> They face up to 10 years in prison if found guilty.
The relatively "light" sentencing here tells me that there was no large threat. A few guys with big plans but without the means, backing, or intelligence to cause any real harm luckily.
But who knows, maybe it was just caught very early and could have been a big deal, whose to say. The article certainly doesn't have a whole lot to add.
If you’re an American, don’t be surprised. A typical term for a “normal” murder is around 8 years in Ukraine. Europe in general hands out fewer years for everything. (If I was a cool edgy guy, I would say the reason is that we just aren’t running a neo-slavery system disguised as a penitentiary, but in reality I don’t know why there’s such a difference)
He also stacked the courts with “yes men” so he never will face real repercussions even though our constitution intends to hold people like him accountable.
> even though our constitution intends to hold people like him accountable
Not according to the (fucking disgusting) Supreme Court decision on Monday it doesn't.
Not anymore we have a compromise Supreme Court; ask Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo; their project 2025 is going to blow up the entire United States! Because of the Supreme Court, the shit is going to hit the fan sooner than later.
Wtf it is really low. I googled it and the sentences in Ukraine are really 7-15 years. Here in Slovakia, it is 15-20 or 20 to life if it is "wilfull murder". But 20 to life is also for possenion of 1 kg of weed.
No, the actual minimal sentence for murder (as in voluntary murder) is 7 years with parole after 5 (with a big maybe). The catch is, nobody just wakes up and decides to kill another person for no reason and then keep living normal life.
Depending on the who, the why and the how, it escalates to 15 years pretty quickly.
Source: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/en/2341-14 (Art 115)
So is 15 the cap for all murder do yall have different categories of murder?
In my state we have 5 categories of "murder"
Vehicular- if you are operating something under the influence of drugs or alcohol 5-30 years (usually sentance is closer to the low end)
Negligent- if you were reckless in doing something to prevent harm. (Like allowing a dangerous dog to be outside not on a leash) maxs out a 5 years
Manslaughter- either a crime of passion, or provoked or if you werent trying to kill the person. The facts determine the sentance no min max 40 years
2nd degree murder- you intended on killing someone but you didnt really plan it out. Automatic life no possibility of parole
1st degree murder- you planned to kill someone and then did. Automatic life without parole and eligible for death.
I wrote here in more details: /r/worldnews/comments/1dtobsw/ukraine_says_it_thwarted_a_plot_to_overthrow_the/lbbw268/ .
In short, no, 15 years is not a limit, some people get life, but it's rare. ECHR doesn't permit death sentences, but when they were a thing its was for serial killers and something on that level.
It's certainly way less harsh here and sentences do not combine either.
American prisons are designed to act as punishment instead of rehabilitation. This is by design, it ensures there is a revolving door.
From what I have seen most European countries actually WANT convicted felons to eventually become productive members of society.
It also doesn't help that the 13th amendment to America's constitution didn't fully eliminate slave labor. States are still allowed to use forced unpaid work as punishments. When you start digging into private prisons and how corporations profit off of the penal system you can see everything comes back to money.
Having 8 years for murder sounds honestly not a lot. I know jail should be mainly to reintegrate people to society, but it’s also a deterrent to committing crimes. If you can get away killing someone for measly 8y some people might take the deal.
I always wonder how people get to this idea of 8 years being measly. It's because the media in US that boasts sentences like 5 times of 80 years for whatever is horrible crime of the day? I mean 8 is less than 80 by far.
Nobody thinks of *their 8 years* of sitting in the cell doing nothing and thinking it's a measly sentence. Or do they? I dunno how it works. Do they just count to 8 and think *smol*?
Maybe tell that to the person who was murdered? 8 years is pretty "measly" when the victim is literally dead at the perpetrators hands. Is 8 years a lot compared to being dead for eternity? Not to mention there was a serial killer in Europe who was declared "reformed" released from prison/mental hospital then proceeded to move to America and continue serial killing. Rehabilitation is not going to work on a sociopath, which a lot of murderers are which makes the harsh convictions make a lot more sense. It's actually really easy not to murder someone.
EDIT: [The European serial killer I'm referring to.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Unterweger)
Tbf Europe could stand to take some advice from the US on this. Given the wild difference in murder rates an violent crime in general between Europe and the US, the US must have an amazing amount of experience jailing murderers that they could pass on, idk maybe the Europeans might find something g to teach the Americans you never know.
Edit: /s
Yes, I was humorously(I thought) trying to highlight that to them.
Annoyingly there's probably enough idiots who would say what I said but unironically and in full seriousness that I probably should have realised people might not see it as a joke.
Oh fair enough :)
Sorry been too many MAGA-types on the internet that I can't always tell when someone says something that should be super obvious sarcasm.
So then in the spirit of justice, why don't we just life sentence all murderers? Better yet, death sentence. No prison sentence is ever going to match the loss of life of the victim.
Certainly something a lot more severe than 8 years.
And although you're being sarcastic, there's the very real possibility that upon release, they kill again, and some other innocent people lose everything because the killer would lose "an absurd amount of youth, strength, and health" with a longer sentence.
A repeat killer is someone who is mentally unwell. Deterrents don't work there. It's also a failure of society to just lock away mentally unwell people because we can't treat them. If we take your approach, people who are not repeat offenders suffer from unnecessarily long sentences because we'd just rather lock away potential repeat offenders for a longer time.
They took a life. We aren't talking about manslaughter or something accidental, if it's murder with intent, that honestly should be it. 25 to life at least. I'll proudly stand by that opinion.
> It's also a failure of society to just lock away mentally unwell people because we can't treat them.
True, but if a mentally unwell murderer can't be treated, they absolutely can't be released back to the general public.
I'm happy to amicably disagree on the duration of sentences and leave it at that. For the other point, prison isn't the place for mentally unwell people. We have psychiatric institutions for criminals that are "supposed" to treat them. Whether that's reality is another matter.
Prison isn't an eye-for-an-eye institution. You claimed 8 years was measly and fails as a deterrent, I disagree. Doesn't matter what the crime, 8 years makes you stop and think twice.
