Правосудие and Aarun: A Comparative Look at Russian and Alaskan Sentencing Guidelines and Structures

Running head: ПРАВОСУДИЕ AND AARUN

Правосудие and Aarun: A Comparative Look at Russian and Alaskan Sentencing Guidelines and Structures Kresenda L. Keith George Mason University

1

ПРАВОСУДИЕ AND AARUN

2 Правосудие1 and Aarun2:

A Comparative Look at Russian and Alaskan Sentencing Guidelines and Structures The severity and length of criminal punishments distinguishes the United States from the rest of the world—and not in a positive light. The mere number of prison admissions, however, is not what distinguishes U.S. sentencing from other countries; in fact, several European countries outpace the U.S. in admissions per year per capita (Liptak, 2008). American prison stays, more importantly, are on average much longer than in the rest of the world. New “tough on crime” laws increased the likelihood and length of prison sentences by establishing mandatory minimum sentences and three strikes laws, increasing the number of crimes punished with life without parole sentences, and stacking punishments through consecutive sentences. These practices of longer sentences, combined with the increased “tough on crime” laws, help to explain why, despite a declining crime rate, the U.S. prison population has grown six-fold since 1980 (Mauer, 2003). For example, though Alaska is not a death penalty state, the length of a life without the possibility of parole sentence of 99 years may as well be a death sentence. Though Alaska offers the possibility of parole for all life sentences, in six states—Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota—and in the federal system, all life sentences are imposed without the possibility of parole (Nellis, 2010). The remaining 43 states have laws that permit sentencing defendants to life with or without parole. These harsh sentencing practices are simply out of step with and often condemned by the rest of the world. According to Whitman, “Western Europeans regard 10 or 12 years as an extremely long term, even for offenders sentenced in theory to life” (2004). In contrast, in Russia, all life sentences can be paroled after 17 years of punishment and the sentence cannot be

1 Russian for “Justice” 2 Yup’ik for “Law”

ПРАВОСУДИЕ AND AARUN

3

imposed upon women, juveniles, or those above the age of 65 years (Article 58, RF Criminal Code). Recently, Russian Foreign Ministry’s special representative for human rights, Konstantin Dolgov made news by discussing the “harsh” sentence for U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning, stating it was apparently meant to scare away other whistleblowers, and was not in accordance with human rights standards (Dolgov, 2013). Dolgov referred to Manning’s case an example of U.S. “double standards in regard with the supremacy of law and human rights.” Though sentencing reform was popular in the 1980s and 1990s, this current commentary on the U.S. sentencing structure begs one to question how a country stereotyped as being strict on every aspect of life can be criticizing U.S. policies on crime. Could it be that the U.S. is the new Soviet Russia, soon to be stereotyped as overly controlling and heartless? Sentencing in Alaska and Russia Statutory and judicial sentencing guidelines inform and often limit the exercise of discretion. They aim to provide greater uniformity in sentencing matters and enhance the integrity of the process. Beginning in 1980 with Minnesota, the U.S. has started looking more carefully at its sentencing guidelines, looking to reform and modify the previous retributive structure of the correctional system (Frase, 2005). The Alaska Sentencing Commission was established by the Alaska State Legislature in 1990 for a three-year period to evaluate the effect of sentencing laws and practices on the Alaska criminal justice system (Frase, 2005; Rieger, 1990, 1992). The aims of the Commission were focused on prison overcrowding, intermediate sanctions, and sentencing disparities (Rieger, 1990). The Commission was to make recommendations for improving criminal sentencing practices through three reports, published in 1990, 1991, and 1992. Sentencing in Alaska, however, has not been looked at by a commission since 1992 (Frase, 2005; Rieger, 1990, 1992).

ПРАВОСУДИЕ AND AARUN

4

It does not appear that a specific sentencing commission existed in Russia; however, around the same time as U.S. sentencing commissions were taking off, Russia was looking to reform the Soviet Union, enter the Council of Europe, and sign the European Convention on Human Rights (Filippov, 2003). In order to accomplish this, Russia began to reform and restructure previous sources of law (i.e., the Russian constitution, federal constitutional law, federal laws) into The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The Russian Criminal Code imparts differing degrees of punishment for various crimes consisting of fines and restraint of liberty (similar to house arrest or parole) or deprivation of liberty (prison sentences). Though capital punishment still exists on Russian law books, Russia “indefinitely suspended” capital punishment in 1999 and recently President Vladimir Putin said that “lifting the moratorium” was “inadvisable” (unknown, 2013). Overall, the Criminal Code appears to utilize fines and restraint of liberty more often than deprivation of liberty. Figure 1 displays a comparison table of Alaskan and Russian sentencing guidelines for felonies and DUIs.

