Crime and punishment in the soviet union and the united states: 1986–19901

transcript

This article was downloaded by: [University of North Texas]On: 14 December 2013, At: 10:05Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Comparative and AppliedCriminal JusticePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcac20

Crime and punishment in the soviet union and theunited states: 1986–19901James L. Williams a & Daniel G. Rodeheaver ba Texas Woman's University , Denton, Texasb University of North Texas , Denton, TexasPublished online: 01 Jun 2011.

To cite this article: James L. Williams & Daniel G. Rodeheaver (1998) Crime and punishment in the soviet union andthe united states: 1986–19901, International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 22:1, 71-90, DOI:10.1080/01924036.1998.9678609

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01924036.1998.9678609

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE AND APPLIED CRIMINAL JUSTICE

SPRING 1998, VOL. 22, NO. 1

Crime and Punishment in the SovietUnion and the United States: 1986-19901

JAMES L. WILLIAMSTexas Woman’s University, Denton, Texas

DANIEL G. RODEHEAVERUniversity of North Texas, Denton, Texas

A relatively recent development in the comparative criminology literature concerns cross-national comparisons of criminal sentencing practices (e.g., Lynch, 1993). While there arenow several studies comparing sentencing practices and lengths, there is a particular short-age of studies that examine the disposition of serious criminal cases through several stagesof the criminal justice process. Specifically, there is a shortage of information concerningthis issue in Russia and the former Soviet Union. To address this limitation, we presentdata on the police and court disposition of violent criminal cases in the former SovietUnion during the period of 1986 to 1990. For comparative purposes, comparable data fromrecent studies of criminal case dispositions in the United States are presented. Implicationsof the findings are discussed.

Introduction

Increasing attention has been given in the comparative criminology litera-ture to the collection of cross-national criminal statistics. As a result, a sub-stantial body of criminal statistics has become available at the cross-nationallevel. There is now substantial information available on the nature and in-cidence of crime in a number of other societies. However, there is far lessinformation concerning the disposition of criminal cases.

Most comparative studies of criminal case disposition have focused oncross-national comparisons of sentencing practices and policies in countriessuch as the United States, England and Wales, and Canada (e.g., Doleschal,1977; Moitra, 1986; Lynch, 1987, 1988, 1993; Mauer, 1991). However, asidefrom comparisons of sentencing differences, there is little detailed comparisonof the disposition of criminal cases. This is a significant limitation. An addi-tional limitation in this literature is the sparse data and research on the disposi-tion of criminal cases in Russia and the former Soviet Union.

In an initial attempt to address these limitations, this research presents dataon the disposition of violent criminal cases in the former Soviet Union from1986 to 1990. We present data on the disposition of the traditional violentoffenses of homicide, rape, and aggravated assault (i.e., serious bodily injury).For comparative purposes and to help place these data in a cross-nationalcontext, we present data on the disposition of these offenses in the UnitedStates during this period.

72 WILLIAMS AND RODEHEAVER

We begin with a review of related literature on the disposition of seriouscriminal cases, looking first at the American literature and, then, reviewing thelimited cross-national studies in this area. After an examination of studies ofcrime in the former Soviet Union, we describe the police and court dispositionof homicide, rape, and serious aggravated assault cases in each country duringthis period.

Literature Review

Felony Case Disposition in the United States

The U.S. government sponsors the most extensive collection of criminalstatistics of any society in the world. During the 1980’s, the U.S. governmentbegan funding large-scale data collection on the disposition of serious criminalcases. Presently, the U.S. Department of Justice sponsors four major programsthat collect data on the disposition of criminal cases. These include the Of-fender Based Transaction Statistics Program, the National Judicial ReportingProgram, the National Pretrial Reporting Program, and the Federal JusticeStatistics Program. Each of these programs are administered by the Bureau ofJustice Statistics.

The Offender Based Transaction Statistics program provides data on thecriminal justice disposition of those arrested for felonies in certain participat-ing U.S. states (e.g., Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1991). Since this programwas initiated in the early 1980’s, participating U.S. states have included Cali-fornia, Minnesota, New York, and Virginia. Data include arrest charges,conviction charges, and other elements related to the disposition of felonycases, as well as data on the prosecution of homicide cases.

The National Judicial Reporting Program provides nationally representa-tive data that permit the description of the felony conviction process in statecourts (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1989, 1990, 1993a). The National JudicialReporting Program is a biennial survey of the criminal justice disposition offelony cases in 300 randomly selected counties. These counties are selected tobe representative of the U.S. population as a whole. Data are reported on themethod of conviction, number and nature of conviction charges, the nature andlength of sentences imposed under each method, characteristics of felons, andthe length of time required to dispose of cases. Data have been collected underthis program since 1986.

Since 1980, the Federal Justice Statistics Program has collected detailedinformation regarding the disposition of cases in the federal criminal justicesystem (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1992). Information is provided on theprosecution and sentencing of all criminal cases ‘‘terminated’’ in federal dis-trict courts during this period.

The most recent of the four programs, the National Pretrial ReportingProgram, was initiated in 1988 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1993b). Thepurpose of this biennial program is to collect detailed criminal history, pretrial

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT: SOVIET UNION & THE U.S. 73

disposition, adjudication, and sentencing information on felony defendants inU.S. state courts in large urban counties. Data are collected on felony casesfiled in the 75 largest counties in the United States. While useful, these dataare not nationally representative and thus do not effectively lend themselves tocross-national comparisons.