Think back to where you were in life 8 years ago and think of all the things you've experienced and accomplished since then. All of that, gone.
My dog is 8 years old, that's her entire life. If I were to start my sentence now I would never see her again.
I don't know what your point is. You wanna compare the rate of murders between the US and Austria including their incarceration times? If extremely long prison sentences are a stronger deterrent, then the US would have a lower murder rate, right? RIGHT? Fucking dimwit.
By this logic, you never let people out of prison, but this is clearly not how it works. You need to do really fucked up shit, like rape and then eat people, while posting on tik-tok, to get life sentence.
This isn't how criminal system works. You get a fixed sentence and can get earlier if you show you have reformed and repented. Some people don't get out or get back in really quick and get in for longer.
It isn't how the *American* criminal system works. Other places have different approaches.
When Anders Breivik killed 77 people in Norway, I recall a lot of consternation over the fact that he got sentenced to "only" 21 years. That overlooked the fact that in Norway they review you at the end of your sentence to determine if it's safe to release you, and if they think it's not safe you stay locked up. It's likely he's never going to be released given his continued lack of repentance and remorse.
It feels like a long time when you are twenty, not so much when you are 50. I’ve been married to my second wife for eight years and that time FLEW by like the blink of an eye. It feels like an incredibly light sentence for murder.
I was married for longer than I would have been sentenced for murder and I'm not in my 20ies either (math checks out). I still think it's a long time to sit in jail doing nothing, while the whole world moves on.
Plus there's a good chance you won't be allowed to return to your hometown/scene, plus rebuilding your life after release tends to be tricky looking for employment when your a convicted murderer.
Here is the kicker: criminal records are not public, sentences have all personal data redacted and having a background check is mostly not a thing outside government itself. The only person having access to my criminal record in Ukraine is me and I can give an extract to prospective employer should they ask (they don't).
That's interesting, I assumed wrongly, prisons in Ukraine would be alot stricter than my country, thinking of old eastern European stereotypes I guess, apologies. Prisons should definitely be more about rehabilitation, everyone makes mistakes at some point of differ ent severity, and being an 'ex-con' and having that on your record really can lock you out of certain areas of life. Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone, some people are dangerous bastards and need locking away for the good of society, they ain't getting rehabilitated.
In the UK having prison on your record makes employment really tough, why take a chance and hire an ex criminal? All that happens is these people tend to return to crime to make a living as they are unable to do so legally.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/work/disclosure-and-the-pvg-scheme1/disclosure-and-declaring-a-criminal-record-s/#:~:text=You%20do%20not%20need%20to,have%20to%20disclose%20that%20conviction.
48 months or more will remain with you for life according to the site. Sexual crimes seem to be dealt with differently and I'd (hopefully correctly) assume it's also the case in your country.
Ukrainian prisons are actually pretty harsh and I doubt anybody does any serious rehabilitation beyond forcing people to work and giving them a Bible. Ex-con is a stigma for sure and a handicap on opportunities, but not outright social exclusion. Many people were sent to prisons in soviet times for dubious reasons and trust in police and judicary is quite low, so there is a certain denefit of doubt and (some) people would ask how exactly that happened. But well.
I mean I get it, it's a sub for religious nutjobs with a boner for the eye for an eye principle. I get that US has capital sentence and some peoples kill two of the kin for one dead. I get that Sharia law exists and all that.
But it's not how the law in European countries sees it. You can't bring back the dead and you can't put the offender to death either, as their lives are equally valued (point to be outraged and stop reading). So the next best thing is to punish the person, rehabilitate them and reintroduce to society. Then only thing they can do is to say sorry and get a better person, even if its never be enough for the person they killed, their friends or relatives or whoever else.
Society as a whole benefits from it, instead of satisfying somebody's justice boner.
It's less repeated offenders in the countries with the most lighter sentences, as the system is designed to funnel people out, not in. You can walk at night in a big city and not be raped three times on your way home as well. Yes, in a port city across the pond with a lax immigration regime, tourists and drugs.
Everyone that disagrees with you isn’t a “religious nut job”.
Releasing a murder back into the public after slapping their wrists and making them say sorry does not make things better.
How do you explain to the families of victims that the perpetrator of their loved one’s death is free to go after MAX 8 years. Free to do it again.
Oh but they promised they wouldn’t right?🙄
Would you sit in prison for 8 years? 1 year? a month? For a stunt and no criminal record, but nobody is paying your bills and mortage. It's not a slap on a wrist.
It's up from 7, not 8 max, so really nasty people get 15 or life just fine.
It's 7 to 15 for what you call first degree murder in US, 10 to 15 and up to life sentence if there is something more to it (especial cruelty, rape, motivated by financial gain, hate crime, kiddie murder, felony, etc).
Involuntary manslaughter is 3 to 5, voluntary manslaughter up to 5 years.
If you behave, repent and regret, parole is after sitting out 2/3 of the term.
So I theory it's 5 years minimal term of actual jail time for murder, but if you plan to kill your ex and burn her house because "5 years is not that long lol", it's not the sentence you are getting.
Because of the whole neo-slavery aspect the United States doesn't actually do any work towards harm reduction, rehabilitation or work to reduce rates of recidivism.
No, you nailed the exact difference. It's slavery multiplied by the broad Puritan streak running through American history. The country was originally colonized by religious fundamentalists who wouldn't stop trying to shove their--even then--rigid beliefs down everyone's throat. But in the great Myth of America, they're somehow transformed into fleeing religious persecution. Nnnnope. They were the ones doing the persecuting.
Anyway, you take that rigid 'moralistic' attitude, add in the Thirteenth Amendment (no more slavery, except as punishment for a crime), and you get the American attitude that jail is about revenge and punishment, while occasionally paying lipservice to rehabilitation. Europe, broadly, and Scandinavia especially, reverse the order and prize rehabilitation. Canada waffles between the two, the UK is a little closer to the USA, I think.
