The senseless severity of Deputy Yarovaya

On April 7, the well-known and not at all ordinary parliamentarian Irina Yarovaya and less well-known, but also not an ordinary senator, Viktor Ozerov, made a package of two bills, striking in its severity in relation to those who embarked on the path of terrorism and extremism, or at least approached this path.

Here we see an unprecedented tightening of penalties, and the creation of completely exotic corpus delicti, and the already sensational encroachment on the right to freely cross the border, and, of course, quietly inscribed in Bill of grounds for large-scale reading of citizens' electronic communication.

Without going into a detailed analysis, I would like to simply list the main innovations that cause serious doubts, well, or more strong feelings. And there were surprisingly many innovations.

First, the idea of ​​drastically increasing punishments is striking. under articles for crimes related to terrorism and extremism. Not having sufficient knowledge of the practice of anti-terrorist law enforcement, I can to speak only about anti-extremism - we do not see in any article that the courts often gave sentences close to the prescribed maximum, and indeed prosecutors close to the maximum usually do not ask. Which most likely means that Law enforcement sees no need for harsher penalties. But they are seen by the authors of the bill, along with all those who, in the old fashioned way, that harsh punishments are the key to victory over crime.

One can understand the meaning of raising the minimum penalty if it seems too low, for example, under Art. 205 ² UK ("Justification terrorism”), it is proposed to raise the minimum from zero to 100 thousand rubles. But here's the point there is no maximum increase.

It is especially impressive that under articles 282 (“Inciting hatred"), 282 ¹ (“Participation in an extremist community”), 282 ² (“Continuation of activities of a banned organization”) and 282 ³ (“Financing of extremist activity”), it is proposed to completely abolish all punishments other than imprisonment. This despite the fact that now the real deprivation freedoms under articles 282 and 282 ² (unless there are other charges) is rather an exception, but widespread, especially under Art. 282, more adequate punishments - fines and compulsory or corrective labor. The bill proposes to give everyone under Art. 282 from two to five years. Well, then the private individual who finances their speeches will receive six to eight years old. The truth remains possible probation.

And for some reason, a separate article 282 is introduced ⁴ For those who involve at least one person in the commission of at least one crimes of an extremist orientation (that is, from murders to the same Art. 282), and for such a criminal the punishment will certainly not be a fine, but deprivation freedom from five to eight years and plus a fine of up to half a million rubles. Such the impression that the authors of the bill simply did not know how else to show the seriousness of their intention to fight extremism.

Secondly, the authors revive the old idea of ​​depriving citizenship for a number of crimes (see the amendment to Article 22 of the law "On Citizenship"). Is it true, not all, but only those who acquired it not by birth and have another citizenship (or can acquire it). Sounds very serious, but it's not clear how it is can frighten a person who has decided on a terrorist attack or who has gone “into the forest” to partisan.

Who is really not ready, apparently, for such consequences, these are persons who have violated articles 282, 282 ¹ and 282 ² : before Until now, these acts were not considered particularly serious, and they are often committed by people who do not martial in spirit. But after serving at least two years, as promised by the bill, they may already be ready for the loss of citizenship.

But why this clearly populist measure? What is her purpose designed to achieve, it is not clear.

Third, a new set of grounds for prohibition is created. travel abroad (new clause 9 in article 15 of the law “On the procedure for  exit from the Russian  Federation and entry  to the Russian Federation"). Will not be able to leave until maturity convictions people convicted of any extremist crimes, i.e. from hate-motivated murder and below in the degree of public danger up to Art.Article. 280 (according to which the author of the bill is graciously left punishments not related to imprisonment, probably forgot about it) or 282 of the Criminal Code.

It is not entirely clear how such a measure is intended. improve public safety. And by the way, in this way, bypassing the Criminal Code, in fact, additional punishment for all the listed crimes, since we are talking about the restriction of one of the important constitutional rights.

But more than that, those who have been issued warning about the inadmissibility of committing a number of crimes from "terrorist set" - the actual terrorist attacks and various forms of assistance terrorism, as well as, for some reason, unleashing an aggressive war, genocide, etc. Of course, we are talking about very serious crimes, but the warnings are taken out to people who have not yet committed anything illegal, but only, for example, "fell into a bad campaign." They will be limited in their constitutional law for five years without trial at all. And again the question arises Is it possible that such measures against precisely this kind of people will increase security in society.

But it should be noted that in this list of especially serious crimes hit and Art. 205 ² dedicated not to acts of violence, but statements, albeit dangerous statements. And it's very easy to imagine situation of abuse of issuing a warning under such an article, knowing some examples of law enforcement to "justify terrorism".

Fourth, the responsibility for criminals from 14 to 16 years old. Is it really necessary to judge them for not reporting (v. 205 ⁶ ) and participation in illegal armed groups (art. 208)? Criminal The responsibility of adolescents is, of course, a very controversial topic. But just for these it is so easy for two elements of a crime to imagine situations where to speak more about rehabilitation than about punishment.

Fifthly, the bill contains rather ridiculous constructions, which are bad in and of themselves.

One of them expands to a number of offenses introduced back in 2010, the idea to separately mention aiding in terrorism (part 3 of article 205 of the Criminal Code), although complicity in general is already a form of complicity and is therefore punishable. However, our Criminal Code now contains other such "extra" compositions.

Another design - already encountered more than once in the Criminal Code equating the Internet with the media to determine the danger of speech. Now it should be added to Art. 205 ² . Meanwhile, publishing on the Internet is not at all necessarily implies wide publicity (and, accordingly, increased the danger of speaking); on the contrary, many online statements are highly few readers.

The third is a separate criminalization of failure to report a number of terrorist or related crimes. Might be worth discussing this idea in relation to the preparation of a terrorist attack, murder, etc. But you can imagine what de facto means non-reporting in relation to participation in illegal armed formations, where they really are and where thousands of people know about someone that he is "in the forest." AND the idea of ​​​​criminalizing failure to report the fact of acquittal looks quite wild terrorism on the Internet.

The fourth example is the already mentioned Art. 282 ⁴ about involving someone into an extremist crime. It's not just her exotic composition, but also in a no less exotic note, according to which a citizen A, who involved citizen B in a crime, will escape punishment if the citizen B will deliver. Probably, it will not seem to me alone that this article is like a special written to provoke.

Sixth, as is often the case, somewhere in the bill deeply buried innovations of a rather procedural nature, aimed at to make policing easier and citizens' integrity more vulnerable.

There is an idea there that the term for notifying the court of an action taken without search warrants (under some extraordinary circumstances, art. 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) lengthened from one day to three. What is it for?

There is also an idea to supplement Art. 186 ¹ Code of Criminal Procedure, which now refers to the issuance of information to the investigation about “connections between subscribers” in within six months, the possibility of admission of the investigator to the content of the electronic mail, and for a period of three years until a court decision on this. Accordingly, the laws “On Communications” and “On information, information technology and information protection” is introduced amendment obliging telecom operators to keep all materials for three years communications, from texts to videos.

When reading the draft laws of Yarovaya and Ozerov, it should be borne in mind that that they are not back bench deputies who need to be reminded of themselves somehow. Therefore, the proposed bill, albeit not entirely, albeit with some corrections, has a chance of being accepted. But despite the importance of the topic counteracting all those dangers that are united in our terms "terrorism" and "extremism", it should be recognized that such bills cannot even be taken as a basis, since they are based on vicious, outdated and dangerous to society ideas about the methods counter these same dangers.