ПРАВОСУДИЕ AND AARUN

5 Punishment

Crime3

The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

Alaskan Statutes

Murder 1st

Min 20 years, Max 99 years Fine up to $500,000

Deprivation of liberty for a term of 8 to 20 years, or by death penalty, or deprivation of liberty for life

Murder 2nd

Min 10 years; Max 99 years Fine up to $250,000

Deprivation of liberty for a term of 6 to 15 years

Assault 1st

Min 5 years; Max 20 years Fine up to $250,000

Deprivation of liberty for a term of 2 to 8 years

Rape

Min 5 years; Max 20 years Fine up to $250,000

Deprivation of liberty for a term of 3 to 6 years

Kidnapping

Min 5 years; Max 20 years Fine up to $250,000

Deprivation of liberty for a term of 4 to 8 years

DUI

72 hours jail Fine up to $1,500

Punishable by a fine of between 5 and 10 times the daily minimum wage

Figure 2. Comparison of sentences and punishments for major crimes in Alaska and Russia In Alaska, as in many states, sentencing is the responsibility of the judge. In Russia, according to the Criminal Procedure Code, the judge decides a case where the person is accused of minor crime(s) and cases where the punishment does not to exceed 5 years of deprivation of liberty, as long as the accused agrees (Nikiforov, 1995). Other cases are decided by a judge and two peoples' assessors, who act as regular judges and have the same rights to participate in the determination of the sentence, or three professional judges and decisions are made by a majority vote in these cases (Nikiforov, 1995). Both systems give the judge(s) considerable discretion in determining the type of penalty to imposed (e.g., imprisonment, fine, or probation) and severity. Russia has attempted to implement juries to the justice system; however, the procedure has fallen in and out of favor multiple times (Tokmakov, 2010). Finally, in determining sentences, many states utilize grids or guidelines. Based on the structure of the Criminal Code and the lack of finding any reference to a grid, one is to assume

3 Note: Crimes were chosen because they are crimes in which Alaska has minimum sentences.

ПРАВОСУДИЕ AND AARUN

6

that the Russian system utilizes a narrative guideline for sentence determination, instead of grids, increasing discretion. Despite major push-back from judges (see Forgey, 2012), Alaska has been utilizing a grid system since 1978. Alaska's grid system contains 20 ranges for felonies and is considered limiting (by comparison, there are 60 grids for felonies in Minnesota and 135 grids in Washington state). Appendix A outlines a deeper comparison of the sentencing structures of both Alaska and Russia. Crime-specific Sentencing Comparison: Online Enticement of a Minor/Child Enticement The sentencing disparities between Alaska and Russia are clearer when looking at a specific crime. The online enticement of a minor or “child enticement” is a relatively new and rising crime, emerging after the implementation and expansion of the Internet. The term “child enticement” usually refers to the luring of children/minors, via the Internet, to engage in sexual activities or be part of child pornography. It is important to note that the term “child enticement” can also be an umbrella term that encompasses several crimes, including production, distribution, or participation in child pornography, child prostitution, and/or kidnapping (The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children [NCMEC], 2012). The enticement of minors and these behaviors are illegal in all states (and some countries); however, each state has its own definitions and penalties for the underlying crimes (see the Department of Justice [DoJ], Citizen's Guide to U.S. Federal Law on Child Pornography, [n.d.], for more information). Federal law criminalizes online enticement as a felony [Title 18, Section 2422(b) of the United States Code]. It prohibits the enticement (or attempted enticement) of a person under the age of 18 to engage in criminal sexual activity while either on federal property or while using the Internet. Whether a person is charged under state or federal law depends on the facts of the case