While each of these data sources illuminate different aspects of the disposi-tion of criminal cases in the U.S., none of these four programs follow individ-ual suspects through the entire criminal process from arrest to release fromincarceration. A number of smaller, ‘‘ecological’’ studies have provided limit-ed information on the disposition of criminal cases at the individual level (e.g.,Wolfgang, 1958; Lundsgaarde, 1977; Williams and Rodeheaver, 1991). Themajority of these studies, however, have concentrated almost entirely onhomicide, and generally report little data other than the sentence received.

Cross-national Literature

There is a shortage of cross-national work that attempts to use existing datasources to analyze or even describe trends and patterns in the disposition ofserious criminal cases such as homicide. Some cross-national studies havesystematically examined trends in sentencing in felony cases (e.g., Sumner,Jarvis, and Parker, 1984). However, most cross-national literature on thedisposition of criminal cases has been devoted to comparisons of prison use(Waller and Chan, 1975; Doleschal, 1977; Lynch, 1987, 1988, 1993; Moitra,1986; Mauer, 1991). These studies have focused on comparing sentencingpractices in several societies, including the United States, England and Wales,and the Netherlands. Farrington and Langan (1992) used national level data totrace changes in crime rates and punishment patterns in England and theUnited States between 1981 and 1987. Their study examined changes in thepatterns of conviction and sentencing for several kinds of property and violentoffenses in each country during this period. They found, for example, that inEngland the probability of being convicted and sentenced to prison decreasedfor property crimes, while in the U.S., this probability increased significantly.As Lynch (1993) noted, most of the previous work on comparisons of sentenc-ing has compared the propensity of countries to incarcerate. That is, the focushas been on the likelihood that countries will sentence individuals to prison forvarious crimes.

In one of the more sophisticated cross-national studies in this area to date,Lynch (1993) compared differences in the length of custodial sentences in theU.S. and several other industrialized societies. His purpose was to examine thecommon perception that the United States is the most punitive of all industrialcountries. Using data from the U.S. and four other industrial countries (Austra-lia, Canada, England and Wales, and the Federal Republic of Germany), hefound that when the type of crime is held constant and jail sentences are con-sidered, actual time served in the United States for violent crimes is similar tothat in the other countries studied.

Soviet Literature

A number of studies have appeared which use official data from the Sovietgovernment to examine several aspects of crime in the former Soviet Union.Using data from the Soviet Ministry of Internal Affairs (Ministry of InternalAffairs of the U.S.S.R., 1991), several studies examined trends in the natureand patterns of crime in the Soviet Union (Connor, 1973; Dienes, 1988;HEUNI, 1990; Leps, 1991, Butler, 1992; Dashkov, 1992; Nalla and Newman,1994; Williams and Serrins, 1995). However, none of these studies provideddetailed information concerning the disposition of these cases in the SovietUnion, nor did any of these studies attempt a detailed comparison of the dispo-sition of criminal cases in the Soviet Union to any other country.

Using data from the Third United Nations World Crime Survey, Nalla andNewman (1994) compared patterns in violent crime (murder, rape, robbery,and assault) in the Soviet Union and the United States during the period 1980-1986. In addition, they compared arrest rates for those offenses during thisperiod. However, they did not provide data on the court disposition of thesecases, either in the former Soviet Union or the United States. Their study didnot account for differences in the patterns they observed. Williams and Serrins(1995) compared trends in violent crime in the U.S. and the former SovietUnion for the period 1986-1990. Their study provided no information concern-ing the disposition of criminal cases in either the U.S. or the Soviet Union.

To date, these represent the major published efforts in this area. We gobeyond previous work by providing a more detailed comparison of the policeand court disposition of violent crimes in these societies than has previouslybeen published. In addition, we attempt to address some of the underlyingcauses for the particular trends observed.

Data Sources and Data Collection

Soviet Data

Data on crime in the former Soviet Union were data were drawn from astatistical publication, Prestupnost’ I Pravonarusheniia, released in 1991 bythe Soviet Ministry of Internal Affairs in Moscow. This monograph was pub-lished through the cooperation of three primary agencies with responsibilityfor gathering crime data: the Ministry of Internal Affairs (police data), theMinistry of Justice, and the Procurator’s Office (both for court and sentencingdata). It contains data on the distribution of offenses, certain characteristics ofapprehended offenders, and the disposition of those offenses, including statis-tics on arrests, convictions, and sentences imposed on convicted offenders.Data were presented on a variety of offenses. including violent offenses suchas murder, drug related offenses, property offenses such as vandalism, andeconomic offenses such as bribery. The majority of data reported were for theperiod 1986-1990.

Data that were collected in conformity with internationally recognizedstandards, such as that reported to the Fourth U.N. World Crime Survey(United Nations, 1994), would have been preferable. However, since nocomparable U.S. data were available for this time period from the FourthWorld Crime Survey, we relied on official data published by the Soviet andU.S. governments.

