V. Savchuk in trouble

Community and Forum → Other questions. Insects topics → V. Savchuk in trouble

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Likes: 1

09.05.2012 2:40, Victor Titov

Well, the wording. I did not understand anything, this is a take-out Of some of this wording, it follows that the case is still being considered, since they are exempted from punishment (??) "for the duration of the case consideration".

Nothing is being considered, but it is clearly stated that the case is "closed". Obviously, what was meant was "at the time of consideration of the case in court, the defendant cannot be considered a socially dangerous person", in other words - at the time of making a decision on the case. Previously, the Criminal Procedure Code of the RSFSR also provided for the possibility of terminating the case or releasing the defendant from punishment due to a change in the situation, i.e. when the accused and (or) his actions had ceased to be socially dangerous by the time the decision on the case was made. But now there is no such norm in the current Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Apparently, in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine-there is. And in this case - thank God!

And it is not clear from what punishment, because the court did not appoint anything.

It's not a fact that you didn't assign it. Only an excerpt is given, a quote from ?sentencing (or a decision to terminate the case). It is possible that the court appoints a sentence and immediately releases it from serving it on the grounds provided for by law.

In any case, I am happy for Vladimir and sincerely congratulate him!

Likes: 6

Likes: 1

Likes: 3

09.05.2012 13:25, Victor Titov

The court imposed a fine and immediately released him from it.

From my own experience, I can say: in all probability, their business was "sewn together"! About such sentences, the prosecution usually says-let them be convicted at least to the order, only in the guilty verdict. For situations when law enforcement officers need to save the " muzzle of the face "and the opportunity was invented to release from punishment or stop criminal prosecution due to the notorious"change in the situation". Although it is clear to a fool that if an act or a person who committed it is socially dangerous, then this is serious and for a long time (I do not take into account the situation when, due to an amendment to the law, by the time the case is considered in court, the legislator eliminates criminality and, consequently, the criminality of the act - for such cases, termination of the case-due to the absence of corpus delicti in connection with decriminalization, but in the case of Vladimir a completely different calico). I am tormented by vague doubts that the Ukrainian Themis acted on the principle of "both the sheep are whole and the wolves are full" - otherwise, when passing an acquittal, the possibility of "catching up" with those who initiated the business is not excluded. And who needs it? And so, it is unlikely that a person released from punishment will complain.

Likes: 5

Likes: 1

Likes: 2

10.05.2012 17:46, Hierophis

From my own experience, I can say: in all probability, their business was "sewn together"! ...............

I am tormented by vague doubts that the Ukrainian Themis acted on the principle of "both the sheep are whole and the wolves are full" - otherwise, when passing an acquittal, the possibility of "catching up" with those who initiated the business is not excluded. And who needs it? And so, it is unlikely that a person released from punishment will complain.

I understand from your explanations, among other things, that the case was not closed on the way, so to speak, and the case ended with a verdict. This, by the way, probably gives confidence, since judging by what is happening here, even high-ranking politicians can open old unfinished business

In this case, the court seems to hint to us that the case is within the jurisdiction, but due to the impeccable reputation, scientific activity, recommendations in this particular case, you can be released from the sentence. But if you get someone without a clan, tribe, without recommendations and all that - he will get in full. With this verdict, the court made it clear that this activity is still illegal.
That is, it is impossible to say for sure that the wolves are fed and the sheep are whole, but rather it is something like" we forgive for the first time", and so that others do not get used to it.

So the case was sewn together quite normally, and if someone else had done it in this situation, then he could have got it in full. Although, judging by similar situations in the Russian Federation and Belarus, for some reason there were only demonstrative cases, although here Ukraine distinguished itself of course with the most severe outcome, but probably still the main goal of this was to promote justice and ban cacti-they say, that's what happened even with the scientist!

10.05.2012 23:52, Victor Titov

I can't resist making a number of clarifications and comments. I sincerely hope that your hearing has improved, Roman, and that you will not hear any extraneous noises like "boo, boo, boo", but you will "pinch"

in my words what I wanted to say.

