Presence of many aggravating factors and few mitigating ones. Aggravating factors include prior record, prior record of crimes against the same victim, absence of remorse, malicious underlying motive.
Mitigating factors include lack of prior criminal record, age of the accused, remorse, lack of damage, possibility of mistake, understandable underlying motive.
Journalists get killed in Russia under suspicious circumstances (i.e., everyone blames Putin) all the time. These women seem to be getting a rough deal, but if they weren’t young and attractive, with the P-word in their band’s name, I wonder if we would have even heard of them.
Perhaps the band should have gone through the proper channels to get the necessary permits to stage an anti-Putin protest. So long as they can file the appropriate forms, pay the fees, withstand police intimidation, have their apartments raided, personal property seized, risk the chance of beatings, and probably get arrested anyways, at least we know it was all done legally. God forbid the people in autocratic countries infringe on the rights of government-supported institutions!
But I’m puzzled why Snowboarder Bo thinks this is the straw that’s going to break the camel’s back. Putin has carried out aggressive wars, assassinated dissidents, stolen elections, instituted a kleptocracy of the highest order, had many tens of thousands of Russians turn out in protests… but a busting up an impromptu punk concert in a church is going to lead to Putin’s ouster? Yeah, right. This is me not holding my breath.
Don’t worry, Bricker; I know you well enough by now to know when you are only commenting on the legality of something, not offering your personal opinion.
I’m not sure that what they did would necessarily be a crime here, tho. In my experience, a church is open and available when not in service. I’ve walked around and all over churches, including the altar area, without being hassled or getting dirty looks or anything.
And these 3 women are, in fact, ready to go to jail if they have to. They see it as further confirmation of the righteousness of their cause.
Their lawyers are being threatened with criminal charges for defending them, or at least with being disbarred, tho; that’s not right in any sense of the word.
Sentencing is now set for 17 August. The maximum penalty is 7 years in a labor camp; prosecutors have asked for 3 years.
Compare that with what happened at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in NYC way back in 1989:
Thousands of people (7,000 or so, according to the article below) were outside the church protesting the Catholic church’s stance on AIDS and abortion rights. When service began, a couple dozen went inside and actually did disrupt the service. Police eventually arrested 111 people. And then they were sentenced to death for their actions! Ha ha; just kidding! 
[
](Decades Before Pussy Riot, U.S. Group Protested Catholic Church -- With Results)
None have any prior record, AFAIK. No damage to property was caused. And they did express remorse. From the AP article:
Various prosecution witnesses made claims to being distraught by the stunt, including my favorite (from the New Yorker article):
If Rosa Parks had been a 20 year old man, would we have heard of him?
I’m not sure how you get “the straw that’s going to break the camel’s back” from “the pebble that starts an avalanche”. Could you explain how the two are at all the same, in your view?
I mean, I see your metaphor as meaning “the final thing” and mine as meaning “the first thing”. Do you disagree?
Well, I’m sorry the metaphors got mixed. But calling a couple of girls singing a punk song the “first thing” that will result in Putin’s ouster is pretty goddamn insulting to thousands of Russians who have been on the streets over the past several years, enduring beatings and trumped-up charges for a hell of a longer time than a few cute girls who can play three-chord songs.
Tell the families of the many Russian journalists who somehow end up dead that their investigations of corruption and authoritarianism didn’t actually matter until a chick with a slogan written on her back took off her shirt in a church.
I made have made a very unwarranted assumption.
I assumed the accused admitted their acts – that is, they acknowledged they did the actions and were responsible for the filming thereof.
Was that a mistake?
And wouldn’t a better name for them, while retaining Riot Grrl cred, be Whore Riot?
Explanation: It is pronounced similar to Mr. [del]Prime Minister[/del] [del]President[/del] [del]Prime Minister[/del] President’s name.
Yeah, Putin’s regime was behind a colossal fuckup of a hostage raid that killed 170 civilians, and probably behind a series of false flag bombings that killed close to 300 more. Prominent critics have a tendency to end up dead in murky circumstances.
The Russian people put up with the Soviets for 70 years, and the Tsars for a thousand years before that. To me, that indicates a certain level of cultural comfort with the notion of living under autocracy.
Many churches are open to the public, in my state they would not have been commiting a chargable crime of criminal tresspass if it was open to the public and they did not have a standing prohabition from being in the building.
Without any known history and an offical no-tresspass order from the church on these individuals. I think it is a bit of a strech to say this would be a chargeable criminal offense here.
Usually I find your posts to be a valuable contribution to the discussion. Not always, apparently, but usually.
In part, yes.
All three of the women charged allegedly appear in the video as performers. This brings up the question of how they were identified by witnesses:
[
](The Absurd and Outrageous Trial of Pussy Riot | The New Yorker)
The other performer and the camera person have never, to my knowledge, been identified or charged.
However, all three women do admit to being one of the performers. The thing is, they say that what they did was a political protest, while, as noted in the OP:
Do you think they incited religious hatred with their actions, or intended to do so?
Well, you’ve taken a position that seems to be rooted in a sense that rock and roll is far more important than it actually is. This isn’t the first time I’ve heard that argument: there’s a book which talks about underground rock and roll radio stations in Belgrade and how they broadcasted anti-Milosevic messages before and during the NATO bombing over Kosovo. The book generally portrayed these rock and roll stations as a subversive influence that helped bring down an authoritarian, genocidal regime. Does that sound plausible to you?
I say get real. The Serbian government was brought down by the genocide it perpetrated and NATO dropping 20,000 tons of bombs on the Serbian military and government. It wasn’t because a guy in a zippered leather jacket was playing the Clash at 1am while hiding from the police.
If Putin goes down – which I highly doubt – it will be because millions of Russians are fed up with corruption, assassinations, organized crime, an authoritarianism. A punk band getting arrested in a church will be a forgotten within a year. (Unless by some fluke one of the girls ends up being elected to office in 20 years or something, at which point Time and People magazine will run a story about the “punker turned parliamentarian” and then the story will die again after a week or two.)
Sorry to burst your bubble. Putin ain’t going anywhere, and this episode pales in importance to the other protests that have occurred in Moscow.
Are churches in Virginia not accessible to the public or something?
It would depend on the church and the exact circumstances, I would think.
For a Catholic church (and I suspect for an Orthodox church as well) the area inside the altar rail and surrounding the tabernacle is not open to the public.
Just because a church (or any building) is open to the public doesn’t mean you have carte blanche to do whatever you want there, though. Generally speaking, the owner or a representative can ask you to leave; once you fail to do so, you’re trespassing.
I’m afraid I don’t see this leading to the end of Putin’s reign either. As I understand it, most Russians, even now, either actively approve of Putin or don’t care one way or another. So far as they’re concerned, he got the country into order after the 90s; absent a return to the crime of that era or an economic collapse, there’s little that will threaten his tenure.
Is it clearly marked as such? Would somebody passing beyond the altar rail be on notice that they were trespassing?