ПРАВОСУДИЕ AND AARUN

7

and decisions of the law enforcement and prosecutors involved (DoJ, n.d.). For this reason, most states have laws that specifically make online enticement of a child for sexual activity a crime by using the Internet or electronic communication, allowing for prosecution to remain at the state level. While this crime is a felony in all states, some states reduce the penalty to a misdemeanor when the victim is 14, 15, 16, or 17-years-old, according to NCMEC (2012). Until 2006, Alaska prosecuted Online Child Enticement federally, as there was not a statute specifically applicable to this crime; however, Alaska recently implemented statutes to address this crime (Ak. Stat. Ann. § 11.41.452) via SB 140. Under this statute, it is illegal for an adult to knowingly use a computer to entice a child younger than 16 (or someone the adult thinks is younger than 16) to engage in a sexual act with said adult. It is important to note that, according to the Alaska statute, it is not an acceptable defense that the person the adult enticed was actually older than 16. Online enticement of a minor is a Class C felony, and becomes a Class B felony if the defendant was a convicted sex offender or a child kidnapper at the time of the offense. Based on Alaska’s sentencing guidelines, punishment for the online enticement of a child can incur harsh fines (up to $100,000 if a class B felony) and long prison sentences (up to 10 years imprisonment if a class B felony). Russian law-enforcement agencies have discovered a growing number of instances of organized child prostitution and operations by groups engaged in the sexual exploitation of children, including the production and distribution of pornography. According to the Council of Europe, “The commercial sexual exploitation of children, including their enticement into prostitution and the use of children in the production of pornographic material, is a fairly recent phenomenon in Russia. Up until the mid-1990s, there were only a few, isolated instances of such offences. Since then, however, Russia, too, has been affected by the spread of this worldwide

ПРАВОСУДИЕ AND AARUN

8

social scourge” (n.d.). In Russia, there is not a specific Russian Federation Criminal Code pertaining specifically to the online enticement of a child; however, two specific criminal codes may apply to the enticement portion of online child enticement: Article 133 of the RF Criminal Code, the compulsion to perform sexual acts (“compulsion of a person to enter into illicit relations, pederasty […] by means of blackmail, threat of destruction, damage, or taking of property, or with the advantage of material or any other dependence of the victim…”) and/or Article 134 of the RF Criminal Code, illicit sexual intercourse and other acts of a sexual nature with persons under the age of 14 (“illicit sexual relations, pederasty, or lesbianism, committed by a person who has attained 18 years of age with a person who obviously has not attained 14 years of age…”). Based on Russia’s sentencing guidelines, punishment for the compulsion to perform sexual acts can incur smaller fines (“the amount of 200 to 300 minimum wages, or in the amount of the wage or salary, or any other income of the convicted person for a period of two to three months”), or corrective labor for up to two years, or incarceration for up to a year. Illicit sexual intercourse and other acts of a sexual nature with persons under the age of 14 can incur restraint of liberty for up to three years or incarceration for up to four years. The laws of Alaska display the countrywide fear of these offenders that lurk within the sea of juveniles on the internet. The media has been quick to characterize such men as Internet or online “predators” and pedophiles. Offenders are viewed as predators that prey on naïve children, stalking their profiles and utilizing social media to lure them into a trap with deceit, manipulations, and even violence. According to Wolak, Finkelhor, Mitchell, and Ybarra (2008), however, this image is largely inaccurate. Most Internet-initiated sex crimes involve adult men who use the Internet to meet and seduce underage adolescents into sexual encounters. According to the authors, these offenders tend to covet, nurture, and develop relationships with, and openly

ПРАВОСУДИЕ AND AARUN

9

seduce underage teenagers. This would make the offender fit a statutory rape model, not a model of forcible sexual assault or pedophilic child molesting; however, the sentencing guidelines for Alaskan statute shows that it is considered closer to forcible rape or sexual assault of a minor despite this act acting virtually—involving no penetration or physical involvement. Figure 2 compares the four statutes further.