For the purposes of this study, data were recorded on the equivalent offens-es of murder, rape, and aggravated assault (and the equivalent Soviet offenseof serious bodily injury). See Table 1 for a list of the corresponding offensesbetween the United States and the Soviet Union.2

Table 1: Articles from the RSFSR Penal Code and theCorresponding Uniform Crime Reporting Category

Murder and non-negligent manslaughter

Article 102: Intentional Homicide under aggravating circumstancesArticle 103: Intentional HomicideArticle 104: Intentional Homicide committed in state of strong mental

agitation

Forcible Rape

Article 117: Forcible Rape

Aggravated Assault

Article 108: Intentional Infliction of Grave Bodily Injury

Sources: adapted from Williams and Serrins (1995).

United States Data

Data on crime in the U.S. were also obtained from two sources. First, dataon violent crime rates in the U.S. were compiled from the Uniform CrimeReports (Federal Bureau of Investigation 1987-1991). The number of incidentsand the rate (per 100,000) population for each of the three Part 1 violent of-fenses (murder and non-negligent manslaughter, rape, and aggravated assault)were recorded for the period 1986-1990. Secondly, information on the disposi-tion of criminal cases in the U.S. was obtained from the National JudicialReporting Program (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1989, 1990, 1993a) data. Dataon the disposition of cases for 1987 and 1989 cases were calculated usinginformation provided in the 1990 and 1993 editions of this publication.

National Judicial Reporting Program data and the Soviet data representonly aggregate cases and do not represent the tracking of individual casesthrough each phase of the U.S. or Soviet criminal justice systems. In addition,neither U.S. nor Soviet data contain comparable information on time served bythose convicted for these offenses.

Definitions of each of the offenses were obtained from the Uniform CrimeReports (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1991). Definitions for the compar-able offenses in the Soviet Union were obtained from the 1977 Russian crimi-nal code (translated by Berman, 1984). The definitions were standardized inaccordance with the procedure described by Teske and Arnold (1982) in orderto facilitate a more direct comparison of crime trends. We describe this proce-dure below.

Crime Definitions and Limitations

A critical issue facing researchers is the problem of differing definitions ofoffenses in the legal codes of different societies. As Williams and Serrins(1995) noted, if criminal justice systems in different societies have very dif-ferent definitions of offenses then data regarding these offenses cannot beeffectively compared unless a process is identified to standardize definitionsof specific offenses. Thus, before beginning a specific comparison of thedisposition of these cases, it is important to ensure that the offenses are de-fined as similarly as possible. The definitions of the offenses used in thisstudy were standardized using the same procedure followed by Williams andSerrins. They compared definitions of offenses in the U.S., as supplied by theFederal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.), with those published in the mostrecently available Russian Code of Criminal Procedure (Berman, 1984).Offenses in the Russian code that were the most similar to the U.S. offensesof murder, rape, and aggravated assault were selected for comparison. Data onthose offenses were then collected from the 1991 Ministry of Internal Affairspublication.

Williams and Serrins found that definitions of homicide differed betweenthe United States and the Soviet Union. More specifically, homicide in theSoviet Union was defined as including both homicides and attempted homi-cides. In the United States, attempted homicides are classified as aggravatedassaults. Because it was impossible to identify accurately the percentage ofrecorded Soviet homicides that were actually merely attempts, Williams andSerrins made no effort to alter or recalculate the Soviet homicide data. Thefindings below should be interpreted with this limitation in mind. In addition,Williams and Serrins found that homicide data in the Soviet Union includedcases of negligent homicide, a category which was not included in U.C.R.data. They were able, however, to adjust the Soviet data to reflect this dif-ference. The present data are also adjusted to reflect this difference.

Rape was defined in the United States and in the Soviet Union in identicalterms (see Table 1). Thus, the interpretation of rape statistics for both coun-tries is straightforward.

As noted earlier, we do not report data on the equivalent Soviet offense ofrobbery. Data on the volume of robbery and the prosecution of robbery casesis available for the U.S. for this period. Soviet data is also available for thisperiod, describing the volume of robbery and characteristics of offenders ar-rested for robbery. However, no information was published concerning theprosecution of robbery cases in the Soviet Union during this period. Therefore,we have omitted robbery from the discussion.

Williams and Serrins found that no offense was exactly identical to theAmerican offense defined as aggravated assault. The closest offense in termsof definition was the offense of serious bodily injury. A comparison of defini-tions indicated sufficient similarity to enable direct comparisons to be madefor each of these offenses. The definition of serious bodily injury is listed inTable 1 below. To simplify the below comparisons, the remainder of thediscussion will use the term ‘‘aggravated assault’’ when referring to thecomparable offense in the Soviet Union.

Findings

For ease of interpretation, the discussion of the findings is organized bytype of offense. Within the discussion of each type of offense, comparisons ofthe police and court dispositions of cases are made for both countries duringthis period.

Police and Court Disposition of Homicide Cases

Table 2 reports information on the police disposition of each of the homi-cide cases recorded in the U.S. and the former Soviet Union during this period,1986-1990. Several interesting differences emerge.

Table 2 indicates that in the Soviet Union homicide rates declined duringthe period of 1985-1987, but by 1988 began a dramatic increase. This increasecontinued at such a high rate that by 1990 the homicide rate in the SovietUnion was for the first time higher than that in the United States. In compari-son, the homicide rate in the U.S. remained fairly stable during this period,showing only moderate fluctuations. The homicide rate remained around 8.4per 100,000 population.

