Lavrinovich offered to refrain from litigating: this scandal is an opportunity for the brothers to speak out about the mistreatment

“For some time now, Telia Lietuva’s decision to make the Lavrinovičius brothers their advertising faces has been debated in the Lithuanian public space.

The situation is quite complicated, but it is regrettable that there have been thoughts in the public sphere of bringing to court people who questioned Telia’s decision.

Why is the situation difficult?

For one thing, ex-prisoners in Lithuania are one of the most underrated groups in society. Long-term surveys show that these people are consistently in the top three places on the public dislike list: about a third of society does not want to work with these people, to be neighbors.

Likewise, any person who commits and punishes a crime has the right to reintegrate into society, to participate in public life, and the person or persons will not be discriminated against as a result of a previous crime.

On the other hand, we have a situation in which a heinous crime has been committed: the sexual abuse of a minor.

Sexual abuse and gender-based violence are also particularly sensitive issues in Lithuania, causing social tensions. To date, we do not have an effective system to help women who have suffered sexual violence. Violence against women is still at an epidemic level, with the police taking around 45,000 lives each year. calls for possible domestic violence.

Although the perpetrators of the crime have served their sentences, they are persons of public knowledge who are held to particularly high moral standards. It should also be noted that the Lavrinovičiai brothers represent a sport that has a great influence in the country. Their speeches and their careers, as they have publicly named themselves, are followed by many young people.

So it is likely that by raising Western moral standards for public figures, the voices of those who asked whether it was ethical to portray in advertising individuals whose criminal record was involved in possible pressure on the victim were heard.

After all, the face of an ad is not just a photo or video, the image of specific people is used in the ad, of which the values ​​of that person or people are certainly a part.

This, of course, raises the question of the age of the crime, which was committed 22 years ago. However, although the Lavrinovich brothers do not avoid media attention, they often comment on basketball and the details of personal life, but the available media attention is misused to repair the moral damage of the crime committed. read on the Facebook account of the Lithuanian Center for Human Rights.

Lina Andriuškevičienė, a lawyer, also spoke on this topic today.

“You can see that when they go for women’s rights, the Giants always give only to the Lavrinovičius brothers as an example of rapists. They cannot become a symbol that all affected women can spit. There is no easy or serious crime All the crimes provided for in the Penal Code are serious. These are acts that are criminalized. And now to point out an act and personify the culprit, to consider him that symbol for twenty years, is impossible.

Regarding prescription, there is a specific article: article 97 (6) of the Penal Code. We do not simply tell ourselves that they are doomed. We say they are convicted under the Penal Code. Because they were condemned by an article and not by a primitive community order or agreement. It is the Code that presents us with the terms “convicted” or “illegal”. Here it is said that after some time a person is considered illegal. And now it happens that we confuse legal categories with life and we say that the punishment imposed by the Penal Code will not be erased in life.

Will not the legal punishments in life be erased morally? That should not be the case. That is why we adhere to that code, if the public is told that no matter what they do, there will no longer be a normal person. They served the sentence because their purpose was to correct the man and prevent him from committing further crimes. They corrected. The punishment did its job. And now comes the contrary opinion that after twenty years, the function of punishment is no longer fulfilled and they can no longer be expected to be full people. Who decided that? If we are a state governed by the rule of law, let us fulfill it. The punishment is done. We forgive that man. Because the punishment was imposed on behalf of the state in the public interest.

Now what happens? Has society changed its mind? Now we will think that they did not carry out the punishment because we want it to, our morality. One must be educated in the law and recognize that these people have served their sentence. Perhaps the next message should be that recovery after punishment is possible. That guilt must be admitted. They served their sentence, they sat down, they suffered. Everyone subjectively understands that suffering. He wants to suffer economically, physically and psychologically. Now you want them to suffer. That they would not show a happy, good life and the fact that, after serving a sentence, the weight of guilt can be shed, but it goes through lowering the head and whipping each other for being guilty and useless. Although they helped thousands of people and at the same time women. Although, perhaps, it was not published, ”said lawyer Lina Andriuškevičienė.