Anyone other than me wonder what the judges are guided by when delivering sentences? Personally, after reading a lot of sentences on duty of service, I found little logic in them. As an example, let me compare two sentences:
1st Sergey Fedorovich I., the name Grandfather. The crime: Drinking alcohol with one of the accomplices, quarreled. Sergey's own growth was small, which is called "a meter with a cap". He took the table and attached the opponent to the head, which is why he suddenly tired and lay to rest. He was taken to the hospital, where he was released the next day. For a month and a half, he lived as if he had nothing to do with it: he whipped almost every day, cooked drinks for the winter, and then suddenly died. After that, Sergey was arrested, tried and sentenced under p. “E” and “H” 2 st. 105 Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (murder with special cruelty) to twenty years of imprisonment.
2nd Rudolph Rudolphovich I. with a tail deprived his opponent of his life, broke them into four pieces and hid them in different places of the abandoned house. Our court, the most humane in the world, sentenced him to a masterpiece. 108 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (exceeding the necessary self-defense) and, taking into account the underpinned sentence on the previous conviction (one and a half years) partial composition appointed for serving three years four months of imprisonment.
Not judging the judges, I’m just wondering how they are guided by delivering such sentences?