Criminology // Russia’s Criminal Justice System vs the United States’
Russia’s Criminal Justice System vs the United States’
I. Government
Russia, or the Russian Federation, was previously known as the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic or simply the Soviet Union (Liebbe, 2011). When the fall of the Soviet Union in 1911, the execution of its 1993 Constitution founded and created the Russian Federation of today (Liebbe, 2011). It transitioned from a socialist republic to a federation. It has hence morphed into a federative state (Nikiforov, 1994). Its law emanates mainly from the Russian constitution, federal constitutional law, federal laws, and laws of subjects of the Federation. Its Constitution is the preeminent source of law and federal laws cannot override or contradict it. The acts issued by administrative bodies must be consistent with the law (Nikiforov 1994).
The United States of America, on the other hand, was founded by the original European colonists who declared their independence from England in 1776 upon arrival in the new land (Liebbe, 2011). They formed themselves into a union, executed a Constitution in 1789, which, in turn, established a federal democratic republic. The union then created the first States. This form of government or political system has endured today (Liebbe, 2011). The union was later renamed into the United States of America or USA (Liebbe, 2011).
The US federal or central government consists of three branches, namely the executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches (USA.gov, 2017). These branches are co-equal so as to insure a balance of power whereby no branch can exercise an excess of power over the other two for the good of the people. The legislative branch or Congress makes the laws. The executive branch implements these laws. And the judicial branch interprets or evaluates these laws in court. These branches operate under the democratic system of checks and balances (USA.gov, 2017).
The two governments share common factors (Liebb, 2017). Both are staunchly founded on federalism, possess written constitutions and function through well-defined divisions between a central government and regional governments. These regional governments in the USA are the States and oblasts in the Russian Federation. And their respective justice criminal systems both evolved from the concepts of the codified laws of the Roman Empire (Liebb, 2017).
2. Police
In Russia, the militia is charged with the protection of life, health, rights, property, freedom, and the overall welfare and interests of the State and society itself from all law violators (Nikiforov, 1994). It is the law enforcement arm of the executive branch of government The law allows them to apply force when necessary to fulfill their duty. It is under the Ministry of Internal Affairs and subdivided into the Criminal Militia and the Public Security Militia. The Criminal Militia also comes under the ministries of internal affairs of the republics that make up the Russian federation. It prevents, suppresses and exposes crimes for investigation and locates escapees and missing persons. he Public Security Militia is under the local authorities. It safeguards citizens, promotes public order, prevents crimes and minor offenses, and extends help to citizens and groups. The Department of Taxation Police is an independent entity that prevents, suppresses and exposes crimes and violations of taxation laws (Nikiforov, 1994).
Meanwhile, law enforcement is the first of the three components of the US criminal justice system (Dunning, 2018). It consists of patrol officers, sheriffs and their deputies, federal agents, games and park rangers, detectives and others who initiate the pursuit and arrest of lawbreakers. These law enforcers are tasked to implement the law, conduct investigations into crimes, and arrest suspects. They are trained to recognize suspects’ rights, such as Miranda, search and seizure, and reasonable traffic stops. Law enforcers must be thoroughly knowledgeable of these individual rights in order to avoid violations or prejudice the investigation of a potential crime committed (Dunning, 2018).
Law enforcement differs widely between the two governments (Liebbe, 2011). While that of the US replaced the old patronage and spoils system of the Political Period and the crime control systems of the Reform Period with the modern-day Community Era, law enforcement in Russia implements many of the aspects of these old systems abandoned by the US. This has led Russian citizens to resent and accuse their law enforcers, especially the Federal Security Service, of corruption, incompetence and brutality. American law enforcers can arrest a citizen or enter private property only with probable cause. But Russian law enforcers can arrest and detain a person on mere suspicion. Experts say that this condition in Russia is attributed to inadequate funding, low-quality training, low wages, lack of accountability among the enforcers, and lack of educational preparation for police officials. In contrast, American law enforcers receive much higher funding, wages, and accountability. In response to popular outcry, changes were undertaken in Russia. Among these were increased funding, removal of police powers from the militia and the creation of a centralized police force on March 1, 2001. While remaining under the Ministry of the Interior, a new model of preventable law enforcement has been implemented through a partnership for combating crime (Liebbe, 2011).
