SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Dmitry Lopatin, a 26-year-old scientist who invented a cheap new kind of solar battery, has come across an unexpected obstacle. He was slapped with a three-year suspended jail sentence, for using banned materials in his invention. The researcher was facing 11 years behind bars, but the prosecutor's office dealing with the case agreed that a suspended sentence would suffice, the TASS news agency reported.
From rt.com:
Lopatin got in trouble with the authorities for using a solvent called gamma-Butyrolactone in order to make his solar batteries. It turned out this was a banned substance in Russia. He had placed a mail order for the solvent from China, and he was arrested when he went to collect it from the post office in June.
The researcher had tried to use a different substance, but found that it was too toxic to work with.
"In my work I was using a solvent which is toxic and can cause cancer. That is why I tried to find a substitute. I found one via the Internet and ordered it," he told RT.
"A month and a half later the parcel reached customs and I was called in and detained. Police launched a criminal case against me and I was interrogated. There were several court hearings. I chose to order from China because of the strict laws there. I had no idea that in China I could order a solvent which is banned in Russia."
Given that he is a researcher, is the use of the banned substance reasonable?
Original Submission
(Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Monday July 20 2015, @07:42AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Monday July 20 2015, @09:41AM
Well, it is a suspended sentence - it could have been a lot worse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2015, @10:03PM
"It could have been worse." isn't a justification for anything.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday July 21 2015, @07:05AM
It doesn't require 'justification'. He committed a crime - and even in the US claiming ignorance of the law is no defence. As a researcher he should make sure that he is aware of the laws regarding his area of research and, in this case, regarding the chemicals he is handling. He is a 'garage' researcher - otherwise by now his employers would have also been involved. Therefore, it is his responsibility to make sure that he knows what he is doing. The fact that the chemicals he was seeking are not freely available in Russia should have been something of a hint.
The post I was replying to said the punishment should fit the crime, and I pointed out that the sentence was suspended. He doesn't have to go to prison unless he re-offends. He has been dealt with and shown a degree of leniency.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday July 21 2015, @08:12AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves