Freedom still does not smell: the leader of the brutally famous “Lapinas” refused to work because he was a “bachur”

This was stated by the Vilnius City District Court after examining the complaint by the defense lawyer for L. Lapinskas sentenced to 20 years in prison, requesting the annulment of the decision of the Parole Commission of the Vilnius Correctional Institution. It stated that the convict should not be released on parole.

L. Lapinskas, 39, was behind bars in 2005. Therefore, the end of the custodial sentence should be another 4 years, but the convict has been trying to get out of prison as soon as possible for several years. But so far all attempts have failed: if the prisoner had previously argued that the prison administration was not unreasonably considering the issue of parole, now he does not agree with the decisions that refuse to grant the benefit only to convicts in extremely correctional homes.

In December last year, the Vilnius Correctional Institution Commission refused to approve the release of L. Lapinskas, who had been punished 22 times (2 sentences were later revoked by the court) and prosecuted 4 times, during the period of serving your sentence.

The commission noted that the issue was being discussed in June, the commission decided not to release the convict from parole and made recommendations: perform unpaid work in a correctional institution.

However, L. Lapinskas refused to work: the convict who tolerated the prison subculture is “bachur”, and for those with such status, working in jobs that are generally performed by representatives of the lower castes is the most real humiliation.

At that time, the leader of the Lapinai group stated that he had organized and carried out other works, but that his activities had not been officially registered.

By refusing to release a criminal convicted of very serious crimes, the commission also noted that “no progress has been made in reducing the risk of recidivism”; L. Lapinskas only applies certain measures provided for in the individual social rehabilitation plan.

“There is no intrinsic motivation to participate in specific interventions aimed at managing current criminogenic needs, ambiguous attitudes towards supervision,” said the commission, which opposed the prisoner’s release.

The conclusions reached did not satisfy the convict, who had already spent 16 years behind bars, so his lawyer appealed the commission’s decision to the Vilnius City District Court.

“Probation was applied to the people with the best results in the risk assessment of repeated criminal behavior, including women, so the Vilnius Correctional Commission openly discriminated against L. Lapinskas, including on the basis of gender,” denounces the lawyer representing the offender notes.

It also considers that there is no legal basis to affirm that Mr. Lapinskas does not have the right to conditional release, since he has already served most of his sentence, and that the circumstances of the case confirm that “the realization of the purposes of punishment and the implementation of the principle of justice.

The judge of the Vilnius City District Court, Evelina Petraitienė, who examined the complaint by L. Lapinskas’ defense attorney, decided to reject it and leave the convicted person in prison to serve the sentences imposed.

“The court observes that there is no reason to disagree with the commission’s decision not to grant parole: the contested decision is a clear, reasoned, and analyzed history of the convicted person’s life and criminal offenses, and the fact of that the commission’s decision does not meet the requirements of the convict’s expectations, the judge pointed out.

According to her, L. Lapinskas carried out certain measures provided for in his individual social rehabilitation plan during the execution of his incarceration and has fulfilled the part of the incarceration imposed by law, which basically constitutes a formal basis for considering his parole. from the correctional institution, but only these formal reasons are not sufficient for the conditional release of the convicted person from the correctional institution.

“One of the essential conditions for the application of parole is the belief that the convicted person will comply with the law and will not commit a crime, which is determined by the low risk of criminal conduct of the convicted person and / or progress in its reduction “. the court noted.

The judge stated that he had no doubts about the positive change in the personality of the convict, who had completed her secondary education and two specialties during her incarceration, but nevertheless, when considering the conditional release of a person from prison, and the entire of all the data that describe his personality and reveal the change in his behavior, which, in the judgment of the court, is not yet sufficient for his conditional release from the correctional institution. “

“The inmate is incapable of properly following the rules of conduct established while he is in the place of deprivation of liberty, which would indicate his adequate preparation for social reintegration; on the contrary, it calls into question the constant and diligent adherence of the inmate to the code of conduct.