Arrest rates for homicide in the Soviet Union fluctuated significantly.Specifically, arrest rates declined between 1986 and 1987 and then began toincrease steadily such that, by 1990, the arrest rate had increased from a low of5.2 in 1987 to a high of 8.6. In the U.S., arrest rates remained consistentlyhigher over each year of this period. Table 2 indicates that homicide arrestrates in the U.S. increased steadily each year during this period. There was anoverall net increase in arrest rates in the Soviet Union during this period aswell. However, due to the inclusion of attempted murder in the Soviet data, itis not clear how much of the apparent increase may be accounted for by anincrease in what in the U.S. would be aggravated assault. This table indicates

that even though the number of homicides in the U.S. was substantially greaterthan in the Soviet Union over most of this period, the actual number of sus-pects arrested was very similar to that in the United States. Thus, these dataindicate that the clearance rates for homicides in the Soviet Union during thisperiod were substantially higher than in the U.S.

Table 2: Police Disposition of Homicide Cases in the SovietUnion and the United States (1986-1990)

Year Number of offenses, rate, Number arrested and arrestand % change rateSoviet Union United States Soviet Union United States

Number Rate Number Rate Number Rate Number Rate

1986 14848 5.2 20613 8.6 16335 5.3 16066 8.1(-20.7%) (+8.9%)

1987 14656 5.1 20096 8.3 13894 5.2 16714 8.3(-1.3%) (-3.5%)

1988 16702 5.8 20675 8.4 15330 5.9 16326 8.6(+14.0%) (+1.2%)

1989 21467 7.4 21500 8.7 17990 7.5 17975 9.0(+28.5%) (+3.6%)

1990 24875 9.4 23438 8.6 21081 8.6 18298 9.5(+15.9%) (+8%)

Source: U.S.S.R. Ministry of Internal Affairs (1991), Federal Bureau of Inves-tigation (1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991).Note: Arrest rates are calculated per 100,000 population. Numbers in paren-theses represent percentage changes from previous year.

Table 3 describes trends in the court disposition of homicide cases in theSoviet Union and the United States during this period. Data are reported on thepercentages of suspects arrested for homicide who were convicted of sometype of homicide during this period. Table 3 indicates that during each year ofthis period, the percentage of convictions was far higher for the Soviet Union,ranging from a high of 89% in 1986 to a low of roughly 76% in 1990. Interest-ingly, both countries witnessed a substantial decline in conviction percentagesfor homicide. Overall in the Soviet Union there was a decline of 14% inconviction percentages, while for the U.S. there was a decline of 10%.

Table 3: Court Disposition of Homicide Cases in the Soviet Union and the United States (1986-1990)

Year Arrested Convicted Sentenced to Prison Other Sentence*

Soviet United Soviet Union United States Soviet Union United States Soviet Union United StatesUnion States

N N N % N % N % N % N % N %

1986 16335 16066 14603 89.39 9854 61.33 13738 94.07 9066 92.00 865 5.92 788 8.00

1987 13894 16714 12161 87.52 9597 69.07 11615 95.51 8763 91.30 761 6.25 835 8.70

1988 15330 16326 11188 72.98 9340 60.92 10667 95.34 8459 90.56 802 7.16 881 9.43

1989 17990 17975 13178 73.25 10118 56.24 12316 93.45 9187 90.79 862 6.54 931 9.20

1990 21081 18298 15918 75.50 10895 51.68 14825 93.13 9914 90.99 1093 6.86 981 9.00

Source: U.S.S.R. Ministry of Internal Affairs (1991), Bureau of Justice Statistics (1989, 1990, 1993a).* Other includes probation, death sentences, or other custodial sentences including jail.

This table also indicates that the vast majority of suspects in both countries(over 90% in each year) who were convicted of homicide received prisonsentences. In the Soviet Union, those convicted of homicide were more likelyto receive prison sentences than these in the U.S. There is no clear evidence inthese data of more punitive sentencing strategies on the part of the Soviets thatwould account for the greater willingness to impose prison sentences for thoseconvicted of homicide. The greater use of alternative sentences, such as proba-tion, in the U.S. during this period may have reflected the greater availabilityof alternative sentencing options. In addition, it may have been affected by theexistence of organizational norms that contributed to the tendency of Sovietjudges to convict (Solomon, 1987). This trend toward higher conviction ratesis also seen below in the disposition of cases of rape and aggravated assault.

Police and Court Disposition of Rape Cases

Table 4 illustrates trends in the police disposition of rape cases in bothcountries during the period of 1986-1990. This table indicates that the reportedrape rate was about six times greater in the U.S. during each year of this peri-od. While there is evidence of substantial under-reporting of rape in both coun-tries (Williams and Serrins, 1995), the differences in rape rates are quitedramatic. In contrast to the data on homicide, reported rape rates in bothcountries remained fairly stable during this period, increasing only slightly inthe Soviet Union from 6.6 to 7.7 per 100,000. In the U.S. the increase wassomewhat larger, from about 38 per 100,000 to just over 41 per 100,000population.