A 2003 study examined and compared the patterns of police and court actions and tendencies towards homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault from 1990 to 1998 (Williams et al, 2003). Highlights from violent crime data and judicial processing reports of the two governments were a more substantial increase in homicide and arrests for homicide in Russia than in the USA; a small decrease in conviction rates in Russia as against a significant increase in the USA; and about 80% of those convicted in both countries receiving prison sentences (Williams et al, 2003).
3. Judiciary
The Supreme or Higher Court of Russia is the highest judicial body, followed by the supreme courts of the republics (Nikiforov, 1994). These supreme courts of the republics are the Russian Federation courts of the territories and regions, and the Moscow and St. Petersburg city courts. The people’s courts in the districts and small towns are at the third level. They process most of the criminal cases of the country. There are also military courts or tribunals that are directly under the control of the Supreme Court (Nikiforov, 1994). They are considered special courts that investigate offenses committed by the military and by other State security bodies, espionage cases and malfeasance cases committed by the officers of prisons and other penitentiary bodies (Nikiforov, 1994).
In Russia, only the judge can rule on minor crimes and cases punishable by imprisonment of up to five years if the accused agrees (Nikiforov, 1994). Other cases are tried jointly by the judge with two regular judges who are people’s assessors who share the right to determine the sentence
They debate and reach a verdict by a majority vote after convening in a separate consulting room exclusive to them. Penalties include capital punishment, imprisonment, fines, non-prison reform work, publicity, termination from employment or office, elimination of the right to hold certain offices or perform specific acts, repair or restoration of financial damage, and additional penalties like attachment of property and cancellation of rank. The 1993 Russian constitution provides that the death penalty may be imposed only for serious and violent crimes against human life. The death penalty is by firing squad. Records in the past few years show 60 executions a year in Russia (Nikiforov, 1994).
Russia’s penitentiary system is composed of reforming labor institutions, ispravitelno-trudovich colonii, prisons and educational-labor institutions for juvenile convicts. Male and female convicts as well as adult and juvenile convicts are housed separately (Nikiforov, 1994).
A study conducted close to a century ago (Gillin, 1933) found the Russian prison system as the most considerate in the world. It has been correctional or eliminative in form and substance rather than punitive. Offenders who are willing to be corrected are assisted in preventing a sense of social isolation in every way possible. Those who are beyond correction are merely isolated. The concept of economic and social determinism in Russia does not recognize a free will. A convict who refuses to be corrected is cut off for the good of society. All measures are reformative and there is no retribution. Russian prison system faces an inadequate number of good prison administrators, inhumane treatment of inmates, and mistakes in verdicts and sentencing as in other countries (Gillin, 1933).
In the United States, by comparison, a law enforcement agency presents information about an arrested suspect to the prosecutor (OJP, 2018). If the prosecutor decides if formal charges should be filed. If not, the suspect or accused is released or the charges are dropped. If formal charges are filed, the accused is taken promptly before a judge or magistrate who ascertains probable cause and the seriousness of the offense and assigns a defense counsel. An indigent accused is given a counsel at public expense. All suspects on both sides may secure their respective counsels. Courts decide on pretrial release and bail to assure that the accused will appear during the trial. But these are denied and the accused is detained if the charges are serious and he or she may commit the crime before trial. A preliminary hearing follows where the judge determines the existence of probable cause. If he does not, the case is dismissed. If he does, it is turned over to a grand jury. The grand jury hears the evidence as presented by the prosecutor and determines probable cause to warrant a trial. If it does, it submits an indictment to the court. An indictment contains the essential facts of the offense against the accused. An arraignment follows wherein the accused is informed of the charges against him or her, his or her rights and asked to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty to the charge. The prosecutor and the accused may agree on a plea that the court may or may not accept for reasons such as coercion. If a plea of not guilty or for reason of insanity is entered, the date of a trial is set. A jury tries serious crimes, but the accused may request for a bench trial instead, i.e., a judge rather than a jury sit and function as searcher of facts. Prosecution and defense take turns in presenting evidence from witnesses. The judge renders a verdict on the basis of law. The trial ends in a conviction or acquittal from the original charges. The defendant may appeal a conviction or sentence. A death penalty is automatically set for appeal. Following a conviction, a sentence is imposed by the judge or a jury if the charge is a capital offense. Hearing may also be held on sentencing wherein evidence is presented for aggravating or mitigating circumstances that may adjust the sentence. The sentence may be the death penalty, incarceration, probation, fines, restitution and alternatives that are more stringent than probation but less severe than a prison term. These alternatives include drug treatment and testing, boot camps, house arrest, community service, electronic monitoring or denial of Federal benefits. The length of a sentence is most jurisdictions is decided within certain limits but some determinate sentencing laws impose a length that a parole board cannot change (OJP, 2018).
