a Russian girl - would the jury be also strict and objective in the study of evidence?

Where does such questions come from? Well, firstly, they are self-evident when the whites judge black, black-white, Armenians-Azerbaijanis, Azerbaijanis-Armenians, Muslims-Jews, Jews-Muslims, etc. Deduction! Secondly, there are indirect evidence. I got over the Internet show: a lot is written about this court. And they almost do not refer to the unproven guilt - more and more about the fact that these Tajiks are “drug dealers” (which, by the way, was not proved by anyone) that it was a clash of “two gangs of drug trafficks”. Great. Not proven - but let it be so. Well, what follows from this?! By the logic of our good Internet citizens, in this case it doesn’t matter that the 9-year-old girl received 11 stabs?! And you should not look for the killers, to sow and kill (I am a supporter of the death penalty-for sure), well, not to kill, so to rot in prison? And what to try-Tajichka! We came up - and let them go, if they don’t like it ... No, they don’t write like that, like that. But the meaning is obvious - there is no other meaning in the reasoning of these cannibals.

If ordinary people write on the Internet (and opposite statements - much less), then there is a suspicion that they also think in the room of the judges. And not only in the furry heart of the “jury xenophobe” will not penetrate pity for the murdered child and hatred of the killer. No, he is alien to the fear-they are not afraid that tomorrow this “Russian defender, the defender of the poor” will want to “play a knife” when meeting with an Aryan blond girl, at least a daughter of any jury, keep God ... And maybe fear is not alien-maybe just drifts in front of the “Russian defenders” who remained in freedom?

However, it is good to drive a journalistic hysteria, we will reduce the falsetto to Tenor. Suppose that everything - in this case - is perfect. The jury was judged absolutely regardless of the nationality of the murderers/killed, carefully examined the evidence and made a responsible decision - despite the pressure of the media, by the way (we must think that I am not one such fearless human rights activist and the stream of abrupt articles on them will fall on them!).

If so, the honor and praise with this jury. But the jury, as the institute, remains questions.

Pichugin's case. There are no corpses - the conviction is ready. Maybe now the absence of corpses is the most good evidence? The capture killer hid the corpses! Does this one thing does not prove the guilt of this ghoul?! (Or maybe he ate?! Why didn’t they judge for cannibalism inherent in the brutal tribe of the Yukosovites?)

But in the case of Vyacheslav Kirillovich Ivankov, the opposite is the contrary - there are corpses (two pieces), and there is an excuse. It is clear that the jury is not easy to judge such a person (and who is easy?!), But why did they give the matter to the jury? Yes, by the way, the corpses are some Turks who need them at all ...

The case of Ulman. Again, the corpses - Chechen - on the spot, Captain Ulman is justified. “In war, as in war, there are no peaceful Chechens”? Suppose. But then the question: do the jury are also fighting with Chechens? And what kind of troops is the “jury”? By the way, if the jury judged Budanov-does anyone have doubts that he would be free? Such, as it seems to me, is the mood of the people. But in this case, the verdict of the People’s Court is simple: “Chechnya is not part of Russia” ...

Now in the "heavy, delicate paws" the jury will be Colonel Kvachkov. The people already spoke out-almost chose our William Tele to the Duma (and in fact, maybe he chose, but only the dirty falsifications of the cursed authorities did not allow folk justice to triumph, did not let the Duma decorate the Duma with another popular deputy). It is clear that with a 99-percent probability he will be released "for the unproven of the prosecution." Of course, this time the pressure on the jury will be strong: but Kvachkov is, sorry, not Pichugin! Pichugin sold the honor of the officer oligarchs, and Kvachkov on these oligarchs-for wives and mothers, for the scolded children, for the honor of the mother’s homeland-with a machine gun at the ready! The jurors are also people, are able to evaluate the difference.

Again, I do not claim that the prosecutor's office collected iron evidence of Kvachkov’s guilt. Moreover, seeing the quality of the work of the prosecutor’s office, which is simply not used to competition, to the adversarial process, I (deduction, Watson, deduction!) I strongly doubt the quality of evidence this time. But the psychological, purely political component in this matter (simply - the sympathy of the jury to a good shooter, and not to a nasty target) is also impossible not to see.

It is clear that the authorities will try to lie down with bones, but the excuses of this “colonel Zasulich” will not allow. The authorities are unpleasant and a grandiose scandal and, excuse me, I don’t want the jury to almost openly write out a hunting ticket N 1 for the shooting of the “enemies of the people”. But in this case, the authorities can “bend” the moral feeling of jury?

And in connection with all this, the main question is - is the jury in Russia or not? The court of the people - with all the phobias and complexes of the "typical representative" of the people? Or ordinary judges (that is, the court of officials) - with all the phobias and complexes of power, administration of different levels? And so, in essence, a collection of phobias and complexes in the first and second cases differs? Or does it differ all the same-in some cases?

The reader, of course, has the right to indignantly shrugging-so where is the conclusion-output, what does the journalist calls for? "If you know if you know ..."