Interesting to follow the efforts of Europe (EU, CoE) to prevent the execution of two Belarusians. They were sentenced to death for alleged murders.
Usually Minsk and Brussels discuss free speech and freedom of assembly, now it’s time for the right to life. Now Europe is on the mission to save the murderers.
Actually Belarusian authorities consider the right to life and human dignity to be the most important. And with life everything is more or less clear: according to Amnesty International annually 1-3 people are convicted to death in Belarus. With the right you can never be sure: Belarusian Themis and her woman’s reason is sometimes difficult to follow.
For instance Vasil Yuzepchuk, who has two previous convictions, allegedly strangled six old women while his accomplice was holding them. Five of the victims were more than 70 old. He was also found guilty of assault and robbery and got capital sentence.
Yuzepchuk’s lawyer argues that the investigation and trial were fundamentally flawed, and that his client was beaten in detention. He says, Yuzepchuk belongs to the marginalised Roma ethnic group, doesn’t have an internal passport, is illiterate and does not know the months of the year.
But there’s a different very well known case. Three men and a woman killed a man from their village Pukhavichy. They stalked their victim for several hours before attacking him with axes and killing him with blows to the head. They set the body on fire and then went to a cafe to celebrate New Year’s Eve.
The suspects were released from pre-trial detention after less than a month by order of the President Lukashenka. Moreover, the Belarusian leader told Supreme Court Chairman to sympathise with them. “The victim was a villain, terrorised people, the entire village,” Mr. Lukashenka said. “If the men took that step, they probably were angered indeed and all ordinary people are on their side.”
In April three men and a woman were found guilty of premeditated murder and got unprecedentedly lenient sentences. Two men got 3 and 5 years in prison under the Criminal Code’s article, which provides for a prison term of between eight and 25 years, life imprisonment, or the death penalty. The rest received 2 years restricted freedom.
Then President Lukashenka has pardoned those who got prison sentences, the third guy was amnestied…
That’s why it’s impossible to say if the EU efforts to save two convicts could be successful. As all people are equal but some are still a tiny bit more equal.
… aaand I did it again 
I wanted to write something positive! Probably next time.
I’ll finish with a famous Soviet song performed by a Belarusian babushka — babulya. The hit goes like that: “Life, I love you, and I hope it’s not all on one side”.
Tags: Belarus, death sentence, Yuzepchuk
#1 by valentina pop on October 15th, 2009 - 11:46 pm
ah, the joys of Soviet-inherited justice systems… same deeds, opposite sentences. when the convict is a friend or a relative of someone close to the judge or powerful politicians, or if the bribe is right, amnesty is granted. and how easy it is for the same judge to be ruthless when a political order has to be carried out or when the convict is a ‘nobody’..
#2 by andrew on October 16th, 2009 - 10:25 am
vigilante justice can sometimes seem appealing in a gut-instinct way. especially if the law fails. but when you hear the details – “stalked with axes” – it’s not so attractive anymore. i wonder, if there were referendums across the EU, how many countries would be in favour of capital punishment. i’m torn myself.
#3 by Jean-Baptiste Perrin on October 16th, 2009 - 10:44 am
Capital punishment is irreversible. Once it has been applied, it can not be reversed. Human justice is fallible, per definition. Hence, human societies should ban capital punishment. Put people in jail for life, without parole, if you want. But killing them is just putting the whole society at the same level than the murderers. Society is not there to implement vengeance, it is there to protect law abiding citizens from criminals or external threats. The death penalty does not do this.
#4 by andrew on October 16th, 2009 - 11:09 pm
i see your point jean-baptiste. but if you imprison the wrong man for 20 years you can’t give him his life back either. and why is vengeance such a bad thing? in the face of some appalling violent crime, is vengeance not a much more noble and satisfying response, than the insipid bureaucracy of justice in our society? it’s a bit like smacking your child. if you have to do it, do it with some emotional content.
#5 by Jean-Baptiste Perrin on October 20th, 2009 - 11:19 am
@ Andrew, although I understand your point of view, it is one of emotion indeed. Justice should have nothing to do with emotions. That’s one of the reasons we represent justice as “blind”.
By the way, I fail to see how vengeance can be noble. I do see how it can be satisfying (at the instant it is done), but then the one enacting his/her vengeance quickly realizes how empty it is: he/she then has to live with the remorse of the deed on top of the pain of what led to it. Vengeance is an illusion, an archaic remain of ultra-violent societies.
Justice bureaucracy might feel insipid, but that’s the price to pay for living in a peaceful society. Further, nobody is obliged to work in the justice system if they don’t find it exciting. But at least, both suspects, victims and witnesses can have a trial based on facts and reasons and not feelings, passions and other irrational elements.