Russia sees record number of military criminal convictions in years
Russia's garrison military courts issued 13,699 criminal convictions against service members in 2024, the highest figure since at least 2010, independent media outlet Verstka reported on April 15, citing official data from the Supreme Court's judicial department.
The surge in convictions in 2024 marks a 76% year-over-year increase, reflecting growing internal discipline issues within Russia's Armed Forces during the country's ongoing full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
In 2023, military courts issued 7,779 verdicts, while 2022 saw 4,191 convictions. Data provided by Verstka dated back to 2010, when the record stood at 8,632.
Among those convicted in 2024, 6,838 service members received custodial sentences — more than double the number imprisoned a year earlier.
The data also revealed a sharp rise in drug-related convictions, with 774 service members sentenced for drug trafficking, surpassing the previous high of 560 in 2015. Russian soldiers have previously told Verstka that 10-15% of personnel in many units regularly use drugs.
Desertion remains one of the most common offenses. Independent media outlet Mediazona calculated that in 2024, Russian courts issued an average of 34 verdicts daily in cases involving troops abandoning their units without permission.
In a landmark case, a Russian court sentenced Roman Ivanishin, a soldier from Sakhalin, to 15 years in a maximum-security prison for voluntarily surrendering to Ukrainian forces — the first known conviction for surrender during the war.
The growing number of convictions highlights the mounting strain on Russia's military ranks more than three years into the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Read also: Russia jails 4 journalists over alleged work with Navalny's foundation
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
5 hours ago
- Washington Post
Supreme Court to hear case on IQ tests and death penalty next term
The Supreme Court will hear a case next term centered on the role of multiple IQ scores in determining an Alabama murderer's eligibility for the death penalty, according to a list issued by the court late Friday. In Hamm v. Smith, the state of Alabama is arguing that Joseph Smith — who was sentenced to death for a murder in 1997 — should be executed because he has not proved that his IQ is 70 or below, as required by state law. However, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama vacated Smith's death sentence after ruling he is intellectually disabled because the score on one of his IQ tests could fall below 70 when accounting for margin of error. Smith had obtained five IQ scores that ranged from 72 to 78. The Supreme Court justices agreed to hear Hamm v. Smith to determine a limited question: 'Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim,' referring to the 2002 landmark decision Atkins v. Virginia, which ruled that executing those with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. In November, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision to remand the case for further consideration. In it, the justices said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit — which had affirmed the lower court's decision to vacate Smith's death sentence — had been unclear in why it had issued that decision. In February, the state of Alabama again asked the Supreme Court to intervene, saying the Eleventh Circuit 'watered down the most objective prong of the test, overrode Alabama's definition of intellectual disability, and shattered Atkins's promise to leave meaningful discretion to the States.' 'This case was not close: Smith scored 75, 74, 72, 78, and 74 on five full-scale IQ tests. There is no way to conclude from these five numbers that Smith's true IQ is likely to be 70 or below,' the state of Alabama argued, also adding that evaluating multiple IQ scores is 'complicated' and that the Supreme Court has not specified how to do it. 'Smith could take hundreds of IQ tests, score 75 on all of them, yet his IQ still 'could be' 70, according to the panel [the Eleventh Circuit], because every test could have erred by 5 points. The panel failed to appreciate that multiple tests together can provide a more accurate estimate than each test alone,' the state argued. The Supreme Court's next term is scheduled to begin in October. The list of new cases was not expected until Monday morning, but email notifications about the list were inadvertently sent Friday evening because of a technical glitch, so the court chose to release the list of cases earlier than scheduled. In a statement that accompanied the early release, court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe said the notifications were sent prematurely because of an 'apparent software malfunction.' Justin Jouvenal contributed to this report.