Penetration

Sexual Contact

Victim Age

Prison sentence (up to)

Fines additional (not “or”)

Fines (up to)

N

N

Under 16

10 years

X

$100,000

1st degree

Y

Y

< 12

99 years

X

$500,000

2nd degree

N

Y

13-15

10 years

X

$100,000

3rd degree

N

Y

13-15

5 years

X

$50,000

4th degree

Y

Y

13-15

1 year

X

$10,000

Y

Y

Any

20 years*

X

$500,000

Maybe

Y

13-15

10 years

X

$100,000

Online Enticement of a Minor (Ak. Stat. Ann. § 11.41.452) Statuatory Rape (Ak. Stat. Ann. § 11.41.434-440)

Forcible Rape (Ak. Stat. Ann. § 11.41.410) Sexual assault on a minor (Ak. Stat. Ann. § 11.41.434-450)

*5-8 years without any aggravating factors

Figure 2. Comparison of sentences and punishments for Alaskan Sex Crimes

Though Russia may not have designed the laws to show the delineation of relationship proposed by Wolak, et al., “rape of a victim who obviously has not attained 14 years of age, shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of eight to 15 years” (Article 131 of the RF Criminal Code). Based on this sentence, in comparison to the sentence of Article 133 or 134, it is clear that the intention or enticement is held separate from the actual act. This not only reflects thought being put into the sentence structure based on severity of crime, but also reflects an

ПРАВОСУДИЕ AND AARUN

10

overall thought pattern regarding severity of offenses. Within the Russian sentencing structure, those enticing a minor online would be treated as a sexual offender, but not a violent predator. As with all sex offenders, a key challenge is to recognize their diversity and make assessments that allow for treatment and social control options corresponding to the needs and problems of the offenders while protecting potential victims. Efficacy in general sex offender populations has been demonstrated for a variety of child sexual offender treatment programs based on cognitive–behavioral and relapse prevention approaches (see Alexander, 1999; Hall, 1995; Hanson & Bussière, 1998); however, again, we are punishing an offender for almost committing a crime. Although there is little research about online child molesters, they appear to occupy a restricted range on the spectrum of the sex offender population and include few true pedophiles or violent or sadistic offenders (Wolak, et al., 2008). The question here lies in discerning if these offenders are truly sexual offenders or sexual opportunists. In order to utilize the criminal justice system to prevent these crimes, a less punitive and more treatment-focus approach for these offenders may be more efficacious. As shown by the disparity between crime severity and punishment severity, sentence severity in the U.S. has reached an extreme. Though the example utilized in this paper was not a life without parole sentence or capital punishment worthy crime, the clear disparities within sentencing between Russia and Alaska highlight the problems with sentencing in general. These sentences display a marked attempt at harsher punishment, despite an inconsistent level of severity of crime. Even more concerning is that this disparity between crime and sentence severity contradicts its stated human rights obligation to direct its prisons system towards the primary goals of reformation and social rehabilitation, as set forth in the International Covenant on Civil

ПРАВОСУДИЕ AND AARUN

11

and Political Rights (the U.S. ratified in 1992, Russia ratified in 1973). For example, when it comes to life without parole sentences, by their very definition, disregard the prospect of even likelihood of rehabilitation. In fact, there are reports of inmates serving life without parole sentences are often denied access to rehabilitative services in prison (Human Rights Watch, 2012). It appears that in the U.S., individuals sentenced to life without parole are viewed as irredeemable or incapable of rehabilitation and therefore undeserving of review by experts to determine whether they should be released prior to the end of their lives. In this instance, life without parole may not be capital punishment, but it is a death sentence in many states. In all, a fair-minded, progressive society should not sentence anyone to life without parole (except as an alternative to the death penalty for extreme cases), yet it can also be used in extreme cases of first degree statutory rape and other crimes in which the offender has committed multiple previous crimes. More importantly, these findings, comparing Russia and Alaskan sentencing should remind citizens that this society needs to revisit sentences and decide whether these sentencing guidelines are truly what we want reflecting our societal morals. The U.S. needs to move away from being a society of punishment or look again, internally, to instill a superior treatment of its citizens, even the ones in jail and prison, through sentencing reform.