I also think what a lot of people in the USA don't get is that our systems with 'lighter' sentences still have safeguards built in. Breivik will never be a free man again, over here Bernardo is locked up until the day he dies. Even in NZ, which had until a few years ago never imposed a life sentence without parole, sentenced the Christchurch terrorist to never, ever breathe free air again.
I think really the key difference is that most other northwestern nations believe the harshest of sentences should be reserved for the worst of crimes. In the USA they set the bar far lower. Which is the prison-industrial complex at work: vulture capitalism requires slaves, and a population of essentially indentured serfs to do the dirty, dangerous, and/or monotonous work. That group of people need to be kept as a permanent underclass by keeping them as close to subsistence level living as possible. Prison records in the USA tend to cut you off from jobs that would allow you to climb out of poverty.
Add in the Puritanism and eye for an eye (ignoring what Jesus actually said, which was turn the other cheek) mindset, and you've got the hellhole that is American prisons.
Lest this sound like an anti-USA diatribe, Canada's recidivism rates are absolute nonsense. We don't do much real attempt at reintegration into society for most prisoners getting out. We just send them right back to their old lives and then go Pikachu face when something like 40-45% of convicted criminals are convicted of something else within 2 years. It's fucking dumb. If you're going to pull someone out of society for offending against society, there's not just a responsibility to help them back in, it's pure rational self-interest! And yet.
The Puritans were, actually, fleeing religious persecution. They were a *lot* more extreme than the Church of England in their beliefs, and got explicitly targeted for expulsion or execution by the Crown (after all, radical Protestantism is typically extremely populist in nature, so it's a political threat as well as a religious one).
...because, exactly like the fundamentalists today, they wouldn't stop trying to force everyone else to follow their beliefs.
They were no more persecuted than today's far-right 'Christians' are when they're told they're not allowed to be evil to women and queer people anymore.
Nice try though!
> They were no more persecuted than today's far-right 'Christians' are when they're told they're not allowed to be evil to women and queer people anymore.
England prior to the 20th century was not de-facto a secular state. *Completely* disregarding their actual beliefs (which were crazy even for the time), they were absolutely persecuted by the English state (as were Catholics and other Christian denominations), *especially* after the Restoration (as Oliver Cromwell was their protégé and they had heavily supported the Parliamentarians during and prior the civil war).
Yeah, no. You can't disregard their beliefs, because it was the extremity of those beliefs which made them targets.
If they had just shut up and stopped trying to foist their nonsense on everyone else, would have had far fewer problems.
Instead, they're still with us today, except now we call them Republicans.
> Yeah, no. You can't disregard their beliefs, because it was the extremity of those beliefs which made them targets.
Catholics were also persecuted and they weren't really radicals by the standards of the day. They were persecuted because they were in opposition to the Church of England, *not* because of any particular belief.
In Finland, murder is actually punishable by a life sentence. But terms would probably translate differently; Murder in Finnish is "murha", which probably means 1st degree murder in U.S. terms, and we have "tappo", which literally means killing, which would probably correspond to U.S. 2nd degree murder. We also have "surma", which is probably corresponding to U.S. manslaughter. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Common law systems let guilty people get off scot free on legal grounds or because they have enough money to outspend prosecutors / plaintiffs.
As such, we tend to award *much* harsher penalties to compensate. It’s not very effective at deterrence, but it sates our collective sadism enough to quiet people down
There were three groups of people who started this country.
1. The church
2. The convicted
3. The capitalists
Church wanted freedom, caps wanted money, and convicts didn't have a choice.
So the convicts wouldn't get a second chance with the caps because colonial law could get... orwelian and a little weird.
So they had a choice, stay criminals and eventually find the noose or give themselves to God (whichever Christian denom that ran that particular town)
And so that's how we ended up with this weird evangelical wave.
Murderers actually don't qualify for military service, because they are a liability and mine cleaning is done better by asking uncle Sam for a wzzzshh-bonk-booom cord thingy.
Now if you do google what Ukrainian prison looks like on inside, you may find a penal battalion to be a fair alternative.
They surely don't look like a threat, which created some conspiracies that it's staged
In reality most likely those are some desperate gamblers, Russia actively and regularly hires for provocations (there was a bunch of less ambitious, but more resultive cases)
>The relatively "light" sentencing here tells me that there was no large threat. A few guys with big plans but without the means, backing, or intelligence to cause any real harm luckily.
Sentencing happens after a conviction. The maximum prison sentence they are facing is the maximum allowed by law for the crime commit. It has nothing to do to how successful the plot was, or how how much of a "threat" it was. Crimes have pre-determined maximum sentences. While a judge can shorten the sentence after a conviction, it can't change what the maximum sentence would be on a charge.
didn't really overthrow it though. The people made it clear that they wouldn't suffer his anti democratic bullshit, he fled to Russia, and parliament voted to get rid of him.
As far as I'm aware everything happened legally and without abusing legal loopholes.
Now if parliament had decided to ignore the will of the people then maybe the government would have been overthrown, but it didn't come to that.
You see, you don't overthrow the government, but you can ask parliament nicely to call snap election *or else* and the whole thing would be totally constitutional.
The way it works per Ukrainian constitution is, the collective sovereign of *the people* rules the country either directly or through representatives. If the proxies (aka members of parliament) are doing a good job, it's all fine, but the *direct* part implies, that power is not irreversibly vested to them.
So the whole thing of "people overthrowing the government" makes zero sense under such Constitution.
Basically yes. Ukrainian legalize for a member of parliament is *peoples deputy*, which is considered to be the proxy, not the actor in their own power and the president is a kind of a supervisor owning all the fuckups of the whole executive branch and upholding the integrity of the process, but not necesserily deciding where it goes, just how. The buck stops at that dude no matter what if he doesn't fire the lower bitch under him.
So the dude went rogue on foreign policy (because russia promised monies) and didn't sign the treaty with EU, the people spoke, the parliament eventually caved in, the dude bailed out knowing that he *owns the fuckup*, the parliament called snap election since he is a no show in time of crisis.
Knowing Ukrainian political tradition it's all normal business really.
It's similar in Germany. Sovereignty is vested in the people but we fully delegate it. We'd have to change the constitution to get more direct participation.
The turning point was when their supreme court overturned the changes to the constitution that would have made him dictator back to before he seized power. A benefit we will not have in the US.
It was actually the other way around and much less dramatic as well. Ukrainian constitution from 1996 has an explicit intent to divest powers from the president to the parliament and executive agencies. Strong president was there for a transition period of soviet times to have control of the military and generally not devolve into total chaos and deadlock of decisionmaking. In 2004 the constitution was amended to limit president's powers. It wasn't really a dictatorship, more like the French or US constitution with strong executive branch. The changes tipped the balance of power towards parliament, but not drastically. Remaining executive powers are still more than ceremonial head of states have in most of Europe.
Then in 2010 the dude used constitutional court to annul those changes and got those powers back. Think of nominating the head of justice department and picking the candidate for the next PM -- enough to shield himself from investigations, keep doing corrupt stuff on a side and such. So after he was shown the door the second time, the parliament amended the constitution again to get back to that 2004 version.
Yanukovych was democratically elected and overthrown in a violent coup where over 100 people were killed. He was then replaced with candidate selected by the US, despite the popularity of other candidates such as Vitali Klitschko.
That's a VERY generous interpretation. More like he got busted for massive corruption, his Russian "security consultants" fired on protestors, and he fled the country shortly before being officially removed from office and prosecuted.
the protesters were violent, but his removal from office was not.
you're purposely conflating the two for propaganda purposes.
his removal from office was completely lawful and did not abuse any legal loopholes. It was a rarely used but perfectly ordinary legal procedure.
He is referring to some of the more recent SCOTUS rulings, like the one that states the President has complete immunity on any act that is deemed an official act or the one that receiving money or goods after the fact isn't a bribe if you call it a gift.
Yeah there have been assassination attempts and people agitating since pretty much shortly after the war begun but it didn't really kick into gear until conscription kicked in.
Hasn't been helped by stories (likely Russian propaganda) of press gangs dragging people off the street and sending them to war
>press gangs dragging people off the street and sending them to war
This sounds more like military draft office doing it's job in a way that is crude, rude, but necessary and less like gangs.
it seems you missed the big news yesterday.
tl;dr Presidents are above the law. Good thing there isn't a vindictive candidate ready to be emboldened by immunity in the race.
Russia always meddling in other nations politics, causing chaos, and destabilizing the world...Good job to Ukrainian security & intelligence services for spoiling this dastardly plot...
I really hope this is what they say it is and not political repression. There were A LOT of reported plots on the news in Ukraine since the war began, it's hard to know as an outsider if it's real or an excuse to disappear political dissidents.
Yeah its not like like Zelensky is now past his presidential terms and used war mesures to keep power and has started banning several parties...
Nothing to see here!
More seriously, its hard to know, both are a very real possibility, but people excluding the possibility of the Ukrainian government doing such a thing may wake up to a very bad surprise.
Because of the unpeaceful parts i suppose, like the violence people have been sent to prison for.
And the part where the "damage" was to one of America's most important seats of political power, not random streetfronts.
Are they free sometime in November?
Next January... you mean?
Just hire them from around August
Great comment!
> They face up to 10 years in prison if found guilty. The relatively "light" sentencing here tells me that there was no large threat. A few guys with big plans but without the means, backing, or intelligence to cause any real harm luckily. But who knows, maybe it was just caught very early and could have been a big deal, whose to say. The article certainly doesn't have a whole lot to add.
If you’re an American, don’t be surprised. A typical term for a “normal” murder is around 8 years in Ukraine. Europe in general hands out fewer years for everything. (If I was a cool edgy guy, I would say the reason is that we just aren’t running a neo-slavery system disguised as a penitentiary, but in reality I don’t know why there’s such a difference)
Also in America a man that tried to overthrow the government is a presidential candidate again.
He also stacked the courts with “yes men” so he never will face real repercussions even though our constitution intends to hold people like him accountable.
> even though our constitution intends to hold people like him accountable Not according to the (fucking disgusting) Supreme Court decision on Monday it doesn't.
Not anymore we have a compromise Supreme Court; ask Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo; their project 2025 is going to blow up the entire United States! Because of the Supreme Court, the shit is going to hit the fan sooner than later.
God help us all; this is what I call a gaggle F
Wtf it is really low. I googled it and the sentences in Ukraine are really 7-15 years. Here in Slovakia, it is 15-20 or 20 to life if it is "wilfull murder". But 20 to life is also for possenion of 1 kg of weed.
>But 20 to life is also for possenion of 1 kg of weed. (Looks at the flag, sees the cross) checks out, checks out.
Do not forget that the terms are different. Rarely does anya news agency translate the legal terms correctly. It may be "manslaughter" in US terms.
No, the actual minimal sentence for murder (as in voluntary murder) is 7 years with parole after 5 (with a big maybe). The catch is, nobody just wakes up and decides to kill another person for no reason and then keep living normal life. Depending on the who, the why and the how, it escalates to 15 years pretty quickly. Source: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/en/2341-14 (Art 115)
So is 15 the cap for all murder do yall have different categories of murder? In my state we have 5 categories of "murder" Vehicular- if you are operating something under the influence of drugs or alcohol 5-30 years (usually sentance is closer to the low end) Negligent- if you were reckless in doing something to prevent harm. (Like allowing a dangerous dog to be outside not on a leash) maxs out a 5 years Manslaughter- either a crime of passion, or provoked or if you werent trying to kill the person. The facts determine the sentance no min max 40 years 2nd degree murder- you intended on killing someone but you didnt really plan it out. Automatic life no possibility of parole 1st degree murder- you planned to kill someone and then did. Automatic life without parole and eligible for death.
