Sergei Vitsin: The problem is not in legislation, but in law enforcement

On April 18, 2006, Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Valery Vyzhutovich "Inciting Friendship: Will Amendments to the Criminal Code Help to Overcome Xenophobia", which discussed the initiative of the St. Petersburg Legislative Assembly to toughen criminal penalties for hate crimes. The discussion, in particular, was attended by Professor of the University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Sergey Vitsin, who believes that at the moment the problem is not in the shortcomings of the legislation, but in law enforcement.

S. Vitsin believes that tougher penalties (for any type of crime, not just racist ones) usually do not solve the problem. Moreover, the analysis of law enforcement - again, not only for racist crimes - shows that even the existing punitive potential of legislation is used inefficiently: "Practice shows that within the 20-year period provided for this crime [drug trafficking - ed. ], the courts they never give more than 10 years. Why introduce a life sentence if even a 20-year sentence is not applied?

The same thing happens with neo-Nazi motivated crimes. "Why invent new punishments... if even the existing 282nd article (inciting national, racial, religious hatred) is practically not applied?"

At the same time, S. Vitsin is trying to explain to the readers of RG that, on the one hand, the conventional wisdom about the impunity of racists is not true, and on the other hand, he explains why the investigation is trying not to impute Art. 282.

“I cannot agree with the popular opinion that our legislation does not provide for liability for this type of crime, that it does not take these circumstances into account when committing other crimes. national and religious grounds.If we take the most dangerous crimes, grave, especially grave, it is said that, for example, a murder committed for these motives forms a separate crime. The same - when causing harm to health of moderate severity. And finally, the 282nd. Everything is clearly and directly said there . "

At the same time, "any investigator or prosecutor evaluates certain actions - say, murder or infliction of grievous bodily harm. As for the remarks that accompanied such actions, then, from the point of view of a practitioner burdened with many all sorts of difficulties, this is not so important. Anyway, this will be absorbed by another article. But this is not the only point. The point is that there is such a type of evidence for a number of crimes as an examination. When it comes to murder, the law provides for a mandatory examination to establish the causes of death. Or, say, a person was hit with a knife, and he was incapacitated for three weeks, which again is easy to establish by examination. But how to prove whether a given expression is offensive or not? How to prove whether there was a purpose, and even more so a motive? After all, the motivation for a crime is sometimes not recognized even by the criminal himself. Remember Pashka Kolokolnikov from Shukshin's film "Such a guy lives"? "Why did you climb onto a burning truck?" - "Foolishly." And when all this is transferred to the subconscious level, then, of course, a psychological examination should be carried out " .

At the same time, arguments about the difficulties of qualifying racist crimes should not be taken as a justification for the practice of "hooligan" sentencing of racists. However, before proposing another tightening of the Criminal Code, it is still necessary to realize how justified this proposal will be. This is especially true for the legislator, who, unlike a public activist, is vested with the necessary power: "Our legal consciousness, our society, our deputies are characterized by an orientation towards expanding criminal liability and strengthening punishment. This orientation came from the past. We inherited the traditions of the punitive Soviet, socialist justice" .

Arguing that the theoretical toughening of the punishment of the skinhead will most likely not stop (here, it is more important to realize not the severity, but the inevitability of punishment), S. Vitsin draws attention to the fact that people who talk about the propaganda effect of such "tough" initiatives should remember that artistic plots and works have an "anti-criminogenic effect" rather: "Not everyone is ready to agree with me, but when they show the film comedy" Gentlemen of Fortune "... There, the stupid criminal does not know who Lermontov is. Remember? This is what indirectly undermines the roots of crime "That's what can partly turn a teenager away from the company of delinquents. What kind of miserable, worthless people are they, he will think. And punishment ... No, it does little to warn against crime. To quote Hegel: "Since the time of Cain, it has not been possible to correct the world, nor intimidate with punishment. "This is true. Complex problems do not know simple ways to solve them . "

Sources

• Vyzhutovich Valery. Incitement of Friendship: Will Amendments to the Criminal Code Help to Overcome Xenophobia? // Russian newspaper. 2006. April 18.