Arrest rates for rape in the U.S. were consistently twice as high as in theSoviet Union. Here, too, arrest rates were fairly stable over this period, in-creasing in the Soviet Union from a rate of 6.7 in 1986 to a rate of 7.8 in 1990.Arrest rates in the U.S. increased less dramatically, from a low of 15.7 in 1986to a high of 16.0 in 1990. Perhaps reflecting greater availability of investiga-tive resources, and possibly greater investigative priority given to rape cases,as well as differences in the cultural circumstances of rape, arrest rates for rapein the U.S. remained far higher than in the Soviet Union during this period.

Table 5 presents trends in the court disposition of rape cases in the SovietUnion and the U.S. during this period. Some of the most dramatic differencesfound in the entire study are present in this table. The data indicate substantialdifferences in the percentages of suspects convicted of rape in each of the twocountries during this period. The figures listed in this part of the table repre-sent the percentages of those arrested for rape who were convicted of rape.While there was some decline in the conviction percentages in each countryduring this period, the percentages of suspects in the Soviet Union who wereconvicted of rape were far higher, ranging from a high of 92% of those arrest-ed for rape in 1986 to 87% in 1990. In the U.S., the figures were nearly onethird lower during this period, ranging from a high of 63% in 1986 to a low of58% in 1990. This same trend was observed in the discussion of homicide

cases above; however, the magnitude of the differences between the SovietUnion and the U.S. was not as substantial.

Table 4: Police Disposition of Rape Cases in the SovietUnion and the United States (1986-1990)

1986 18522 6.6 91459 37.90 22376 6.7 31128 15.7(-4.7%) (+2.2%)

1987 16765 5.9 91111 37.40 19824 6.0 31276 15.5(-9.5%) (-1.3%)

1988 17658 6.1 92486 37.60 19724 6.2 28482 15.1(+5.3%) (+.5%)

1989 21873 7.5 94504 38.10 22305 7.6 30544 15.3(+23.9%) (+1.3%)

1990 22469 7.7 102555 41.20 23736 7.8 30966 16.0(+2.7%) (+8.1%)

Source: U.S.S.R. Ministry of Internal Affairs (1991), Federal Bureau of Inves-tigation (1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991).Note: Arrest rates are calculated per 100,000 population. Numbers in paren-theses represent percentage changes from previous year

Table 5 indicates that the Soviets were far more likely to sentence thoseconvicted of rape to prison than were court officials in the U.S. The differenc-es are substantial. Over 90% of those convicted of rape in the Soviet Unionduring each of the years studied were sentenced to prison, while in the U.S. thepercentage was never greater than 75% (in 1986). As was the case with con-viction rates, there was also a decline in the use of prison as a sanction forthose convicted of rape. The decline in the U.S. was far more substantial. In1986, 75% of those convicted of rape received prison sentences, while by 1990that figure had dropped to a low of 67%. We suspect that this decline wasindicative of changes in incarceration policies in the U.S. during this period.More specifically, we believe that this decline was related to the increasing useof prison during this period to incarcerate drug offenders.

Table 5: Court Disposition of Rape Cases in the Soviet Union and the United States (1986-1990)

N N N % N % N % N % N % N %

1986 22376 31128 20506 91.64 19685 63.23 19610 95.63 14764 75.0 696 3.39 4921 25.00

1987 19824 31276 18303 92.32 17624 56.34 17134 93.61 12751 72.35 1169 6.38 4873 27.65

1988 19724 28482 16261 82.44 15562 54.63 14984 92.94 10737 68.99 1277 7.85 4825 31.00

1989 22305 30544 17199 77.10 16793 54.97 15943 92.69 11407 67.93 1256 7.30 5387 32.08

1990 23736 30966 20692 87.17 18024 58.20 19253 93.04 12076 66.99 1439 6.95 5948 33.00

Source: U.S.S.R. Ministry of Internal Affairs (1991), Bureau of Justice Statistics (1989, 1990, 1993a).* Other sentence includes probation, jail, death sentences, or other custodial sentences.

While there was an increase in the use of alternative sentences in the SovietUnion (3% of those convicted of rape in 1986 versus 7% of those convicted in1990), the increase was less than that in the U.S. (from a low of 25% in 1986to a high of 33% in 1990).

Police and Court Disposition of Aggravated Assault Cases

Table 6 describes the police disposition of aggravated assault cases in theSoviet Union and the U.S. during this period. This table indicates that thereported aggravated assault rate in the U.S. averaged about 30 times higherthan in the Soviet Union during each year of this period. The year 1986 isillustrative. In the Soviet Union the aggravated assault (serious bodily injury)rate that year was 10.3 per 100,000 while in the U.S. the aggravated assaultrate was 346.1 per 100,000 population. In the Soviet Union, rates declinedduring the period 1986-1987 and then began to increase dramatically in eachyear of the period studied.

Table 6: Police Disposition of Aggravated Assault Cases inthe Soviet Union and the United States (1986-1990)

1986 29096 10.3 834322 346.1 28648 10.4 293952 148.1(-24.3%) (+14.3%)

1987 28250 9.9 855088 351.3 24343 10.0 301734 149.1(-3.0%) (+1.5%)

1988 37191 13.8 910092 370.2 26480 13.1 304490 161.2(+31.6%) (+5.4%)

1989 51485 17.8 951707 383.4 32422 18.0 354735 177.4(+38.4) (+3.6%)

1990 57754 19.8 1054863 424.1 37174 20.1 376917 194.8(+12.2%) (+10.6%)

Source: U.S.S.R. Ministry of Internal Affairs (1991), Federal Bureau of Inves-tigation (1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991.)Note: Arrest rates are calculated per 100,000 population. Numbers in paren-theses represent percentage changes from previous year.