Fox News
5 hours ago
- Fox News
How Justice Clarence Thomas led SCOTUS to kill DEI
Clarence Thomas has spent his professional life trying to return American law to the Declaration of Independence's founding promise that individuals should be judged as individuals rather than as members of racial, gender, or ethnic groups. It seems that his peers on the high court have been listening. Thomas' belief in individual rights precedes his time on the court. For example, in a 1985 law review article, Thomas discussed his daily responsibilities of enforcing the nation's civil rights laws as chairman of the EEOC. He wrote: "I intend to take EEO enforcement back to where it started by defending the rights of individuals who are hurt by discriminatory practices. … Those who insist on arguing that the principle of equal opportunity, the cornerstone of civil rights, means preferences for certain groups have relinquished their roles as moral and ethical leaders in this area." SUPREME COURT RULES UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR OF STRAIGHT OHIO WOMAN WHO CLAIMED DISCRIMINATIONJustice Thomas has reiterated that American law protects individual rather than groups rights throughout his three-and-a-half decades on the nation's highest court. In 1995's Missouri v. Jenkins, for instance, Thomas became the first Supreme Court justice to directly criticize Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Although he called state-mandated segregation "despicable," he said that the Court was wrong in 1954 to rely on disputable social science evidence to declare segregation unconstitutional rather than invoking the "constitutional principle" that "the government must treat citizens as individuals, and not as members of racial, ethnic or religious groups." Justice Thomas has made similar pronouncements in many other judicial opinions. His concurring opinion in 2007's Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 is perhaps the strongest articulation of his conception of equality: "The dissent attempts to marginalize the notion of a colorblind Constitution by consigning it to me and Members of today's plurality. … But I am quite comfortable in the company I keep. My view of the Constitution is Justice Harlan's view in Plessy: 'Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.'" More recently, Justice Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion in the Supreme Court's 2023 decisions holding that colleges and universities cannot consider race in admissions decisions that "While I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination, I hold out enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles so clearly enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States: that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law." Last week's Supreme Court decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services signals that proponents of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs should stop pretending that they are complying with the law. After all, one of the most liberal members of the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote in an opinion for a unanimous Court that the "background circumstances" rule imposed by several lower courts of appeal requiring members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII discrimination claim is inconsistent with the text of Title VII and the Supreme Court's anti-discrimination precedents. CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINIONJustice Jackson's opinion for the Court reversing the lower courts might as well have been penned by Justice Thomas himself. Justice Jackson quoted the text of Title VII that makes it illegal to take an adverse employment action against "any individual." She further quoted a 2020 Supreme Court decision, Bostock v. Clayton County, that held that the "law's focus on individuals rather than groups [is] anything but academic." She added: "By establishing the same protections for every 'individual'—without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone."Justice Thomas joined Justice Jackson's opinion for the Court "in full." But he also issued a concurring opinion in which he suggested that the "background circumstances" rule is not only inconsistent with the statutory text of Title VII but is "plainly at odds with the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection." Most important for present purposes, Thomas made clear that if proponents of DEI are hoping that the Ames decision has nothing to do with their DEI programs, they are sorely mistaken. "American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans," he wrote. "Initiatives of this kind have often led to overt discrimination against those perceived to be in the majority." CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPWhen Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016, Court watchers openly speculated about who would replace him as the intellectual leader of the conservative legal movement. Clarence Thomas has unquestionably filled that role. After all, in Ames even Justice Thomas's liberal colleagues on the nation's highest court conceded that American law protects individual rather than group rights.
New York Post
5 hours ago
- New York Post
Germany plans to revamp shelter system in case of Russian attack by 2029: ‘We are concerned about the risk of a major war'
Fearing Russia could attack another European country within the next four years, Germany is planning to expand its network of bomb-proof bunkers and shelters, according to reports. 'For a long time, there was a widespread belief in Germany that war was not a scenario for which we needed to prepare,' Ralph Tiesler, the head of the Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance, said in a recent interview as reported by The Guardian. 'That has changed,' Tiesler said. 'We are concerned about the risk of a major war of aggression in Europe.' Advertisement 4 Germany's civil protection agency chief is warning that the country is not prepared for a Russian attack. Fears are mounting that the Kremlin — following its three-year war in Ukraine — could be capable of attacking a NATO country by 2029, so Germany must 'muster a functioning, comprehensive defense system by then,' Tiesler said. And time is of the essence. Germany cannot rely on building new bunker facilities in time so Tiesler's agency is working on plans to transform tunnels, metro stations, underground garages, car parks and the basements of public buildings into shelters. Advertisement To be presented this summer, they would create shelter for 1 million people, he estimated. The country has about 2,000 bunkers left over from the Cold War but fewer than 600 are in working order and most will require pricey renovations, Tiesler explained. Plus, those would only shelter about 480,000, less than 1% of the German population. 4 Germany's Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance is working on plans to transform metro stations and tunnels into shelters. 4 Germany's existing bunkers are nearly 80 years old and in need of renovations. Advertisement Finland, on the other hand, has 50,000 bunkers that could hold 4.8 million people, or 85% of its population, according to Tiesler's office. The agency leader is urging German Chancellor Friedrich Merz to fund the plans, as well as efforts to revamp apps, road signs and siren systems that would be used if residents need to take shelter. 'We don't want to unnecessarily frighten anyone, but we must nevertheless clearly warn of the danger of a military attack,' Tiesler told news site Zeit Online. 4 Russia's brutal war in Ukraine has caused fears in other European countries. AP Advertisement Russia's invasion of Ukraine has sparked similar concerns across Europe, motivating some countries to begin defense preparations. Poland, which borders Russia and Ukraine, plans to spend almost 5% of GDP on defense this year, the more than any of its NATO partners, the BBC reported last month.
