A prisoner of the lowest caste was imprisoned with a “blight”: four days later he was found tortured in a cell

This was decided by the judges of the Lithuanian Court of Appeal, who rejected the complaint by the murderer’s defense lawyer regarding the prison sentence imposed on the repeat offender L. Lukoševičius in November last year.

„L. The 15-year prison sentence imposed on Lukoševičius for committing a very serious crime, in the presence of two characteristics that qualify his actions, is neither too severe nor too lenient, ”said the panel of judges chaired by Judge Regina Pocienė.

According to the data of the case, it was established that L. Lukoševičius, while he was a prisoner in the Marijampolė penitentiary, April 29 2 pm until May 2. At 5.24 am, in a closed cell-type room, “demonstratively ignoring the basic rules of conduct and universally accepted moral norms, under the pretext of inferiority,” he struck another convict with at least 20 blows to the hands, feet and a metal bar. on his legs, arms, head.

According to the court, L. Lukoševičius, realizing that in this way, long-term constant blows, the use of a harmful tool, a metal rod, causing many bodily injuries, causes great physical suffering and pain to the victim, caused him many injuries. and serious head injuries, blood spilled and the detainee was seriously injured on May 3 as a result of complications. 6.10 pm died in the Kaunas clinics.

During the trial, it became clear that L. Lukoševičius was not only violent, but also mocked another convict, who belonged to the lowest caste of prisoners: he was told to kneel with his hands raised on the ground, and when the went down, got hit.

For various crimes, the previously convicted murderer said in court that he did so because he was being molested by a “friend” in the cell when he spoke, snorted, made noise or put food on foreign plates. However, as the judges discovered, L. Lukoševičius’s outburst of anger was exacerbated by events that had previously taken place between him and the victim: that the victim had misappropriated a foreign package thrown into the area, and L. Lukoševičius promised revenge for it.

And the occasion occurred when the victim was transferred to the same cell where L. Lukoševičius was imprisoned. It is true that when he learned that he would be transferred to the cell where L. Lukoševičius lives, the victim asked for clemency and imprisonment in another room, but his request was not answered. The officials were not convinced by the inmate’s statements that he was classified as a convict of the lowest caste in the prison, at that time L. Lukoševičius considered himself a “bach”.

The 28-year-old prisoner, who entered the cell together with L. Lukoševičius, was already harassed on the same day and was constantly subjected to violence, and the officers did not notice anything on all the days that the prisoner was beaten. Only when the prisoner, who was brutally beaten and stabbed in the head, showed no signs of life, did L. Lukoševičius call the caretakers: the prisoner fell out of bed on the second floor three times.

The doctor could no longer help the prisoner taken to the Kaunas clinics; he died a day later, without regaining consciousness.

L. Lukoševičius, who was prosecuted, immediately admitted his guilt; He said that there was nothing to deny here, because not only did he mock the prisoner of the lower castes, but also beat him with a metal stick, and the victim was constantly losing consciousness. As he recovered, events repeated themselves. The victim did not complain to anyone about the violence, the other convicts who were in the cell together did not report the abusive prisoner, and the officers supervising the prisoners did not notice anything suspicious.

When the Kaunas Regional Court sentenced L. Lukoševičius to 15 years in prison for intentional murder, the convict realized that he would spend the most beautiful year of his life behind bars and decided to try to alleviate his situation as much as possible. After consulting with a state-appointed attorney, he decided to appeal the verdict. Unaware of the legal issues, the killer asked an attorney to write a complaint for him and, more importantly, to emphasize that he had health problems and could be subject to limited charges.

“The district court did not find the convicted person liable as a mitigating circumstance that he had committed a limited charge; the court of first instance, on the basis of the forensic act of forensic psychology and forensic psychology in the case, ruled that the convicted person could understand and control the essence of his actions at the time of the crime, that is, he was accused “, – noted the lawyer when the courts reached the opposite conclusion, asked to reconsider whether L. Lukoševičius really understood the essence of his actions, whether he could be held criminally responsible for the crime committed.