ПРАВОСУДИЕ AND AARUN

12 References

Alaska State Statutes Alexander, M. A. (1999). Sexual offender treatment efficacy revisited. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 11(2), 101-116. doi: 10.1007/BF02658841. Council of Europe. (n.d.). National Report Russia: Measures to Prevent Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in the Russian Federation. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/children/Russia%20report%20E.pdf. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Retrieved from http://www.russian-criminalcode.com/. Department of Justice. Citizen's Guide to U.S. Federal Law on Child Pornography. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/citizensguide/citizensguide_porn.html. Dolgov, K. (2013). Statement of Konstantin Dolgov, Russian Foreign Ministry's Commissioner for Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law, at the 6th Beijing Forum on Human Rights under the sub-theme "The Rule of Law and Human Rights", Beijing, September 11-13, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/0/A97B52DCAE1FF01344257BE500248752. Coercion and enticement, 18 U.S.C. § 2422 Filippov, V. V. (2003). The new Russian Code of Criminal Procedure: The next step on the path of Russia’s democratization. Demokratizatsiya, 11(3), 397-401. Forgey, P. (2012, March 01). Chief Justice rips state's sentencing guidelines: Juneau-based justice tell Legislature new 'smart justice' strategies are needed. Juneau Empire. Retrieved from http://juneauempire.com/state/2012-03-01/chief-justice-rips-statessentencing-guidelines#.Uk7Eiz-wV34.

ПРАВОСУДИЕ AND AARUN

13

Frase, R. S. (2005). State sentencing guidelines: Diversity, consensus, and unresolved policy issues. Columbia Law Review, 105, 1190-1232. Hall, G. C. N. (1995). Sexual offender recidivism revisited: A meta-analysis of recent treatment studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63(5), 802-809. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.63.5.802 Hanson, R. K., & Bussière, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(2), 348-362. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.66.2.348. Human Rights Watch. (2012). Against All Odds: Prison Conditions for Youth Offenders Serving Life Without Parole Sentences in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0112ForUpload_1.pdf. Liptak, A. (2008, April 23). Inmate count in U.S. dwarfs other nations’. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/us/23prison.html? pagewanted=all&_r=0. Mauer, M. (2003). Comparative international rates of incarceration: An examination of causes and trends. The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_comparative_intl.pdf. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). (2012). 2012 Annual Report. Alexandria, VA: NCMEC. Nellis, A. (2010). Throwing away the key: The expansion of life without parole sentences in the United States. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 23(1), p. 27-32. doi: 10.1525/fsr.2010.23.1.27.

ПРАВОСУДИЕ AND AARUN

14

Nikiforov, I. V. (1995) Russia: World Factbook of Criminal Justice Systems. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/irp/world/russia/docs/wfbcjrus.htm. Rieger, L. (1990). Sentencing commission begins work. Alaska Justice Forum, 7(3), 5. Rieger, L. (1992). Sentencing commission releases second annual report. Alaska Justice Forum, 8(4), 8-9. Tokmakov, S. (2010). Jury Trials in Modern Russia. Retrieved from http://www.bu.edu/phpbin/news-cms/news/?dept=732&id=55374. Unknown. (2013). Конституционный суд запретил применять в России смертную казнь. Retrieved from http://lenta.ru/news/2009/11/19/death/. Translated by Google Translate. Whitman, J. Q. Harsh Justice: Criminal Punishment and the Widening Divide between America and Europe. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K., & Ybarra, M. (2008). Online “predators’ and their victims: Myths, realities and implications for prevention and treatment. American Psychologist, 63, 111-128.

Appendix A. Comparative Table of Alaskan and Russian Sentencing Alaska

Russia The Newest Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was:  Adopted by the State Duma on May 24, 1996  Adopted by the Federation Council on June 5, 1996  Federal Law No. 64-FZ of June 13, 1996 on the Enforcement of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

Initial Date

01/1980

Sentencing Commission

Temporary (1990-1993)

None found

Resource Impact Statements

N/A

None found

Sentence Appeal Available

Defendants convicted at trial have the right to request an appeal. defendant may also appeal the length of a misdemeanor sentence longer than 120 days or a felony sentence longer than two years (Vandercook, 1998)

Defendants do have a right to appeal, however specific guidelines within the Criminal Code were not found.

Parole Release

Discretionary Parole - About one-third of imprisoned felony offenders are eligible to apply for discretionary parole. Some offenders become eligible to apply after serving one-fourth or onethird of their sentences; presumptively sentenced offenders become eligible only after they serve the full presumptive term. Offenders apply for parole based upon a good institutional record and plans for work and housing after release. (Vandercook, 1998) Mandatory Parole/Mandatory Release - Offenders earn early release from prison or jail by accumulating good time, days credited for good behavior while in prison. (Vandercook, 1998)

Alaska (cont.)

