Posted 9 сентября 2020,, 12:49

Published 9 сентября 2020,, 12:49

Modified 24 декабря 2022,, 22:38

Updated 24 декабря 2022,, 22:38

"Yefremov has five years of his own, and three - from his lawyer". The country assessed the sentence to the actor

"Yefremov has five years of his own, and three - from his lawyer". The country assessed the sentence to the actor

9 сентября 2020, 12:49
As always, opinions about the severity of the sentence differed: some believe that it is just, others see in it a clear mockery of Yefremov.

Social networks are noisily discussing eight years in a general regime colony, to which the court sentenced Mikhail Yefremov. The most revealing words that express the attitude towards him will probably be the famous remark of the investigator Podberezovikov, played by Mikhail's father Oleg Yefremov, who at the trial in the film “Beware of the Car” said about the defendant: “He is, of course, to blame, but he... to blame..."

As proof that this sentence is too harsh, bloggers cite the following statistics:

“According to hours 3 and 4 of Art. 264 of the Criminal Code, that is, an accident with a fatal outcome, including in a state of intoxication - what Yefremov is accused of, judging by the statistics of the Judicial Department at the Armed Forces,

in 2019, 3,177 people were convicted,

1,886 - to imprisonment (of which 1,231 - to conditional).

In real terms, the situation is as follows:

up to 1 year - 202 people

from 1 to 2 years - 778 people

from 3 to 5 years old - 288 people

from 5 to 8 years old - 36 people

from 8 to 10 years - 1 person..."

That is, Yefremov was among the most severely punished. How did it happen? Here, many people blame Yefremov's lawyer Elman Pashayev, who, according to everyone's opinion, was not so much busy with the qualified defense of his client as with careless self-promotion.

Historian and publicist Daniil Kotsyubinsiky writes about this:

“This is, of course, a very harsh sentence.

And at this moment it is impossible not to sympathize with the condemned.

Now Putin has a great opportunity - as in 2013 in the story of the trial over Navalny - to "do so" so that the harsh sentence miraculously mitigated in the highest court. Well, if not until a suspended sentence (like that time), then at least a few years in prison. There is also such a comforting option as the fact that Yefremov will not go to the prison, but will remain at the facilities of SIZO-5. Finally, there is also a parole...

But in this story, I must confess, I was most struck by the figure of the lawyer Elman Pashayev, who behaved in the judicial space, approximately like Maria Zakharova in the diplomatic one - that is, like a freak with a narcissistic personality disorder.

The PR, of course, was a success. And now we all know that there is such a lawyer in Russia, Elman Pashayev. But we also know that he is a fierce anti-professional, whom a person in his right mind and sober memory is unlikely to ask to represent his interests in court ... "

And here is the opinion of the lawyer Irina Skurtu:

“Everyone in the professional community unambiguously agrees that he has five years of his own, and three from a lawyer. The position he took on the first day and expressed intuitively was the most advantageous and correct, it was worth defending it, blaming, repenting and voluntarily compensating for the harm. Perhaps the punishment would have been two or three years less"

Popular blogger Nikolai Podoskorsky writes:

“The case when an extravagant lawyer Elman Pashayev turned the trial into an evil clownery, and instead of helping, he only drowned his client deeper (or did he initially have such a goal?). A bet on warming up emotions and general exaltation of a certain segment of the audience of social networks, who is ready to see a conspiracy theory in everything and divide the world strictly into black and white, on inciting hatred towards the relatives of the murdered (which is completely beyond the bounds) by means of simple manipulative actions and information injections worked. And thank God. By his disgusting actions, this lawyer achieved only that in many he killed the remnants of purely human sympathy for his client. Because, in general, it is normal to demand a fair punishment for a criminal, but at the same time to sympathize with the one who stumbled and repents of his deed..."

Public figure Pyotr Shkumatov is stern, but fair:

"1. If you are guilty, then confess and repent. This is the main thing. Everything else is secondary. When Yefremov made a heartfelt video, I really appreciated it. However, everything that began to happen after this video made me feel absolute disgust and it has not left me until now. All these "I do not remember", some pseudo witnesses and theories of setting up by the world government is absolutely disgusting and disgusting.

2. Yefremov has earned enough money in his life. It is impossible to compensate a person's life with money, but it is possible to alleviate the suffering of surviving relatives. Let them want to get more than you think is reasonable, but if you have - give it back. Don't look at formal status, don't look at papers. Just give people money, you don't have the last ones. But no. The disgusting rhetoric of the lawyer Pashayev began, who simply had to be driven out after his first statement in the press. But no.

3. The main cause of the accident was alcohol intoxication. So come out, repent, tell me how it was. How many years I drove drunk before. How much money he gave for bribes. Your lesson will be different science. But no.

Therefore, with all due respect to the work of Yefremov (and his role in Generation P is on my personal top), I do not feel any regret that he will have to spend 8 years in a general regime colony. At the same time, knowing how all this works, I believe that it would be cheaper to give money to relatives, but the avaricious pays twice and, possibly, 2.5x.

As for the drunkenness itself, I still call for common sense and the division of the degrees of intoxication into mild, moderate and severe. For the heavy one, at least the confiscation of the car can be introduced, but at the same time it is unfair for the light one. And for medicines it is necessary to introduce reasonable thresholds, those who have exceeded them already need to be severely punished. There is no need to fight with those who travel with "the day before yesterday". We must fight the conventional "Yefremov", that is, with those people who are losing their edges and shores, which inevitably leads to a sad but natural end..."