Pretrial detention in Russian criminal courts: a statistical analysis

ABSTRACT

The article focuses on the topic of pretrial detention in the Russian Federation. Using a data set of 10,000 coded decisions of Russian criminal courts, the paper answers the following questions: what factors influence the likelihood of pretrial detention in the Russian criminal justice system? Does the fact of pretrial detention affects decisions regarding case dismissal, the type of punishment, and length of incarceration? The hypotheses are tested using the logit and ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models with standard control variables (such as gender, employment status, criminal history, procedural characteristics of the case). The analysis shows that the key predictors of pretrial detention are unemployment status, informal criminal records, and the non-confession of guilt. Furthermore, it is shown that the fact of pretrial detention significantly influences the likelihood of the non-dismissal of the case. The key predictor for the likelihood of choosing imprisonment as a type of punishment is pretrial detention. No significant connection was established between pretrial detention and the length of incarceration.

KEYWORDS:

• Pretrial detention
• Russian criminal justice
• statistical analysis

Acknowledgements

This text would have never been presented without the whole team of the Institute of the Rule of Law at the European University at St. Petersburg (Russia). The author is especially grateful to Vadim Volkov, Dmitry Skougarevsky, Ella Paneyakh, and Arina Dmitrieva, who have read, critiqued, and discussed drafts of this article. Additionally, I would like to extend my gratitude to the participants of the “Law and Society Annual Meeting (2013)” and “Changing the Russian Law: Legality and Current Challenges” conferences, where the earlier versions of the article were presented and discussed.

Notes

1. In Russian criminal law, there are two different types of cases. In private prosecution cases, accusations are presented by the victim without the participation of state officials. In public prosecution cases, accusations are presented by the official state prosecutor. The scope of this article does not include private prosecution cases.

2. These variables are highly significant (see Skougarevsky, 2014), but only in combination with our variables.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation: [Grant Number 10-95485-000-GSS].

Notes on contributors

Kirill D. Titaev

Kirill D. Titaev is Senior Researcher at the Institute for the Rule of Law at the European University at St. Petersburg (Russia). He took BA degree in Sociology (2005) in Irkutsk State University, MA degree in Sociology (2006) in the European University at St. Petersburg (diploma validated by the Helsinki University). He completed PhD program in Sociology (2008) in the European University at St. Petersburg. Since 2009, the main fields of interest are sociology of law and empirical legal studies. The key projects are connected with police work in Russia, trajectory of the criminal case, court statistics and judiciary.