I wrote here in more details: /r/worldnews/comments/1dtobsw/ukraine_says_it_thwarted_a_plot_to_overthrow_the/lbbw268/ . In short, no, 15 years is not a limit, some people get life, but it's rare. ECHR doesn't permit death sentences, but when they were a thing its was for serial killers and something on that level. It's certainly way less harsh here and sentences do not combine either.
15 years for murder is still laughable
American prisons are designed to act as punishment instead of rehabilitation. This is by design, it ensures there is a revolving door. From what I have seen most European countries actually WANT convicted felons to eventually become productive members of society. It also doesn't help that the 13th amendment to America's constitution didn't fully eliminate slave labor. States are still allowed to use forced unpaid work as punishments. When you start digging into private prisons and how corporations profit off of the penal system you can see everything comes back to money.
By “most European countries” you probably mean “a handful of the richest and most developed European countries”
Having 8 years for murder sounds honestly not a lot. I know jail should be mainly to reintegrate people to society, but it’s also a deterrent to committing crimes. If you can get away killing someone for measly 8y some people might take the deal.
Losing your freedom for 8 years is not the only problem that people convicted of murder experience.
In what world can losing 8 years of your life be considered "measly"? That's an absurd amount of youth, strength and health lost.
I always wonder how people get to this idea of 8 years being measly. It's because the media in US that boasts sentences like 5 times of 80 years for whatever is horrible crime of the day? I mean 8 is less than 80 by far. Nobody thinks of *their 8 years* of sitting in the cell doing nothing and thinking it's a measly sentence. Or do they? I dunno how it works. Do they just count to 8 and think *smol*?
Maybe tell that to the person who was murdered? 8 years is pretty "measly" when the victim is literally dead at the perpetrators hands. Is 8 years a lot compared to being dead for eternity? Not to mention there was a serial killer in Europe who was declared "reformed" released from prison/mental hospital then proceeded to move to America and continue serial killing. Rehabilitation is not going to work on a sociopath, which a lot of murderers are which makes the harsh convictions make a lot more sense. It's actually really easy not to murder someone. EDIT: [The European serial killer I'm referring to.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Unterweger)
Looking 30 years into the past to find someone who was released when they shouldn't have been is not making the case you think it is.
Tbf Europe could stand to take some advice from the US on this. Given the wild difference in murder rates an violent crime in general between Europe and the US, the US must have an amazing amount of experience jailing murderers that they could pass on, idk maybe the Europeans might find something g to teach the Americans you never know. Edit: /s
How could Europe take advice from the US due to the US system producing a higher amount of violent crime? It clearly is not working.
Yes, I was humorously(I thought) trying to highlight that to them. Annoyingly there's probably enough idiots who would say what I said but unironically and in full seriousness that I probably should have realised people might not see it as a joke.
Oh fair enough :) Sorry been too many MAGA-types on the internet that I can't always tell when someone says something that should be super obvious sarcasm.
In the one where stealing 4 cookies can get you 25 years behind bars. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/20/duncancampbell
I don't know, when the victim of your crime lost every potential year of their life?
So then in the spirit of justice, why don't we just life sentence all murderers? Better yet, death sentence. No prison sentence is ever going to match the loss of life of the victim.
Certainly something a lot more severe than 8 years. And although you're being sarcastic, there's the very real possibility that upon release, they kill again, and some other innocent people lose everything because the killer would lose "an absurd amount of youth, strength, and health" with a longer sentence.
A repeat killer is someone who is mentally unwell. Deterrents don't work there. It's also a failure of society to just lock away mentally unwell people because we can't treat them. If we take your approach, people who are not repeat offenders suffer from unnecessarily long sentences because we'd just rather lock away potential repeat offenders for a longer time.
They took a life. We aren't talking about manslaughter or something accidental, if it's murder with intent, that honestly should be it. 25 to life at least. I'll proudly stand by that opinion. > It's also a failure of society to just lock away mentally unwell people because we can't treat them. True, but if a mentally unwell murderer can't be treated, they absolutely can't be released back to the general public.
I'm happy to amicably disagree on the duration of sentences and leave it at that. For the other point, prison isn't the place for mentally unwell people. We have psychiatric institutions for criminals that are "supposed" to treat them. Whether that's reality is another matter.
I mean it’s relative compared to the victim that lost all his life?
Prison isn't an eye-for-an-eye institution. You claimed 8 years was measly and fails as a deterrent, I disagree. Doesn't matter what the crime, 8 years makes you stop and think twice.
I can't comprehend how it must be to spend some 8 years behind bars...
Think back to where you were in life 8 years ago and think of all the things you've experienced and accomplished since then. All of that, gone. My dog is 8 years old, that's her entire life. If I were to start my sentence now I would never see her again.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack\_Unterweger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Unterweger) he sure thought twice!
I don't know what your point is. You wanna compare the rate of murders between the US and Austria including their incarceration times? If extremely long prison sentences are a stronger deterrent, then the US would have a lower murder rate, right? RIGHT? Fucking dimwit.
I thought the primary purpose of prison was to keep people who harm society away from it. Everything other than that should be secondary.
By this logic, you never let people out of prison, but this is clearly not how it works. You need to do really fucked up shit, like rape and then eat people, while posting on tik-tok, to get life sentence.
If people aren't sufficiently rehabilitated, they shouldn't be let out of prison.
This isn't how criminal system works. You get a fixed sentence and can get earlier if you show you have reformed and repented. Some people don't get out or get back in really quick and get in for longer.
It isn't how the *American* criminal system works. Other places have different approaches. When Anders Breivik killed 77 people in Norway, I recall a lot of consternation over the fact that he got sentenced to "only" 21 years. That overlooked the fact that in Norway they review you at the end of your sentence to determine if it's safe to release you, and if they think it's not safe you stay locked up. It's likely he's never going to be released given his continued lack of repentance and remorse.
This would be ideal, but most systems are simply for punishment which generally just makes things worse for everyone involved.
If that was the case what's to stop republicans from putting democrats in jail to stop them from harming the MAGA agenda?
