Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-tdptf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-15T21:09:15.739Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter Eight - Accusatorial Bias in Russian Criminal Justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2018

Marina Kurkchiyan
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Agnieszka Kubal
Affiliation:
University College London
Get access

Summary

The Soviet Union and post-Soviet Russia alike have had extremely low rates of acquittal in criminal cases, which conventional wisdom associates with an accusatorial bias. But other countries like Canada, Germany, The Netherlands, and France also have low rates of acquittal although in their cases without the perception of bias. This chapter argues that the key difference between the two categories lies in the presence or absence of pre-trial screening—through the withdrawal of charges, diversion, and/or dispositions imposed by prosecutors. After a brief history of the low acquittal rate in Russia, the chapter examines the use of prosecutorial discretion to screen cases before trial in Germany (and other countries), especially through the exercise by prosecutors of quasi-judicial functions. The chapter goes on to demonstrate the absence of significant pre-trial filtering of cases in Russia and to explore its implications for understanding the infinitesimal rate of acquittal. The analysis highlights the impact of new measures to avoid full trials (reconciliation and plea arrangements), as well as the continuing weakness of judges, the nature of the role of investigators, and the absence of meaningful changes in criminal procedure.
Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aleksandrov, A. S., Lapatnikov, M. V. and Terekhin, V. V. (2013) ‘Ot polusostizatelnosti k polnoi inkvizitsii: traektoriia razvitiia sovremennogo russkogo ugolovno-protsessualnogo prava’, unpublished paper.Google Scholar
Aleksandrov, A. S. and Kukhta, A. A. (2009) ‘Vlast sledstvennaia i vlast obvinitel’naia: kvadrtury kurga’, Pravovedenie, 4: 22–8.Google Scholar
Amara, M. N., Shkliaruk, M. S. and Begtin, I. V. (2014) Kriminal’naia statistika i otkrytost’ Politsii: analiticheskie obzor. Moscow: Institut problem, http://www.enforce.spb.ru/issledovaniia.Google Scholar
Baldwin, J. and McConville, M. (1978) ‘The new Home Office figures on pleas and acquittals: what sense do they make?’ The Criminal Law Review, (April 1978): 196–201.Google Scholar
Blom, M. and Smit, P. (2006) ‘The prosecution service function within the Dutch criminal justice system’, in Jehle, J. -M. and Wade, M. (eds.) Coping with Overloaded Criminal Justice Systems: The Rise of Prosecutorial Power across Europe. Berlin: Springer, 237–56.Google Scholar
Boyne, S. (2012) ‘Is the journey from the in-box to the out-box a straight line? The drive for efficiency and the prosecution of low-level criminality in Germany’, in Luna, E. and Wade, M. (eds.) The Prosecutor in Transnational Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 353.Google Scholar
Boyne, S. M. (2014) The German Prosecution Service: Guardians of the Law? Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D. K. (2012) ‘American prosecutors: powers and obligations in the era of plea bargaining’, in Luna, E. and Wade, M. (eds.) The Prosecutor in Transnational Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 200–13.Google Scholar
Burnham, W. and Kahn, J. (2008) ‘Russia’s Criminal Procedure Code five years out’, Review of Central and East European Law, 33(1): 194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauseebourg, L. and Lumbroso, S. (2008) ‘L’appel des décisions des cours d’assizes: conséquences sur la declaration de culpabilité’, Infostat Justice, 100.Google Scholar
Churakova, O. (2015) ‘Pravitelstvo ne podderzhibaet ob’ektivnuiu istinu kak tsel ugolovnogo protsessa: ocherednaia inisiativa Sledstvennogo komiteta povisla v vozdukhe’, Vedomosti, 3 August.Google Scholar
Churilov, I. (2010a) ‘Statistika opravdanii: fakty i vymysel’, www.gazeta-yurist.ru/prnarticle.php?i=1054.Google Scholar
Churilov, I. (2010b) Aktual’nye problemy postanovleniia opravdael’nogo prigovora v rossiskom ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve. Moscow: Volters Kluwer.Google Scholar
