They didn't give much

Serial child rapist Kuvaev had his sentence reduced from 20 years to 10. He is in a general security zone. Serial rapist of minors Krestov received a ridiculous 2 years 4 months - also of general regime. The alleged pedophile Makarov , convicted on the basis of far-fetched indirect evidence, was sentenced to 13 years as a “strogacha” - then, however, the sentence was humanely reduced to five . In Novosibirsk, a random man on the street received a 14-year prison term, whose face was not liked by an ardent teenage girl. A picture is circulating on social networks, on one side of which there are people singing in a temple (the prosecution asks for 3 years), on the other - sambo wrestler Mirzaev, who carelessly killed a young dunce who was pestering his girlfriend (the prosecution asks for 2 years).

What is happening, why do imaginary criminals get more money than real ones? And not only in high-profile political matters. The director of the rural club Farber, who allegedly extorted 300 thousand rubles in bribes, received a more severe sentence than Khodorkovsky and Lebedev, who were convicted at the first trial for allegedly astronomical thefts. The courts are somehow especially cruel towards the most ordinary people who have been dealt a blow.

Colleague Mikhail Fishman wrote in Vedomosti regarding political affairs: “There is no smell of legality, but there is a clear logic: the state is fighting with a certain part of society. The boundaries of what is permitted are fluid, but it is approximately clear what not to do in order to avoid getting into trouble.” . It seems to me that my colleague looks at reality with unforgivable optimism. Political cases - at least in court - are not much different from all others. The problem is that the boundaries of what is permitted are not at all clear. Neither in politics nor in any other sphere of life. It is clear what needs to be done to get into trouble. It is not clear what not to do. In this sense - that is, in the sense of the accident, the absurdity and unfoundedness of the accusations - the current situation does not differ from the great terror in anything except its scale. Small terror, great farce.

For the current government - for the police, the prosecutor's office, the courts - the innocent are much more suspicious than the guilty. And here there is a clear logic. The innocent rebels against government authority. He does not obey, resists, complains, contradicts. The more absurd and groundless the accusation, the more fierce the resistance the citizen, taken by surprise, puts up, the more daringly he challenges the authorities. The guilty person - especially if caught red-handed and guilt does not raise the slightest doubt - obeys and asks for leniency. It is with such people in power that it is familiar and pleasant to deal with. Any disobedience must be punished. Any accused person who does not admit his guilt automatically becomes an enemy of the system and gets what he deserves. The lawyers who advise their innocent clients to confess to something as quickly as possible are probably deeply right. Compliance can be generously rewarded with anything from probation to a fine.

The logic of Russian laws also corresponds to law enforcement reality. Most of them, obviously, were not written in order to regulate and regulate this or that area of ​​life. The authorities are in charge of regulation, and laws allow them, if necessary, to catch and punish any individual or legal entity in violation. The latest examples of Russian lawmaking - on rallies , on the Internet , on the promotion of homosexuality among minors - are crystal clear examples of this approach. In principle, they do not regulate anything, but they make it possible to declare anything a violation without the slightest legal effort. Every Russian driver knows perfectly well how this works: road signs are usually placed not so that the driver understands how to act, but so that there is something to fine him for.

Just yesterday this incident happened to my friend. Her car was locked at the curb by a Mercedes parked in the second row in the middle of the roadway. Not finding the traffic boor in nearby offices, the friend tried to go around his car, didn’t fit in and scratched his bumper. When two hours later the policeman wrote her a 500 ruble fine for the hit-and-run, she asked whether the owner of the Mercedes had received a fine for violating parking rules. In response, the police officer added another 3,000 rubles to her for stopping in the wrong place - somewhere far away, at the beginning of a street densely lined with cars, there was a prohibitory sign. We can say that she was lucky that according to the law she was really guilty. It's scary to even think what could have happened if she had been right.