Conditional Early Release from Punishment - A person who has served correction works, restriction in military service, restricted liberty, service in a disciplinary military unit, or deprivation of liberty may be released conditionally and ahead of time if the court finds out that for his rehabilitation he does not need to serve the full punishment imposed by the court. In this case the person may be fully or partially released from the remaining term of punishment. (Article 79) The Replacement of the Unserved Term of Punishment with a Milder Penalty - With due account for the behavior of a person who serves deprivation of liberty, the court of law may replace the remaining term of punishment with a milder penalty. In this case, the person may be fully or partially released from serving the additional penalty. (Article 80)

Russia (cont.) A15

Punishment for Cumulative Crimes – deprivation of liberty may not exceed the maximum term of scope of punishment for the gravest crime committed. If crimes are only average in gravity, may not exceed more than 25 years. (Article 69) Cumulative Sentences

Yes, as defined via the grid. No maximum cap on cumulative sentences was found. Punishment by Cumulative Sentences – court may add in part or in full the previous unserved part of penalties, not to exceed the maximum term for the code. The final punishment by cumulative sentences may not exceed 30 years. (Article 70)

Intermediate Sanctions

Monetary options, such as fines, forfeiture and restitution; offender monitoring and restrictions on liberty, such as electronic monitoring, intensive supervision, and halfway houses; and shock value options, such as short periods of incarceration designed to dissuade the new offender from committing future offenses (Rieger, 1992)

Compulsory work, corrective labor, confiscation of property, restricted liberty (See Articles 47-55)

Revocation of Probation

If the offender does not follow the conditions of probation, the probation officer can file a petition to revoke probation, to bring the offender back to court (Vandercook, 1998)

The court may reverse previous release and return convicted to previous punishment, add additional punishments, or utilize guidance from Article 70 if the offense has an increased gravity (Article 74)

See Parole Release

See Intermediate Sanctions/Articles 47-55 and Parole Release/Articles 79-80

Grid - Contains 20 ranges for felonies only

Assumed to be Narrative-based

Supervised Release/Parole Use of Grid, Narrative, or Point System

Alaska (cont.)

Russia (cont.) A16

Goal of Guideline

According to Rieger (1990, 1992), the goals of the guidelines were to increase uniformity, promote rehabilitation as a sentencing goal, increase the use of intermediate sanctions and program options/the use of alternatives to incarceration for minor offenders and property offenders, and increase punishment for violent offenders.

Basis for Guideline

According to Rieger (1990), the Alaskan legislature had passed several amendments to the original Criminal Code Revision of 1980, the Court of Appeals had developed a body of case law providing supplementary guidelines, and Alaska's prison population had tripled, presenting a combined legislative, administrative, and judicial problem. The state legislature saw a need to review the success of presumptive sentences in achieving certainty and consistency of punishment among convicted offenders the purpose of the original legislation.

The reformed guidelines were implemented with the goals of: (1) creating an independent judiciary by reducing its dependence on local officials and making it self-governing; (2) introducing adversary procedure and trial by jury; (3) stripping the office of the public prosecutor or procuracy (prokuratura) of its oversight over the courts and its quasi-judicial powers to order invasions of constitutionally protected rights of the citizens; and (4) strengthening the right to counsel and the rights of defendants to protect against abusive practices by law enforcement organs” (Filippov, 2003) According to the Criminal Code, the tasks of the present Code are as follows: the protection of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, property, public order and public security, the environment, and the constitutional system of the Russian Federation against criminal encroachment, the maintenance of peace and security of mankind, and also the prevention of crimes. To accomplish these tasks, the present Code establishes the ground and principles of criminal responsibility, defines which deeds are recognized as offences dangerous to persons, society, or the State, and establishes the types of punishment and other penal measures for the commission of offences. (Article 2)

The modern reform movement commenced during perestroika, the attempt to transform the Soviet Union under the leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev (1985–1991). These reforms subsequent mirrored reforms in other post-socialist countries and preceded admission into, the Council of Europe, a condition of which was the signing of the European Convention on Human Rights, which took place in February 1996 (Filippov, 2003)

Note: For definitions of guideline varities, see Frase, 2005, Section A, p. 1196 – 1190.

A17