Dauvergne, M. (2012) Adult Criminal Court Statistics in Canada, 2010/2011. Ottawa: Juristat.Google Scholar
Donovan, J. (2010) Juries and the Transformation of Criminal Justice in France in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ECEJ (2006) European Judicial Systems. Brussels: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Elsner, B. and Peters, J. (2006) ‘The prosecution service function within the German criminal justice system’, in Jehle, J. -M. and Wade, M. (eds.) Coping with Overloaded Criminal Justice Systems: The Rise of Prosecutorial Power across Europe. Berlin: Springer, 207–36.Google Scholar
Federal’nyi Zakon (2013) No. 217 ot 23 iiulia 2013 ‘O vnesenii izmenenii v Ugolovno-protsessualnyi kodeks RF i stati 1 i 3 Federalnogo zakon “O vnesenii izmenenii v Ugolovno-protsessualnyi kodeks RF i priznanii utrativshimi silu otdelnykh zakonodatelnykh aktov (polozhenie zakonodatelnykh aktov) Rossiiskoi Federatsii’po voprosam sovershenstvovaniia protsedury appelliatsionnogo proizvodstvo”‘, Rossiiskaia gazeta, 26 July 2013, www.rg.ru/2013/07/26/prozess-dok.html.Google Scholar
Feofanov, I. (1986) ‘Mera otvetstvennosti’, Izvestiia, 14 March, 3.Google Scholar
Golunskii, S. A. (ed.) (1955) Istoriia zakonodatel’stva SSSR i RSFSR po ugolovnomu protsessu i organizatsii suda i prokuratury, 1917––1954 gg. Sbornik dokumentov. Moscow: Gosiurizdat.Google Scholar
Gorman, W. (2000 –2001) ‘Prosecutorial discretion in a charter-dominated trial process’, Criminal Law Quarterly, 44(1): 1533.Google Scholar
Grosman, B. (1969) The Prosecutor: An Inquiry into the Exercise of Discretion. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Gutsenko, K. F., Golovko, L. V. and Filimonov, B. A. (2002) Ugolovnyi protsesse zapadnykh gosudarstv. Moscow: Zertsalo.Google Scholar
Hendley, K. (2012) ‘The unsung heroes of the Russian judicial system: the Justice-of-the-Peace courts’, Journal of Eurasian Law, 5(3): 337–66.Google Scholar
Hodgson, J. (2012) ‘Guilty pleas and the changing role of the prosecutor in French criminal justice’, in Luna, E. and Wade, M. (eds.) The Prosecutor in Transnational Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 116–34.Google Scholar
Information Canada (1973) Statistics of Criminal and Other Offenses for the Period January 1, 1970 to December 31, 1970. Ottawa: Information Canada.Google Scholar
Jehle, J. -M. (2009) Criminal Justice in Germany: Facts and Figures. Berlin: Federal Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
Jehle, J. -M. and Wade, M. (eds.) (2006) Coping with Overloaded Criminal Justice Systems: The Rise of Prosecutorial Power across Europe. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. T. (2012) ‘Japan’s prosecution system’, in Tonry, M. (ed.) Prosecutors and Politics: A Comparative Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 3574.Google Scholar
Kari, S. (2010) ‘Just 3 per cent of criminal cases end in acquittal: data’, The National Post, 2 August.Google Scholar
Khodzhaeva, E. and Rabovski, I. (Shesterina) (2015) ‘Stretegii i taktiki advokatov v usloviiakh obvinitelnogo uklona v Rossii’, Sotsiologiia vlasti, 27(2): 135–67.Google Scholar
Kornia, A. (2015a) ‘Verkhovvnyi sud izbavliaetsia o melochevki: neznachitelnye khishcheniia stanut administrativym pravonarusheniem, a za melkie provinnosti smogut nakazyvat bez suda i sledstviia’, Vedomosti, 31 July.Google Scholar
Kornia, A. (2015b) ‘Za netiazhnkie prestupleniia budut nakazyvat bez sudimosti’, Vedomosti, 2 August.Google Scholar
Kovalev, N. (2010) Criminal Justice Reform in Russia, Ukraine, and the Former Republics of the Soviet Union: Trial by Jury and Mixed Courts. London: Edward Mellen Press.Google Scholar
Kozlova, N. (2014) ‘Obvinitelnyi uklon: zakonoproekt ob ob’ektivnoi istine stal odnim iz samykh obsuzhdaemukh iuristami dokumentov’, Rossiiskaia gazeta, 3 February, www.rg.ru/2014/02/03/istina.html.Google Scholar
Kudriavtsev, V. N. (ed.) (1975) Effektivnost pravosudiia i ustraneniie sudebnykh oshibok. Moscow: IGPAN.Google Scholar
Latukhiina, K. (2015) ‘Prisiazhnykh stanet bolshe: Vladimir Putin poruchil podgotovki predlozheniia po sudebnoi sistem’, Rossiiskaia gazeta, 22 January, www.rg.ru/2015/01/22/prisyajnie-site.html.Google Scholar