Furthermore, the lawyer pointed out that “the criminal actions of L. Lukoševičius were influenced in part by the inadequate conditions of keeping the convicts in the Marijampolė penitentiary”.

“The convict did not receive any treatment in the penitentiary, although he recommended such treatment and care and needed it a lot; he was not subject to outbreak control programs, emphasizes the defense attorney. “On the contrary, a weak convict (victim) who could not resist was placed in the cell of L. Lukoševičius, thus creating the conditions for uncontrollable outbursts of anger from L. Lukoševičius, which was one of the reasons for such serious consequences of crime. “

However, after examining the complaint of the convicted person and his defense lawyer, the judges of the Lithuanian Court of Appeal ruled that the court of first instance had rendered a reasonable and legitimate judgment, so there was no reason to change it.

According to the judges, the convict was subjected to a complex outpatient examination of forensic psychiatry and forensic psychology, during which the experts established that the illness of L. Lukoševičius at the time of the crime did not prevent him from understanding the essence of his actions and managing them.

The experts interviewed at the hearing before the Court of Appeals confirmed the findings and stated that the defendant was fully anticipating his actions, knew that beating was punishable and that physical violence against other inmates was prohibited, for which he beat the victim at end of the day. inspection., – stressed the court. – In addition, the experts further explained that the criminal conduct situation was investigated in a specific case and was considered neutral and minimally provocative, that is, the situation did not traumatize or seriously degrade Mr. Lukoševičius’s dignity or threaten his life when taken a sudden decision. was necessary. L. Lukoševičius controlled and predicted their behavior. “

According to the court, L. Lukoševičius is accused and can be held responsible for his actions, and the arguments of the appeal on other cases established in the courts, the judges emphasized that “justice is administered in a particular case according to the circumstances specific to the case. Previous sentences in similar cases “.

“A precedent applies only in cases whose facts are identical or very similar to those of the case in which the precedent was set and which must be governed by the same law as in the case in which the precedent was set.” There have been no established circumstances in this case.

The judges also saw no reason to commute the murderer’s sentence to prison: torturing him on hooligan motives, he killed a young man (28 years old); his criminal responsibility is alleviated by the fact that he has confessed to having committed a crime and regrets it, and is aggravated by the fact that he committed the alleged crime as a repeat offender ”.

The court noted that L. Lukoševičius had not committed a crime for the first time.

“Previously convicted on 4 occasions, with a valid criminal record, he committed a new act when fulfilling the sentence that was imposed on him in a previous judicial sentence,” said the panel headed by Judge R. Pocienė. – Such circumstances negatively characterize the convicted person and show already established antisocial attitudes and the tendency to act against legal norms. The fact that L. Lukoševičius is reluctant to comply with certain conduct and moral requirements established by legal acts is also confirmed by the factual data of the case regarding the 85 sanctions in force that he has in the correctional institution “.

Furthermore, according to the judges, the characteristics of the prison and pretrial detention facilities show that L. Lukoševičius describes himself only in a negative way: “He is impulsive, immature, prone to domination, has conflicts with officials and it is observed that expressions are observed of anger in stressful situations, work motivation is negative, does not participate in social rehabilitation programs, does not follow the points of the individual plan elaborated ”.

According to the judges hearing the case, the imposition of a sentence is a criterion of the court of first instance, and the court of appeals can reduce the sentence only if the court of first instance did not evaluate or incorrectly evaluated all the circumstances relevant to the individualization and clearly imposed a severe and incorrect sentence.

“In the case under investigation, the panel of judges did not find that in the complaint the defense lawyer of L. Lukoševičius, in disagreement with the sentence of the specified amount, simply declares that the court of first instance did not comply with the general reasons to pass judgment, the factual fact of the case violated the principle of justice, ”the court emphasized.

The judges believe that there is no reason to commute the sentence of a convict who has killed another prisoner.

“The Court of First Instance, after assessing the seriousness of the criminal acts committed by L. Lukoševičius and his personality, the consequences of his criminal acts, the circumstances of the crime, imposed an effective and proportionate prison sentence and by court order, after the publication of which the judgment of the court of first instance became final.