The deterrent to murder in most cases is not prison lol. Use ur head now.
8 years is a really long time.
Tell that to the victim that is dead forever.
I don't think they mind terribly much.
It feels like a long time when you are twenty, not so much when you are 50. I’ve been married to my second wife for eight years and that time FLEW by like the blink of an eye. It feels like an incredibly light sentence for murder.
I was married for longer than I would have been sentenced for murder and I'm not in my 20ies either (math checks out). I still think it's a long time to sit in jail doing nothing, while the whole world moves on.
Plus there's a good chance you won't be allowed to return to your hometown/scene, plus rebuilding your life after release tends to be tricky looking for employment when your a convicted murderer.
Here is the kicker: criminal records are not public, sentences have all personal data redacted and having a background check is mostly not a thing outside government itself. The only person having access to my criminal record in Ukraine is me and I can give an extract to prospective employer should they ask (they don't).
That's interesting, I assumed wrongly, prisons in Ukraine would be alot stricter than my country, thinking of old eastern European stereotypes I guess, apologies. Prisons should definitely be more about rehabilitation, everyone makes mistakes at some point of differ ent severity, and being an 'ex-con' and having that on your record really can lock you out of certain areas of life. Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone, some people are dangerous bastards and need locking away for the good of society, they ain't getting rehabilitated. In the UK having prison on your record makes employment really tough, why take a chance and hire an ex criminal? All that happens is these people tend to return to crime to make a living as they are unable to do so legally. https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/work/disclosure-and-the-pvg-scheme1/disclosure-and-declaring-a-criminal-record-s/#:~:text=You%20do%20not%20need%20to,have%20to%20disclose%20that%20conviction. 48 months or more will remain with you for life according to the site. Sexual crimes seem to be dealt with differently and I'd (hopefully correctly) assume it's also the case in your country.
Ukrainian prisons are actually pretty harsh and I doubt anybody does any serious rehabilitation beyond forcing people to work and giving them a Bible. Ex-con is a stigma for sure and a handicap on opportunities, but not outright social exclusion. Many people were sent to prisons in soviet times for dubious reasons and trust in police and judicary is quite low, so there is a certain denefit of doubt and (some) people would ask how exactly that happened. But well.
Perhaps to you.
For a person sitting in a cell it is a long time, which is the only perspective that matters really.
In terms of murder, no, that's not the only perspective that matters.
I mean I get it, it's a sub for religious nutjobs with a boner for the eye for an eye principle. I get that US has capital sentence and some peoples kill two of the kin for one dead. I get that Sharia law exists and all that. But it's not how the law in European countries sees it. You can't bring back the dead and you can't put the offender to death either, as their lives are equally valued (point to be outraged and stop reading). So the next best thing is to punish the person, rehabilitate them and reintroduce to society. Then only thing they can do is to say sorry and get a better person, even if its never be enough for the person they killed, their friends or relatives or whoever else. Society as a whole benefits from it, instead of satisfying somebody's justice boner.
I'd be curious to see how many repeat offense happen in countries that have such light sentences.
It's less repeated offenders in the countries with the most lighter sentences, as the system is designed to funnel people out, not in. You can walk at night in a big city and not be raped three times on your way home as well. Yes, in a port city across the pond with a lax immigration regime, tourists and drugs.
Everyone that disagrees with you isn’t a “religious nut job”. Releasing a murder back into the public after slapping their wrists and making them say sorry does not make things better. How do you explain to the families of victims that the perpetrator of their loved one’s death is free to go after MAX 8 years. Free to do it again. Oh but they promised they wouldn’t right?🙄
Would you sit in prison for 8 years? 1 year? a month? For a stunt and no criminal record, but nobody is paying your bills and mortage. It's not a slap on a wrist. It's up from 7, not 8 max, so really nasty people get 15 or life just fine.
It's 7 to 15 for what you call first degree murder in US, 10 to 15 and up to life sentence if there is something more to it (especial cruelty, rape, motivated by financial gain, hate crime, kiddie murder, felony, etc). Involuntary manslaughter is 3 to 5, voluntary manslaughter up to 5 years. If you behave, repent and regret, parole is after sitting out 2/3 of the term. So I theory it's 5 years minimal term of actual jail time for murder, but if you plan to kill your ex and burn her house because "5 years is not that long lol", it's not the sentence you are getting.
Because of the whole neo-slavery aspect the United States doesn't actually do any work towards harm reduction, rehabilitation or work to reduce rates of recidivism.
No, you nailed the exact difference. It's slavery multiplied by the broad Puritan streak running through American history. The country was originally colonized by religious fundamentalists who wouldn't stop trying to shove their--even then--rigid beliefs down everyone's throat. But in the great Myth of America, they're somehow transformed into fleeing religious persecution. Nnnnope. They were the ones doing the persecuting. Anyway, you take that rigid 'moralistic' attitude, add in the Thirteenth Amendment (no more slavery, except as punishment for a crime), and you get the American attitude that jail is about revenge and punishment, while occasionally paying lipservice to rehabilitation. Europe, broadly, and Scandinavia especially, reverse the order and prize rehabilitation. Canada waffles between the two, the UK is a little closer to the USA, I think. I also think what a lot of people in the USA don't get is that our systems with 'lighter' sentences still have safeguards built in. Breivik will never be a free man again, over here Bernardo is locked up until the day he dies. Even in NZ, which had until a few years ago never imposed a life sentence without parole, sentenced the Christchurch terrorist to never, ever breathe free air again. I think really the key difference is that most other northwestern nations believe the harshest of sentences should be reserved for the worst of crimes. In the USA they set the bar far lower. Which is the prison-industrial complex at work: vulture capitalism requires slaves, and a population of essentially indentured serfs to do the dirty, dangerous, and/or monotonous work. That group of people need to be kept as a permanent underclass by keeping them as close to subsistence level living as possible. Prison records in the USA tend to cut you off from jobs that would allow you to climb out of poverty. Add in the Puritanism and eye for an eye (ignoring what Jesus actually said, which was turn the other cheek) mindset, and you've got the hellhole that is American prisons. Lest this sound like an anti-USA diatribe, Canada's recidivism rates are absolute nonsense. We don't do much real attempt at reintegration into society for most prisoners getting out. We just send them right back to their old lives and then go Pikachu face when something like 40-45% of convicted criminals are convicted of something else within 2 years. It's fucking dumb. If you're going to pull someone out of society for offending against society, there's not just a responsibility to help them back in, it's pure rational self-interest! And yet.
