A little about the history of this topic. Someone Mokhov V.V. Born in 1950, from the city of Skopin, the Ryazan region of the Russian Federation took the path of evil, such a metaphor is completely appropriate for him. In 2000, he attacked two underage girls, who were then 14 and 17 years old, and kept them in the basement for almost 4 years. At the same time, he raped them for 4 years. On August 30, 2005, the Skopinsky City Court of the Ryazan Region was sentenced to 17 years in prison, and on March 3, 2021, Mokhov was released 2 months ahead of schedule. Ksenia Sobchak, who calls herself a “journalist” (she calls herself many people, apparently she can’t decide who she is) made a film about the Skopinsky maniac (as V. Mokhov is often called in the media). This film, which was recently published on her YouTube channel, was watched by over 1.2 million people in the first 24 hours. What is this criminal saying? In an interview, V. Mokhov admitted that he likes the special attention of journalists and society to his person. He also said that, in his opinion, further a direct quote, “...I atoned for my guilt, what now. Suffer all your life? The girls are doing well now, this makes me happy, everything is going well for them...” He also told Sobchak that he has no bad character traits, and he described the high-profile incident with the kidnapping and the bunker with the words “I stumbled a little.” About the girls he raped, he said that he decided that since they got into his car and agreed to drink wine, they were ready to have an intimate relationship. Here, it turns out, is a portrait of a person who, as if “in passing”, did something in such a way that he “stumbled a little”, and for 4 years he was raped, in principle, it turns out that “they are to blame.” You know, somehow it all comes out so easily for him. And now, after his “little mistakes”, he has also become “starred”, and most likely also received money for his interview. How do you like this?* I admit, I didn’t watch this “interview” in its entirety. Key quotes, read in the media and discussions on forums. Sobchak watched the meeting with the maniac only in the part in which he wanted to make sure that what was being written about this conversation was true. I’ll write a little about why I took up this topic; from my story it will be clear and it will be clear how much of an expert I am in the topic to talk about it. In my youth, I myself studied at a law school, and then worked as an investigator, senior investigator and more. Later he himself worked at the law school of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. I ended up at the University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs after practical work in law enforcement agencies due to the fact that I always studied science with pleasure and very successfully, so they invited me to work at my alma mater, the same University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs where I studied. The science that studies crime, the personality of the criminal, the causes and conditions of crime, ways and means of its prevention is called criminology. She was always the center of my attention. I still pay attention to criminology now that I have been working as a psychologist for a long time. So, does this interview popularize the maniac and his deeds? I think it popularizes, even glorifies. I believe that now there will be more such cases. There are many examples of this in history. Yes, a significant portion of people watched this interview for 5-10 minutes, or less, and then turned it off so as not to see this criminal. Yes, a significant part of people turned on this interview in general only for the reason that there was such a hype around it that it seemed that there was something worthwhile in it, and when they started watching they either finished watching it and spat, or didn’t bother watching it at all. But this was done by more or less healthy people. But sociopaths, psychopaths, mentally ill people, what did they understand from this interview and what conclusions did they draw? And what conclusions did teenagers and simply unsettled personalities end up with after watching this movie?** It has long been reliably established that demonstration to a person through the media, and now in the demonstration, individual citizens have become no less active in this.showing pictures and videos of violence, terrorism, and other crimes leads to the fact that this becomes an impetus, a hint for those who want to do something similar, but have not made a final decision within themselves about the plan, for example, or do not have a clear plan like this do. By the way, it is for this reason that terrorists are so diligently looking for opportunities to reach the media and demonstrate their actions to a wide range of citizens. We can also see that sometimes for criminals, especially those who are popularly called maniacs, attention in the media to their personality is often not just goal number 2, but sometimes even the most important goal. In many countries there are laws limiting, even prohibiting terrorists and criminals from accessing the media. It is not customary for them to imagine the possibility of voicing any statements in the media, even under the threat of the death of the hostages. It’s probably clear to you, my readers, that if you make one criminal famous, you’ll get a hundred of his imitators. Again, it was this interview with Sobchak that definitely drew attention to both the victims in this particular criminal case and their family members, about whom the monster is speaking out on air. In self-respecting media, it is customary to pay the main attention not to the criminal, but to his victims, to those who suffered from his actions, and to clearly show the unambiguous negative attitude towards the criminal.*** I myself do not think and do not say that you cannot talk with criminals. You can talk to them, but in the same way as I described above. To be more precise, the ideal conversation with a criminal should be after discussing and condemning his actions, when he is presented with a word for 1/10 or less of the duration of the program about these events, and during the interview he sits sad and humiliated in his cell, talking about how he regrets what happened and how much he would give to ensure that this crime that he committed did not happen. What to do if the criminal is not behind bars now? What if he doesn't repent? Then it is better not to show it, but to briefly retell in your own words his attitude to the event and express your negative attitude towards the criminal. But no, Sobchak did something completely wrong. Why? Maybe this is an indicator of her lack of professionalism as a journalist? I think this is possible too. But most likely we are talking about another attempt by this citizen to make a hype no matter what the cost and no matter from what. Well, without this interview, she doesn’t have many other shocking actions? Her reputation will not suffer much from this interview. For her, the promotion of a criminal in the media will be more likely as another reason to make herself known.**** In the case of this film, can we talk specifically about the promotion of a criminal in the media? I think yes. Judge for yourself, a person, having served time for a crime, talks about himself for a lot of money. It seems like we are talking about 3 million rubles, but I don’t know for sure. A “star” has been found who pays him! Can you imagine what this does to his self-esteem? Sobchak paid him and is showing it to millions! Now among antisocial people there are those who think that they can become famous and make money on what they themselves considered abomination and meanness just recently. Now in the coronavirus era in Kazan and other cities, medical workers, for example, sometimes live at work. They risk their lives receiving salaries of 30, sometimes 60 thousand rubles, or even less, without seeing their family and friends. The criminal received 3 million for telling about his vile deeds from the “Russian Presidential candidate” herself! If she had extra money, then she would not give it to the needy, to people in difficult situations, to doctors in the end. But no, her criminal was closer. I already wrote that I am now working as a psychologist. Teenagers come, or parents bring them. A recent example was when teenagers caught a dog and urinated on it in the school yard until the adults drove them away. Just like that, kids are coming home from school, and here are these teenagers... One is holding a dog, one is filming with a camera through which he broadcasts all this, and another is urinating on the dog. Parents of a teenager in - +79656054699.