I understand that... that the case was not closed on the way, so to speak, and the case ended with a verdict. This, by the way, probably gives confidence, since judging by what is happening here, even high-ranking politicians can open old unfinished business

It is illiterate to say "open-close" about criminal cases - this is not about them, this is about doors, shutters, books... The notorious " open-close "has already got out of the mouths of professionally incompetent journalists who for some reason work as columnists of criminal news. And from them this absurdity "went to the people". A criminal case begins with the fact that it is initiated (and not opened). One of the options for ending the investigation is to terminate (rather than close) the criminal case (which is why I put the word "closed" in quotation marks in relation to Vladimir's case a few posts above). "Old unfinished business" is resumed with production, but again it is not opened.
Believe me, these are not trifles and not quibbles - you should try to speak on any topic correctly, so that inappropriate words do not hurt the ear (eye

). And the fact that these erroneous terms, unfortunately, are widely used is not an excuse: then let's follow the "uninitiated" philistines to call all moth-like butterflies "moths", large grasshoppers - "locusts", and small fillies - "grasshoppers", barbel beetles-"cockroaches", large frogs - "grasshoppers".toads", do not believe in the existence of legless lizards (they are snakes!), etc.

In this case, the court seems to hint to us that the case is within the jurisdiction, but due to the impeccable reputation, scientific activity, recommendations in this particular case, you can be released from the sentence.

The concept of "jurisdiction" consists in determining a specific court authorized to consider a given, specific case: there are cases under the jurisdiction of a world court, a district (city) court of general jurisdiction, a regional court (a court of a subject of the federation if there is such a division), a military court, etc.
Therefore, the court did not hint at anything-once it accepted for consideration the case of Vladimir and passed a verdict-so this case was originally under his jurisdiction.
It is impossible to "release from the sentence" - the sentence has been pronounced and announced (another question is whether it is guilty or acquittal). They are exempted from the sentence imposed by the court - in this case, as Vladimir has already explained, a fine.

With this verdict, the court made it clear that this activity is still illegal.
That is, it is impossible to say for sure that the wolves are fed and the sheep are whole, but rather it is something like" we forgive for the first time", and so that others do not get used to it.

I can't agree with you. In the case when the court decides to "forgive for the first time", it has the opportunity to impose a suspended sentence, postponing its execution (punishment) for a probationary period (after which, if a person has not committed illegal acts during this period, he is generally released from punishment and is considered not convicted).
Do you agree that the court's conclusion about the loss of his (his "deed"?)property, which is contained in the quote from the verdict given by Vladimir? public danger, well, just ridiculous. All the circumstances referred to by the court (positive characteristics, social and scientific activities, etc.) also took place at the time of Vladimir's detention. Therefore, if the court's conclusion is correct, it is obvious that Vladimir was not socially dangerous at the time of his detention. Why then was there a criminal case to be opened?! This is in the absence of any public danger (ask at your leisure for a general definition of the concept of crime - http://www.allpravo.ru/library/doc101p/ins...04/item344.html )!!! That is why "loss of the public danger of the act by the time the case is considered" as a basis for stopping criminal prosecution (exemption from punishment imposed by the court) is absent in most more or less perfect legal systems. Whether there is a crime or not, there is no third way (law is the most accurate of the humanities). And the possibility of completing criminal proceedings in this Jesuitical way is preserved in the criminal law of a number of states only for one purpose-to make the state, represented by its "law enforcement" bodies, a good face in case of a bad game. What's not an option?! The convict is overjoyed (he was released from the punishment!) and it is unlikely that he will complain, tired, mentally and physically exhausted from the exhausting procedure of criminal proceedings, and wanting only one thing - to quickly forget this nightmare and return to normal life. And the authorities that initiated the case are also not in trouble: the person, whatever one may say, is still convicted - the verdict is guilty and the punishment was imposed (to hell with it, that they were released from his service-execution). This means that another accounting " stick "has been " cut down": another archi-dangerous drug crime has been identified and registered, added to the total number of the same "detected and suppressed" - and there is no depth of content in statistical reports, no specific persons can be seen - only bare figures.

Likes: 6

Likes: 1

11.05.2012 17:42, vasiliy-feoktistov

Dmitrich, well, wow, thanks for the advice, I've never delved into legal subtleties, so I don't know the terminology

But I understood that the conclusion I made was correct - the cultivation and sale of such cacti(even just as plants) is still prohibited in our country. Although, it was at the time of the beginning of this whole case that cacti were not prohibited. And I understood that everything remains in force, and our cactus drivers flew by, well, it's understandable, this is not Europe, they quickly raised the high and made acc. amendments

In Russia Lophophora Williams it's been banned for quite some time. Most likely, it is the same in Ukraine. Otherwise, there would be no reason to catch Vladimir on the sale. I understand that.

This post was edited by vasiliy-feoktistov - 05/11/2012 17: 43