Overall, the aggravated assault rate in the Soviet Union nearly doubledduring this period. Table 6 indicates that in the U.S. there were regular in-creases in each year, though not as dramatic as in the Soviet Union. The over-all rate in the U.S. increased by about one third during this period. The dramat-ic increases in the aggravated assault rate in the Soviet Union during thisperiod are almost certainly related to the increasing economic and socialdisorder in Soviet society during this period.

During this period, arrest rates increased dramatically in each country aswell. In the Soviet Union the arrest rate doubled, from a low of 10.4 in 1986 toa high of 20.1 in 1990. In the U.S., the increase in the arrest rate was lessdramatic. The arrest rate increased by about 20% during this period. A point ofcontrast is the dramatic difference in the rate of both offenses and aggravatedassault arrests. As noted above, the overall volume of aggravated assaults inthe U.S. was over 30 times greater during each year. In addition, the arrest ratewas consistently 10 to 20 times greater in the U.S. each year, as was the over-all number of arrests.

Finally, Table 7 details the court disposition of aggravated assault cases inboth countries during this period. This table indicates that in each of the yearsdescribed, the Soviets convicted a far greater percentage of those arrested forthis offense. The differences are dramatic. In each of the years studied, over75% of those arrested for aggravated assault in the Soviet Union were convict-ed of aggravated assault.

In comparison, a maximum of 14% of those arrested for aggravated assaultin the U.S. was convicted of aggravated assault. Even though convictionpercentages dropped in the Soviet Union during this period, the Soviets re-mained far more likely to convict those arrested of aggravated assault. As inthe case of homicide, the differences may be affected by organizational normsthat reward Soviet judges for higher conviction rates (Solomon, 1987). It ispossible that the results may also reflect substantial differences in the investi-gative process for aggravated assault cases in the U.S. Prosecutors in the U.S.may have had a more difficult time obtaining reliable witnesses. The prefer-ence of prosecutors in the U.S. may have been to seek indictments for otheroffenses such as simple assault as opposed to aggravated assault. As in thecase of homicide, the data do not allow for a clear explanation of the factorscontributing to these differences.

Table 7 indicates dramatic differences in the use of prison to respond tothose convicted of this offense. As was the case with conviction rates, theSoviet authorities were substantially more likely to sentence those convictedof this offense to prison. In each of these years, over 85 percent of the of-fenders convicted of this offense in the Soviet Union were sentenced to prison.On the other hand, U.S. authorities were significantly less willing to use prisonas a sanction for those offenders convicted of aggravated assault. In fact, therewas a dramatic decline in the percentage of those convicted of aggravatedassault in the U.S. who received a prison sentence. More specifically, in 1986,71 percent of those convicted of aggravated assault in the U.S. received a

Table 7: Court Disposition of Aggravated Assault Cases in the Soviet Unionand the United States (1986-1990)

N N N % N % N % N % N % N %

1986 28648 293952 26376 92.06 38245 13.01 24566 93.13 27154 71.00 1810 6.86 11091 29.00

1987 24343 301734 21394 87.88 37906 12.56 19426 90.80 21966 57.95 1968 9.19 15940 42.05

1988 26480 304490 21093 79.65 37566 12.33 18343 86.96 16777 44.66 2750 13.03 20789 55.33

1989 32422 354735 25208 77.74 45714 12.88 21908 86.90 20507 44.85 3300 13.09 25207 55.14

1990 37174 376917 30111 81.00 53861 14.28 26393 87.65 24237 44.99 3718 12.34 29624 55.00

Source: U.S.S.R. Ministry of Internal Affairs (1991), Bureau of Justice Statistics (1989, 1990, 1993a).* Other sentence includes probation, jail, or other custodial sentences.

prison sentence. This percentage decreased substantially during this periodsuch that by 1990 only 45% of those convicted of aggravated assault in theU.S. received a prison sentence.

This dramatic decline in the use of prison to respond to aggravated assaultcases strongly suggests a deliberate shift in correctional policy in the U.S.during this period. As we suggested earlier in the discussion of sentencingpatterns in rape cases, this decline in the use of prison for this offense mayhave reflected shifts in sentencing policies that accompanied the war on drugsin the United States during this period, in which states and the federal gov-ernment demonstrated a far greater willingness to incarcerate drug offenders.In addition, Table 7 indicates that the frequency with which alternative sen-tences were used in the U.S. increased dramatically during this period, increas-ing from a low of 29% of all defendants convicted of aggravated assault in1986 to a high of 55% of those in 1990.

Conclusions

This study has examined patterns in the police and court disposition ofhomicide, rape, and aggravated assault cases in the U.S. and the former SovietUnion during the period of 1986-1990. Using data on reported crimes in bothcountries during this period, several dramatic differences were identified. Formost of this period, both countries saw substantial declines in arrest andconviction percentages for homicide, though conviction rates for homicideremained substantially higher in the Soviet Union. The vast majority of thoseconvicted of homicide (over 90%) in each country received prison sentences.