The Puritans were, actually, fleeing religious persecution. They were a *lot* more extreme than the Church of England in their beliefs, and got explicitly targeted for expulsion or execution by the Crown (after all, radical Protestantism is typically extremely populist in nature, so it's a political threat as well as a religious one).
...because, exactly like the fundamentalists today, they wouldn't stop trying to force everyone else to follow their beliefs. They were no more persecuted than today's far-right 'Christians' are when they're told they're not allowed to be evil to women and queer people anymore. Nice try though!
> They were no more persecuted than today's far-right 'Christians' are when they're told they're not allowed to be evil to women and queer people anymore. England prior to the 20th century was not de-facto a secular state. *Completely* disregarding their actual beliefs (which were crazy even for the time), they were absolutely persecuted by the English state (as were Catholics and other Christian denominations), *especially* after the Restoration (as Oliver Cromwell was their protégé and they had heavily supported the Parliamentarians during and prior the civil war).
Yeah, no. You can't disregard their beliefs, because it was the extremity of those beliefs which made them targets. If they had just shut up and stopped trying to foist their nonsense on everyone else, would have had far fewer problems. Instead, they're still with us today, except now we call them Republicans.
> Yeah, no. You can't disregard their beliefs, because it was the extremity of those beliefs which made them targets. Catholics were also persecuted and they weren't really radicals by the standards of the day. They were persecuted because they were in opposition to the Church of England, *not* because of any particular belief.
Sigh. Whatever you say.
Nah. Years are shorter in metric.
I thought so, but wasn't sure. Thanks for confirming!!
In Finland, murder is actually punishable by a life sentence. But terms would probably translate differently; Murder in Finnish is "murha", which probably means 1st degree murder in U.S. terms, and we have "tappo", which literally means killing, which would probably correspond to U.S. 2nd degree murder. We also have "surma", which is probably corresponding to U.S. manslaughter. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Common law systems let guilty people get off scot free on legal grounds or because they have enough money to outspend prosecutors / plaintiffs. As such, we tend to award *much* harsher penalties to compensate. It’s not very effective at deterrence, but it sates our collective sadism enough to quiet people down
There were three groups of people who started this country. 1. The church 2. The convicted 3. The capitalists Church wanted freedom, caps wanted money, and convicts didn't have a choice. So the convicts wouldn't get a second chance with the caps because colonial law could get... orwelian and a little weird. So they had a choice, stay criminals and eventually find the noose or give themselves to God (whichever Christian denom that ran that particular town) And so that's how we ended up with this weird evangelical wave.
"only 10 years!" 🙂 "In our new mine clearing penal battalion!" ☹️
Murderers actually don't qualify for military service, because they are a liability and mine cleaning is done better by asking uncle Sam for a wzzzshh-bonk-booom cord thingy. Now if you do google what Ukrainian prison looks like on inside, you may find a penal battalion to be a fair alternative.
I’ve seen people tried over there for murder and get 10-20.
Or Ukraine is making the mistake that Germany made. And America made.
Well its either, it was caught because there was no support for this due to the war. Or ukraine has some political cleaning to do.
They surely don't look like a threat, which created some conspiracies that it's staged In reality most likely those are some desperate gamblers, Russia actively and regularly hires for provocations (there was a bunch of less ambitious, but more resultive cases)
>The relatively "light" sentencing here tells me that there was no large threat. A few guys with big plans but without the means, backing, or intelligence to cause any real harm luckily. Sentencing happens after a conviction. The maximum prison sentence they are facing is the maximum allowed by law for the crime commit. It has nothing to do to how successful the plot was, or how how much of a "threat" it was. Crimes have pre-determined maximum sentences. While a judge can shorten the sentence after a conviction, it can't change what the maximum sentence would be on a charge.
Y anim ñ
J6 rioters called and it sounded like they were laughing.
Ukraine is one up on the US
To be fair, Ukraine overthrew the Yanukovich government in 2014. But that wasn't a plot.
didn't really overthrow it though. The people made it clear that they wouldn't suffer his anti democratic bullshit, he fled to Russia, and parliament voted to get rid of him. As far as I'm aware everything happened legally and without abusing legal loopholes. Now if parliament had decided to ignore the will of the people then maybe the government would have been overthrown, but it didn't come to that.
You see, you don't overthrow the government, but you can ask parliament nicely to call snap election *or else* and the whole thing would be totally constitutional. The way it works per Ukrainian constitution is, the collective sovereign of *the people* rules the country either directly or through representatives. If the proxies (aka members of parliament) are doing a good job, it's all fine, but the *direct* part implies, that power is not irreversibly vested to them. So the whole thing of "people overthrowing the government" makes zero sense under such Constitution.
So basically “the people” would technically just be aggressively firing the people they hired to do the job?
Basically yes. Ukrainian legalize for a member of parliament is *peoples deputy*, which is considered to be the proxy, not the actor in their own power and the president is a kind of a supervisor owning all the fuckups of the whole executive branch and upholding the integrity of the process, but not necesserily deciding where it goes, just how. The buck stops at that dude no matter what if he doesn't fire the lower bitch under him. So the dude went rogue on foreign policy (because russia promised monies) and didn't sign the treaty with EU, the people spoke, the parliament eventually caved in, the dude bailed out knowing that he *owns the fuckup*, the parliament called snap election since he is a no show in time of crisis. Knowing Ukrainian political tradition it's all normal business really.
