KKeith - Alaska vs Russia Sentencing

Running head: ПРАВОСУДИЕ AND AARUN 1
Правосудие and Aarun:
A Comparative Look at Russian and Alaskan Sentencing Guidelines and Structures
Kresenda L. Keith
George Mason University

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”

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).

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.

Punishment
Crime3
Alaskan Statutes
The Criminal Code of
the Russian Federation
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
Rape
Min 5 years; Max 20 years
Fine up to $250,000
Kidnapping
Min 5 years; Max 20 years
Fine up to $250,000
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.

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

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

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

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)
Online Enticement of a Minor
(Ak. Stat. Ann. § 11.41.452)
N N
Under
16
10 years X $100,000
Statuatory Rape
(Ak. Stat. Ann. § 11.41.434-440)
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
Forcible Rape
(Ak. Stat. Ann. § 11.41.410)
Y Y Any 20 years* X $500,000
Sexual assault on a minor
(Ak. Stat. Ann. § 11.41.434-450)
Maybe Y 13-15 10 years X $100,000
*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

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

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.

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-criminal-
code.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-states-
sentencing-guidelines#.Uk7Eiz-wV34.

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.

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
Initial Date 01/1980
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
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 one-
third 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)
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)
A1

Alaska (cont.) Russia (cont.)
Cumulative
Sentences
Yes, as defined via the grid. No maximum cap on
cumulative sentences was found.
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)
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)
Supervised
Release/Parole
See Parole Release
See Intermediate Sanctions/Articles 47-55 and
Parole Release/Articles 79-80
Use of Grid,
Narrative, or
Point System
Grid - Contains 20 ranges for felonies only Assumed to be Narrative-based
A2

Alaska (cont.) Russia (cont.)
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.
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)
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 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.
A3

KKeith - Alaska vs Russia Sentencing

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (7)

Similar to KKeith - Alaska vs Russia Sentencing

Similar to KKeith - Alaska vs Russia Sentencing (20)

KKeith - Alaska vs Russia Sentencing