Nostalgia for "kivalah"

On April 9, a round table was held in Moscow, dedicated to the fate of the jury in Russia. The fate is unenviable
On December 5, 2014, during a meeting with human rights activists, President Putin, reacting to the replica of the head of the Moscow Helsinki group Lyudmila Alekseeva about the mistrust of the people for a professional court, gave an instruction to prepare a proposal to expand the sphere of jury trial. In March, the deputy chairman of the Supreme Court of Russia, Vladimir Davydov, distributed a document, the essence of which boils down to the following. First. Not to expand the jurisdiction of the jury is a too expensive enterprise. Second. Reduce the number of jury in the board to seven (plus two spare ones). Now, while things are being considered twelve jury. Third. The jury will be taken out with the judge. Now the collegium is issuing a verdict on his own. Fourth. To justify the defendant, the consent of the judge, who will also vote, is required. He will not give consent - you cannot bear the justifying verdict. In a word, the Supreme Court openly advocated the abolition of the jury, the essence of which is the separation of the functions of a professional judge and judges of the people. Only the jury and no one else determines - the defendant is guilty or not guilty. The abolition of this principle will lead to the liquidation of this institution, still issuing acquittal verdicts.

The Supreme Court made the initiative to return “nod” - as the people called the people's assessors who existed in our judicial system until 2004. But to return them under the exotic wrapper for Russia. Yes, representatives of the people are involved in the administration of justice in many countries. For example, in Germany, cases are considered by a court consisting of three judges and two sheffenes, in our opinion - people's assessors. All five jointly meet and jointly pass the verdict. But a similar court, known to us as a court of people's assessors, has a fame. The judge does not listen to the assessors' opinion, they are just statists. I will give two examples from my practice. In the mid-1990s, I defended the collective farmer in the Kovylkinsky district court, who was accused of arson of the Crane of the Hoice of his neighbor. No evidence, except for the testimony of the victim (hay really burned down). The defendant did not admit his guilt. I go after the trial on the street, one of their people's assessors catch up with me and says: I tracked you so that no one would notice our meeting - Judge L. wants to condemn your client, and I see that he is not to blame. But I, like the second assessor, does not listen to me, he says - be silent, otherwise you will have problems. The second case. In 2002, I defended the head of one of the colonies of Potma (Mordovlag). The case was considered in the Presnensky court of Moscow by Judge Yu. And two people's assessors. The judge went to the advisory room for the verdict with two people's assessors, and the next day he returned to the courtroom to announce the sentence with only one. The prosecutor’s report was also in the case, in which he reported that after the arms of the parties, the people's assessor who disappeared from the deliberate room demanded money from the defendant: they say, he bought from the judge and the prosecutor, and where is my money? The assessor did not receive the money, and therefore did not appear in court anymore.

The sad memory of the court of people's assessors is a return to the Stone Age. This means only one thing - total control over folk judges and the exclusion of acquittal sentences. The Supreme Court of Russia stated that the state in the person of the investigator and the prosecutor is always right.