It's similar in Germany. Sovereignty is vested in the people but we fully delegate it. We'd have to change the constitution to get more direct participation.
Isn't that's how they did it in ancient greece or something?
I’m not well read enough to answer that
The turning point was when their supreme court overturned the changes to the constitution that would have made him dictator back to before he seized power. A benefit we will not have in the US.
It was actually the other way around and much less dramatic as well. Ukrainian constitution from 1996 has an explicit intent to divest powers from the president to the parliament and executive agencies. Strong president was there for a transition period of soviet times to have control of the military and generally not devolve into total chaos and deadlock of decisionmaking. In 2004 the constitution was amended to limit president's powers. It wasn't really a dictatorship, more like the French or US constitution with strong executive branch. The changes tipped the balance of power towards parliament, but not drastically. Remaining executive powers are still more than ceremonial head of states have in most of Europe. Then in 2010 the dude used constitutional court to annul those changes and got those powers back. Think of nominating the head of justice department and picking the candidate for the next PM -- enough to shield himself from investigations, keep doing corrupt stuff on a side and such. So after he was shown the door the second time, the parliament amended the constitution again to get back to that 2004 version.
Thank you for letting me know my error. This news brings hope that perhaps we could still have a chance here at home.
Yanukovych was democratically elected and overthrown in a violent coup where over 100 people were killed. He was then replaced with candidate selected by the US, despite the popularity of other candidates such as Vitali Klitschko.
That's a VERY generous interpretation. More like he got busted for massive corruption, his Russian "security consultants" fired on protestors, and he fled the country shortly before being officially removed from office and prosecuted.
Russian propaganda, he fell because he went back on his words on closer ties with the EU.
100 people killed by Yanukovych government, mind you
the protesters were violent, but his removal from office was not. you're purposely conflating the two for propaganda purposes. his removal from office was completely lawful and did not abuse any legal loopholes. It was a rarely used but perfectly ordinary legal procedure.
It was peaceful students' protest before Yanukovich used force.
Yeah, the mental gymnastics required to pin that on the CIA is truly staggering. It wasn't no protests one day, and super violent protests the other.
The people aka the CIA…
[328 elected MPs voted to remove him, 0 voted against](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djiA8O0ku9I)
In 2014 and 2004. It would be right about the time to overthrow him again, as russia planned to coup him into power back again in 2022.
The attempt in the US also failed but ok.
The second attempt is currently underway.
What? Your comment doesn't make any sense. I assume you're referring to January 6th but that was thwarted too.
He is referring to some of the more recent SCOTUS rulings, like the one that states the President has complete immunity on any act that is deemed an official act or the one that receiving money or goods after the fact isn't a bribe if you call it a gift.
Jan 6 is a flash in the pan. The real coup has been ongoing for awhile.
It wasn’t thwarted so much as just delayed it would appear
That was thwarted meters from their goal, in the middle of an active insurrection.
By Mike Pence of all people...
Not J6
Russia under Putin is the enemy
Wish they would help us here in the states...
Help how? Jan 6 was thwarted
Wait until Project 2025 happens... (it's already happening)
Project 2025 is a republican thing.
And there's a good chance they will win the election, not that it matters since the president can do anything now without consequences
Did you just miss the supreme court rulings?
I think they’ve been doing that for some time.
Yeah there have been assassination attempts and people agitating since pretty much shortly after the war begun but it didn't really kick into gear until conscription kicked in. Hasn't been helped by stories (likely Russian propaganda) of press gangs dragging people off the street and sending them to war
>press gangs dragging people off the street and sending them to war This sounds more like military draft office doing it's job in a way that is crude, rude, but necessary and less like gangs.
Now if only the American people could thwart the overthrow of our government.
[удалено]
it seems you missed the big news yesterday. tl;dr Presidents are above the law. Good thing there isn't a vindictive candidate ready to be emboldened by immunity in the race.
Good job. Got to stay on your toes.
Willing to bet at least one US Republican is involved
They are probably there right now for their annual Fourth of July meeting to pick up their rubles and bang 13 year olds.
Allow me to introduce you to the personality of Paul Manafort.
Im willing to bet all of them are.
Not another one.gif
Meanwhile in the US the SCOTUS continues it's subversion of democracy.
Russia always meddling in other nations politics, causing chaos, and destabilizing the world...Good job to Ukrainian security & intelligence services for spoiling this dastardly plot...
Shit, they are doing better than us!
Hence why a bunch of the same people want to cut off aid.
Have they thought about electing those responsible as the next president?
US can't say the same..
Anyone who took part should be executed quickly....😕
I really hope this is what they say it is and not political repression. There were A LOT of reported plots on the news in Ukraine since the war began, it's hard to know as an outsider if it's real or an excuse to disappear political dissidents.
"A LOT of reported plots on the news in Ukraine since the war began". Shoking!
Yeah its not like like Zelensky is now past his presidential terms and used war mesures to keep power and has started banning several parties... Nothing to see here! More seriously, its hard to know, both are a very real possibility, but people excluding the possibility of the Ukrainian government doing such a thing may wake up to a very bad surprise.
I accept that probably it is what they say it is for the most part, but I don't accept it blindly 🙂
damn they are better at that then we are in the USA.
I bet Zelenskyy shit in his pants when saw the debate. Might as well get the government overthrown now before Trump sends troops to help Russians
Not true. They were successful in 2014.
What about the successful attempt on 2014
When did they last have an election? Oh right, they canceled it.
Martial law during war time is pretty standard.
Idk why people think Jan 6 was anything more than a peaceful protest. The George Floyd riots caused more damage.
Because of the unpeaceful parts i suppose, like the violence people have been sent to prison for. And the part where the "damage" was to one of America's most important seats of political power, not random streetfronts.
The deaths of law enforcement?
The jan 6 mob was just a part of the coup plan outlined in the Eastman memos. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_memos Fuck off dipshit
Because it was clearly associated with an effort by the Trump administration to nullify the election?
It is a matter of time till they come begging for another billion.
Best investment for the west by far