Several dramatic differences were noted in terms of rape cases. Reportedrape rates and rape arrest rates were far higher in the U.S. during each yearstudied. However, as was the case with homicide, conviction percentages weresubstantially higher in the Soviet Union. Defendants in rape cases in the SovietUnion were far more likely to be convicted of rape and were far more likely tobe sentenced to prison than in the U.S. during this period. There was a declinein the percentage of defendants sentenced to prison for rape in both countriesduring this period, though the decline was more substantial in the U.S.

As was the case with rape, the rate of reported offenses and arrest rates foraggravated assault were much higher in the U.S. during each of the yearsstudied. However, while rates increased by about 33% in the U.S. during thisperiod, rates increased by about 100% in the Soviet Union. Arrest rates foraggravated assault increased substantially in both countries during this period.As was the case with reported rapes, defendants in the Soviet Union were farmore likely to be convicted of aggravated assault and were far more likely toreceive prison sentences than in the U.S. during this period. This study alsonoted substantial increases in the use of alternative sentences in the U.S. forrape and aggravated assault cases during this period.

One of the most significant differences noted between the U.S. and theformer Soviet Union was in the area of conviction rates. Conviction rates were

higher in the Soviet Union for each of the offenses studied. In addition, of-fenders were more likely to receive prison sentences in the Soviet Union foreach offense than in the U.S. Identifying the exact sources of these differencesis beyond the purview of this study; however, some suggestions may be made.

Observers, such as Reichel (1994), have pointed out that systemic differ-ences in conviction rates and in the use of prison sentences can result from anumber of factors, including cultural differences that can affect the success ofpolice investigative procedures, differences in available investigative andprosecutorial resources, and differences in the allocation of correctional re-sources. Solomon (1987) suggests an additional explanation. He examinedreasons for the dramatic decline of acquittals in criminal cases in the SovietUnion that began during the 1970s and continued during the Gorbachev peri-od. He concluded that the conduct of investigators, procurators, and judges inthe former Soviet Union reflected more than the duties established for them bythe law. As employees of bureaucratic agencies, Soviet legal officials wereinfluenced by the way their superiors assessed their performance. To accom-modate the criteria used in assessing their work, officials developed a set ofinformal norms of conduct that governed the handling of criminal cases. Sub-stituting other measures for acquittals turns out to have been one of thosenorms (Solomon, 1987). These conclusions are also supported by Dobek andLaird (1990) and Terrill (1997:342-347).

In addition, Terrill notes that the lack of judicial independence led to manycases in which judges deferred to the judgment of procurators and party offi-cials, rather than making decisions based on the available evidence. Theclosest analog to this is the practice of American district attorneys of choosingcases to prosecute which they believe they are the most likely to win. This isdone since a high conviction rate is an important asset for American districtattorneys, who are generally elected officials.

Additional Research

The most obvious need is for additional research to extend the comparisonsdescribed above to the present, using more recent data, such as the Fifth U.N.World Crime Survey (United Nations, 1997) from Russia. This could be usedto examine the extent to which the process of case disposition may havechanged during the period after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Sincethat time, the criminal justice system in Russia has faced unique strains, bothfrom the dramatic rise in crime rates and from the serious financial crisis thathas accompanied the painful transition to a market based economy. Thesecircumstances have created a unique opportunity to study the impact of thesechanges on the Russian criminal justice system. Use of this data may alsoreduce the problems caused by differing definitions of offenses, as was thecase in this study. Additional research of this nature has the potential to shed asignificant light on similarities and differences in the operation of criminaljustice systems throughout the world. While research of this nature is fraughtwith many difficulties, we believe the rewards can be substantial.

1. Revised version of a paper presented at 1994 Annual Meeting of the American Society ofCriminology. Miami, FL. U.S.A.

2. Data from this publication were compared to the translated work by Joseph Serio (1992) tocheck for accuracy. Serio’s monograph contains some data that is not included in the Ministry ofInternal Affairs (1991) publication described above, such as data on offenses for 1985 and data oncertain offenses for the Soviet Union and Russia for 1991. While both monographs draw fromrecords maintained by the Ministry of Internal Affairs for this period, the previous monograph(Ministry of Internal Affairs, 1991) contains information on the disposition of criminal cases that isabsent from the work by Serio.

REFERENCES

Berman, Harold J. 1984. ‘‘The Criminal Code of the RSFSR.’’ In W.B. Simons,(Ed.), The Soviet Codes of Law, 98-133. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1989. Felony Sentences in State Courts: 1986. U.S.Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.

______. 1990. Felony Sentences in State Courts: 1988. U.S. Department of Justice,Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-ing Office.

______. 1991. Tracking Offenders, 1988. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau ofJustice Statistics Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

______. 1992. Federal Criminal Case Disposition, 1982-91. U.S. Department ofJustice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.

______. 1993a. Felony Sentences in State Courts: 1990. U.S. Department of Justice,Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-ing Office.

______. 1993b. Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 1990. U.S. Depart-ment of Justice, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Butler, W.E., 1992. ‘‘Crime in the Soviet Union: Early Glimpses of the TrueStory.’’ British Journal of Criminology, 32/2: 144-160.