4. Law
The Russian Federation was founded on the Bolshevik legal theory or legal nihilism that crime rates would decrease with the formation of a communist society (Kareniuauskarte, 2015).
It would then make law unnecessary. But what followed was the creation of the Soviet criminal justice system immediately following the October Revolution. The main concepts and the institution models for the criminal investigation and punishment were conceived and developed during this Revolution and the Civil War. It evolved the definition of a crime as an act that threatened the Soviet order and state but not as a prohibition of the law (Kareniauskarte, 2015). The most important laws emanated from the Criminal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, the Reforming Labor Code, Law on the Justice System, Law on the Militia, and Law on the Status of Judges (Kareniauskarte, 2015).
On the other hand, the legal system of the United States draws from the common legal tradition of the British Empire nations and territories more than the codified Roman law, which it shared initially with the Russian Federation (Nikiforov, 1994). That of the Russian Federation, in comparison, which was previously influenced by Marxist-Leninist concepts moved towards its old civil legal traditions. While both governments apply codified law and precedence from court decisions, the US criminal justice system inclines more strongly towards individual rights, as set forth by the US Bill of Rights. Russia’s criminal justice system is more inclined towards the power of the state. The Russian Bill of Rights provides civil and human rights. But inadequacies in the government’s criminal justice system have made them inconsistent with these rights. The case of Ed Pope, an American businessman accused of espionage, is a demonstration of this inconsistency. Both governments apply a criminal justice model wherein the content of criminal law is vested in those who hold power, examples demonstrate that the crime control model is stronger in the Russian Federation. The due process model that leans on individual rights, in contrast, is well-entrenched in the United States (Nikiforov, 1994).
5. Corrections
The emphasis on correction between the two governments’ criminal justice system again differs (Liebbe, 2011). The common legal tradition observed by the USA inclines towards deterrence, incapacitation of offenders, retribution and rehabilitation. That of the Russian Federation, in contrast, is not punitive but restorative or educational for offenders. Following the October Bolshevik Revolution, all justice theories were rejected (Gillin, 1933). Marx, Engels and Lenin taught that crime is a creation of the capitalistic economic system. A change in the economic order, according to them, would dissolve all crime. The Russian penal code interprets the law as a social system that adapts to, and serves, the interests of the ruling class. Punishments and correction, therefore, must be attuned to these interests. The Revolution taught that wrongs, not crimes, exist and endanger the system. The State must, then, interfere to correct the person who commits the wrong. And instead of punishments, the State imposes measures to defend society. These measures are means of establishing or re-establishing the damaged relation between the wrongdoer and society by means of compulsory actions (Gillin, 1933).
Correction consists in society’s attempt to modify the attitude of a wrongdoer in every way possible, whether medically or by instruction. The wrongdoer’s consent is also sought for the measure that will be applied to his wrongdoing. If he or she refuses, he or she is separated from society in order to protect it. The merger of Marxist-Leninist doctrines and modern science applies all methods that will infuse or restore communistic ideals towards society in the wrongdoer. He is not to serve self-interest but the interest and welfare of the entire group. The use of a variety of measure to accomplish this purpose draws from the belief that certain wrongdoers are likely to respond to some kind of social pressure as a form of correction. The Russian way of correcting wrongs does not entail the grief of punishment. Risks are taken for the good of society in correcting the wrongdoer, not as retribution (Gillin, 1933).
Under the US criminal justice system, a convicted offender may be sentenced to a local jail or State prison (OJP, 2018). Those sentenced for a year or less are sent to jail, while those with longer sentences are sent to prison. Those sentenced to a federal or State prison may be sent to a community correctional facility. A parole board may decide to grant parole to a prisoner after serving part of his or her sentence. The parole board can grant a parole or revoke it as well as release the prisoner completely. Parole decisions are made differently by jurisdictions (OJP, 2018).