“Doubts about the willingness of L. Lapinskas to pursue his objectives only in legal manner and means after his release are also caused by the possible financial instability of the court, although according to the data presented to the court, L. Lapinskas will be hired at a profit economic, as well as the fact that he was not working during his incarceration, he was sentenced 11 times for refusing to perform unpaid work, once for refusing to carry out a sentence – for managing the facilities and territory of a penitentiary center – and once sanctioned for refusing to work for a paid rate offered by the administration of the institution, confirms the fact that the person did not seek to acquire work experience while serving a custodial sentence. Lack of professional qualifications and work experience acquired during incarceration for alone casts reasonable doubts about a person’s ability to resocialize adequately and enter the labor market. “

The court also drew attention to the social finding, stating that it is confident in its ability and ability to deal with various types of failures and therefore does not seek to delve into possible difficulties.

“The convict is able to make decisions quickly enough, even in stressful situations, to generate various alternatives, but problem solving is not always constructive,” said the judge, although L. Lapinskas makes some efforts to adjust his behavior accordingly. in a positive direction, but they are clearly insufficient to conclude that the progress of the convicted person in reducing the risk of criminal conduct constitutes reason to believe that they will comply with the law and will not commit a crime.

In addition, the court emphasized that the progress of L. Lapinskas in reducing the risk of recidivism is unnoticed and significant, it only implements certain measures provided for in the Individual Social Rehabilitation Plan, it did not follow the recommendations of the commission, it has no internal motivation to participate in targeted interventions targeting relevant criminogenic needs management, ambiguous provisions on supervision.

“It can be concluded that the convicted person still has the opportunity to significantly reduce the risk of his repeated criminal conduct if he continues to serve a custodial sentence” – only if there is reason to believe that the convicted person will comply with the law and will not commit a crime.

According to the judge, L. Lapinskas still does not meet the conditions for parole from correctional institutions established by law; Your progress in reducing the risk of your criminal behavior does not create reason to believe that you will comply with the law and will not commit a crime.

“It should also be noted that the application of probation with intensive supervision is a right of the court, but not an obligation: the court may release the conditionally sentenced person after evaluating all the circumstances and conclude that the probation of the person in probation will achieve the goal, “said the judge. Lapinskas’ behavior can be evaluated as positive, but it is still not enough to free the convict from parole.

The defense lawyer for L. Lapinskas appealed against the judgment of the district court to the Vilnius Regional Court, but the judge who examined the appeal, Rasa Paužaitė, agreed with the position of the court of first instance and did not change the decision.

Delphi Remember that Lapinskas, who led the gang, who was convicted of two murders, injuries, drug trafficking, illegal possession of weapons and explosives and extortion, was sentenced to 20 years in prison. L. Lapinskas was ordered to serve half of this sentence in Lukiškės prison; the court did not impose the most severe punishment on the perpetrator who introduced strict procedures on the gang, as the group “did not act for a long time and did not commit crimes of this type that would result in life imprisonment.”

The Vilnius Regional Court imposed even lighter punishments on other members of the gang led by L. Lapinskas. Up to seven members of the gang received judicial clemency because at the beginning of the investigation they agreed to cooperate with officials and help them uncover the crimes of the gang led by L. Lapinskas.

L. Lapinskas agreed to be extradited and Mantas Karalius and Paulius Miškinis considered their favorites to be the main contributors to the success of the investigation and sentenced him to four years in prison for serious crimes. The prosecutor of the Vilnius Regional Prosecutor’s Office, who supported the state prosecutor’s office, also offered to sentence them with severe penalties.

Up to thirteen members of the gang, aged between 17 and 24, had been tried before the trial, several of whom were awaiting trial. Others were arrested in January and February 2005.

It was established that on January 20, 2003, gang members killed Vilius Bogachenko in the forest, near the Vilnius-Ukmergė highway, and on June 26, 2004, in a forest near the Dūkštas-Kernavė highway in the district of Širvintos, faced Aleksejs. Naruševičius. The murdered were buried.

L. Lapinskas’ group was not only engaged in extortion and self-control, but also stored and distributed large quantities of narcotics in rented apartments and garages: heroin, cannabis resin and the psychotropic substance methamphetamine.

The group illegally acquired and possessed rifles, pistols and explosives of various calibers.

Attempts were made to deal with various gangs. L. Lapinskas had introduced a strict order and punished his disobedient, indebted and disrespectful communicators with fists and knives. It was announced that a man was mocked when told to dance a striptease and filmed it.

L. Lapinskas also felt uncomfortable while incarcerated in the then Lukiškės prison, when he was assisted by officials who worked here: they provided the convict with prohibited items.