Connor, Walter. 1973. ‘‘Criminal Homicide: U.S.S.R./U.S.A.: Reflections on SovietData in Comparative Framework.’’ Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,64(1): 111-117.

Dashkov, G.V. 1992. ‘‘Quantitative and Qualitative Changes in Crime in theUSSR.’’ British Journal of Criminology, 32/2: 160-166.

Dienes, Leslie. 1988. ‘‘Quantitative and Qualitative Changes in Crime in the USSR:New Information on Distribution.’’ Soviet Geography, 29: 793-808.

Dobek, Mariusz Mark, and Roy D. Laird. 1990 . ‘‘Perestroika and a ‘Law Gov-erned’ State: Criminal Law.’’ Review of Socialist Law, 16: 135-161.

Doleschal, E. 1977. ‘‘Rate and Length of Imprisonment: How Does the U.S.Compare with the Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark?’’ Crime and Delin-quency, 23: 51-56.

Farrington, D., and M. Langan. 1992. ‘‘Crime and Punishment in England andAmerica in the 1980’s.’’ Justice Quarterly, 9/1: 5-31.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1987. Uniform Crime Report: 1986. U.S. Depart-ment of Justice, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

______. 1988. Uniform Crime Report: 1987. U.S. Department of Justice, Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

HEUNI. 1990. Criminal Justice Systems in Europe and North America. No. 17.Helsinki, Finland: Helsinki Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, Affili-ated with the United Nations.

Leps, Ando. 1991. ‘‘Comparative Analysis of Crime: Estonia, the other BalticRepublics and the Soviet Union.’’ International Criminal Justice Review, 1:69-92.

Lundsgaarde, R.P. 1977. Murder in Space City. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Lynch, James P. 1987. Comparison of Prison Use in Four Countries. Washington,

DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.______. 1988. ‘‘A Comparison of Prison Use in England, Canada, West Germany,

and the United States: A Limited Test of the Punitiveness Hypothesis.’’Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 79: 180-217.

______. 1993. ‘‘A Cross-national Comparison of the Length of Custodial Sentencesfor Serious Crimes.’’ Justice Quarterly, 10(4): 639-660.

Mauer, Mark. 1991. Americans Behind Bars: A Comparison of International Ratesof Incarceration. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.

Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR, Ministry of Justice of The USSR, Procura-tor’s Office of the USSR 1991. Crime and Delinquency in the USSR, 1990:Statistical Review. Moscow: Finances and Statistics Publishers.

Moitra, S.D. 1986. ‘‘Crime and Imprisonment Trends: An Analysis by IndividualCrime Types.’’ International Journal of Comparative and Applied CriminalJustice, 10: 95-106.

Nalla, Mahesh, and Graeme Newman. 1994. ‘‘Crime in the U.S. and the FormerU.S.S.R: A Comparison of Crime Trends from the Third United NationsWorld Survey.’’ International Journal of Comparative and Applied CriminalJustice, 18(1): 85-93.

Palmer, S. 1980-81. ‘‘Sex Differences in Criminal Homicide and Suicide in Englandand Wales and the United States.’’ Omega, 11/3: 255-270.

Reichel, P.L. 1994. Comparative Criminal Justice Systems: A Topical Approach.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Career and Technology.

Serio, J. 1992. USSR Crime Statistics and Summaries: 1980 and 1990. Chicago:Office of International Criminal Justice, University of Illinois at Chicago.

Solomon, Peter H., Jr. 1987. ‘‘The Case of the Vanishing Acquittal: Informal Normsand the Practice of Soviet Criminal Justice.’’ Soviet Studies, 39(4): 531-555.

Sumner, M., G. Jarvis, and H. Parker. 1984. ‘‘Sentencing Trends: A Review ofCriminal Statistics for England and Wales 1984.’’ British Journal of Criminol-ogy, 26/1: 87-93.

Terrill, Richard J. 1996. World Criminal Justice Systems: A Survey. 3rd ed. 342-347. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Teske, R., and H.R. Arnold. 1982. ‘‘Comparison of the Criminal Statistics of theUnited States and the Federal Republic of Germany.’’ Journal of CriminalJustice, 10: 359-374.

United Nations 1995. Fourth United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Opera-tions of Criminal Justice Systems. Vienna, Austria: UN Crime Prevention andCriminal Justice Branch.

______. 1997. Fifth United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations ofCriminal Justice Systems. Vienna, Austria: UN Crime Prevention and CriminalJustice Branch.

Waller, I., and J. Chan. 1975. ‘‘Prison Use: A Canadian and International Compari-son.’’ Criminal Law Quarterly, 3: 47-71.

Williams, J.L., and D.G. Rodeheaver. 1991. ‘‘Disposition of Criminal HomicideCases in A Large Southern City.’’ Sociology and Social Research, 75/2: 80-88.

Williams, J.L., and A.S. Serrins. 1995. ‘‘Comparing Violent Crime in the SovietUnion and the United States (1985-1991).’’ Studies on Crime and CrimePrevention, 75: 252-266.

Wolfgang, Marvin E. 1958. Patterns in Criminal Homicide. Philadelphia: Universi-ty of Pennsylvania Press.

Crime and punishment in the soviet union and the united states: 1986–19901

Documents