Naama, legalism and terrorism

The story of Naama Issachar, an Israeli woman convicted of smuggling 9 grams of hashish, shows well what legalism is and why it is bad. Imagine you are flying from a country where hashish can be bought on every corner (India) to a country where hashish is decriminalized (Israel), transiting through a country with cannibalistic anti-drug laws (Russia). Of course, not the most reasonable act in your life, but what can threaten you? Storage penalty? But that was not the case: it turns out that, according to the letter of the law, the presence of your luggage in the transit zone is crossing the customs border and you will get no more, no less, but a whole article for smuggling. Five to ten years old.

Absurd? Absurd. But here the choir of bunny boys comes into play, having learned the Latin proverb about dura lex sed lex and repeating "laws must be observed ,boo-boo-boo". The Russian court of the same opinion: smuggling (Article 229 part 2 "c") - from five to ten, storage (Article 228 part 1), by partial addition of punishments (Article 69) we get the same 7.5 years. That is, from the formal point of view, the Russian court could give more, but could not give less. Because the asshole law actually says that.

But after all, even the most stubborn bearer of a lawful alimony should understand that what is happening is complete nonsense. Naama may be a smuggler from the point of view of the laws of the Russian Federation, but not a smuggler from the point of view of common sense. Therefore, in this case, we see a serious bug in the law - in this particular situation, it punishes an innocent person. And this problem concerns not only Russian laws, but also statutory law as such. Written norms simply cannot be formulated in such a way that they provide for the entire range of possible situations - there will always be exceptions and imperfections. Consequently, there will always be flaws and bugs in the laws, from which those who are innocent will inevitably suffer.

However, there are ways in which it can be treated:

- Jury trial. For example, if some sisters stabbed their father to death after many years of bullying - according to the law, they committed the murder by a group of people. But the jury has the power to decide not according to the law, but according to justice and let everyone go to all four sides. - No minimum punishment limit. In this case, the judge himself can see that according to the law there is a crime, but in fact there is not, and write out a zero punishment (here the minus is that the person still receives the unpleasant legal status of "conviction").

The jury trial system in the Russian Federation has long been driven under the bench - if the jury acquit anyone on the meager number of articles where it is possible at all, then the higher authority will then cancel it anyway. There are minimum sentences almost everywhere. But the presidential pardon remains. This is the most inefficient way, because there are many convicts, but there is only one president.

And here again, purely Russian peculiarities come into play: instead of simply pardoning an innocent girl, she is turned into an object of international bargaining. At first they are trying to exchange for a certain hacker, now they are completely for a piece of real estate in Jerusalem. Here the chorus of the Kremlin bunny boys comes into play with their "boo-boo-boo, defending the interests of Russia, the Pindos do it too." But if you think about it: what are people called who use hostages to defend their Wishlist? It is known how. However, if you have a coat of arms and a flag, then you are not a terrorist, of course, but an original state with national interests.

Meanwhile, Naama Issachar herself refused to ask for mercy. Formally, this is not required - they will still exchange it for a piece of real estate. But the gesture is beautiful. Israeli women have balls (in a good way)

Mihail Pojarsky 2020-01-23