Offenders must serve their full sentence before they can be released at the expiration of their sentence (OJP, 2018). Those convicted by determinate sentencing laws are subject to mandatory release, but their term may be reduced by the goodtime merited during their imprisonment. This may be automatic or when they participate in certain programs. A prisoner who is granted a parole and released will be placed under the supervision of a community parole officer to monitor the balance of his or her remaining sentence. Specific conditions govern the release. The parole must return to prison for violating any of the set conditions (OJP, 2018).
6. Juvenile Justice
Juvenile or young wrongdoers in Russia are made to complete a compulsory secondary education program (Nikiforov, 1933). This is in line with the Bolshevik concept of reforming both young and old wrongdoers into communist ideals of serving the welfare of society over the individual’s (Nikiforov, 1933). Education for the young wrongdoer is viewed as unique. The program consists of regular class work, educational recreation, wall and newspapers, clubs, stage performances, games and sports, musical engagements, and self-government in the higher grades. Every form of motivation and pressure is applied in reforming the wrongdoer to socialize the Soviet way. Observers reported enthusiasm and earnestness in inmates attending this program in institutions and modern farm industrial colonies (Nikiforov, 1994).
In the United States, juvenile courts handle cases involving children or young offenders (OJP, 2018). These courts also have jurisdiction over status offenses like truancy and escapes, which apply only to minors. State laws identify those who come under the jurisdiction of juvenile courts as those who are 17 or below in most States. Processing juvenile offenses is similar to that for adult offenses, although there are critical differences. Many of these offenders are brought to juvenile courts by law enforcers, school officials, social service entities, neighbors and parents themselves. These juveniles are brought to juvenile courts for misbehavior or conditions that may need formal intervention requiring social control (OJP, 2018).
When a young offender is arrested, the juvenile court decides whether to refer the case to the justice system (OJP, 2018). But quite often, the offender is sent to alternative programs, such as drug treatment, solo or group counseling, or educational and recreational programs. There are times when juvenile offenders are tried as adults. Prosecutors in some States, or even at the Federal level, reserve the right to decide whether to file criminal charges against a minor or young offender in a criminal court or to opt for the juvenile justice process. The juvenile court’s intake department or the prosecutor may ask the juvenile court to waive its jurisdiction to a criminal court. Otherwise, the juvenile court may refer the case to an adult criminal court for trial. Juveniles tried as adults and convicted may be sentenced and sent to either a juvenile or adult prison or jail. Juvenile courts often have more options for disposing cases than adult courts. Juvenile offenders may be sentenced to probation, sent to a residential facility, fined or penalized with restitution. Some juvenile courts are also authorized by the State to take children from their homes and sent to foster homes or health facilities. Young offenders may also be ordered to participate in appropriate programs attuned to their offenses, such as shoplifting prevention, counseling on drugs, or driver education (OJP, 2018). #
WORKS CITED
Dunning, C. (2018). The United States criminal justice system. Criminal Justice Programs.com.
Retrieved on January 22, 2018 from https://www.criminaljusticeprograms.com/articles/three- components-of-criminal-justice/ .
.
Gillin, J. L. (1933). Russia’s criminal court and penal system. American Institute of Criminal
Law and Criminology 290 (1933-1934). Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology:
Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Retrieved on January 24, 2018
Kareniauskaite, M. (2015). The criminal justice system in Soviet Russia and the USSR (1917-
1953): emergence, development and transfer to the Lithuanian SSR. Lithuanian Historical
Studies: Genocide and Resistance Centre of Lithania. Retrieved on January 24, 2018 from
Liebbe, J. (2011). A comparative analysis of the criminal judtice systems of the United States of
America and the Russian Federation. Aequitas Group. Aequitas Group PLLC and the Aequitas
Group. Retrieved on January 24, 2018 from
http://www.aequitasgroup.org/research/2011/03/comparative-analysis-usa-russia/
Nikiforov, I. V. (1994). Russia. World Factbook of Criminal Justice Systems: Center for
Legal Information. Retrieved on January 24, 2018 from
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/wfbcjsru.pdf
OJP (9 Jan 2018). “The Justice System.” Bureau of Justice Statistics. US Department of Justice.
USA.gov (2017). About the organization of the US government. USA.gov.: Offocial Guide to
Government Information and Services. Retrieved on January 24, 2018 from
Williams, J. L. et al (2003). Crime and punishmnt in Russia and the United States 1990-
1998. Vol 27, Issue 1, International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice:
National Criminal Justice Reference Service. Retrieved on January 24, 2018 from
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=202002
2018/5305