Lebedev, V. (2010) ‘Glava VS Lebedev: Rossiiskie sud’i opravdyvaiut kazhdogo chetvertogo’, Pravo.ru, 11 November, http://pravo.ru/news/view/41897.Google Scholar
Lebedev, V. (2011) ‘V tselom Rossiiskaia sudebnaia sistem effektivna’ (Interviu s Viacheslav Lebedev), 27 May, www.vsrf/print_page.php?id-7241&lang=ru.Google Scholar
Luna, E. and Wade, M. (2010) ‘Prosecutors as judges’, Washington and Lee Law Review, 67(4): 1413–532.Google Scholar
Luna, E. and Wade, M. (eds.) (2012a) The Prosecutor in Transnational Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luna, E. and Wade, M. (2012b) ‘Adversarial and inquisitorial systems: distinctive aspects and convergent trends’, in Luna, E. and Wade, M. (eds.) The Prosecutor in Transnational Perspective. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 177–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, G. (1998) ‘Our administrative system of criminal justice’, Fordham Law Review, 66: 2117–52.Google Scholar
McConville, M. and Baldwin, J. (1981) Courts, Prosecution and Conviction. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
McGlynn Ganney, E. (1976) Prosecutorial Discretion in England and Canada. Ottawa: Law Reform Commission of Canada.Google Scholar
Mikhailovskaia, I. (2010) ‘Problema kriterii otsenki sudebnoi deiatelnosti’, Sravnitelnoe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, 5: 116128.Google Scholar
Ministry of Justice (2012) Judicial and Court Statistics 2011. London: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
Morshchakova, T. (2014) ‘Zakon ob ‘ob’ektivnoi istine’ unichtozhit opraveatelnye prigovory’, www.pravo.ru, 16 March.Google Scholar
O’Malley, K. (2006) ‘Not guilty until the Supreme Court finds you guilty: a reflection on jury trials in Russia’, Demokratizatsiya, 14(1): 4258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odintsev, P. (2011) ‘Predely transparentnost’, RAPSI, 17 February.Google Scholar
ODPP (2007) ‘Duties and responsibilities of crown attorneys’, in Guide Book of Policies and Procedures for the Conduct of Criminal Prosecutions in Newfoundland and Labrador. St John’s: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, available at www.justice.gov.nl.ca/just/prosect/guidebook/006.PDFGoogle Scholar
Ozerova, M. (2014) ‘Sledstvennyi komitet stanet podnadzornym: Gosduma daet Genprokurature pravo proveriat SK’, Moskovskii komsomolets, 21 October, www.mk.ru/politics/2014/10/21/sledstvennyy-komitet-stanet-podnadzornym.html.Google Scholar
Paneiakh, E. (2015) ‘Evoliutsiia rossiiskoi sudebnoi sistemy v 2014 godu’, Kontrpunkt, 1.Google Scholar
Paneiakh, E. (2012) ‘Prakticheskaia logika priniatiia sudebnykh reshenii: diskretsiia pod’ davleniem i kompromissy za schet podsudimogo’, in Volkov, V. V. (ed.) Kak sud’i prinimaiut resheniia: empiricheskie issledovannia prava. Moscow: Statut, 107–29.Google Scholar
Paneiakh, E. and Titaev, K. (2011) ‘Ot militsii k politsii: reforma sistemy otsenki deiatelnosti organov vnutrennikh del’. St Petersburg: Institut problem pravoprimeneniia, March 2011, www.enforce.spb.ru/analiticheskie-zapiski/5047-2011-mart.Google Scholar
Paneiakh, E. L., Titaev, K. D., Volkov, V. V. and Primakov, D. Ia. (2010) ‘Obvinitelnyi uklon v ugolovnom protsesse: faktor prokurora’, Analiticheskaia zapiska Instituta prava i pravoprimeneniia, 8 March.Google Scholar
Paneyakh, E. (2014) ‘Faking performance together: systems of performance evaluation in Russian enforcement agencies and production of bias and privilege’, Post-Soviet Affairs, 30(2): 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paneyakh, E. (2016) ‘The practical logic of judicial decision making: discretion under pressure and compromises at the expense of the defendant’, Russian Politics and Law, 54(2–3): 138–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PBC (2003) Criminal Court Rates and Trends. Ottawa: Parole Board of Canada, http://pbc-clcc.gc.ca/rprts/pdf/pfop.Google Scholar
Petrukhin, I. (2009) ‘Opravdatel’nyi prigovor’, Gosudarstvo i pravo, 2(1): 3036.Google Scholar
Petrukhin, I. (2011) Opravdatel’nyi prigovor i pravo na reabilitatsiiu. Moscow: Prospekt.Google Scholar
Poluyan, P. (2009) ‘Obvinitelnyi uklon v sudakh RF’, http://poluyan.livejournal.com/1744/html.Google Scholar
Pozdniakov, M. (2012) ‘Smysl’ i dvukhsmyslennost’ obvinitel’nogo uklona’, in Volkov, V. V. (ed.) Kak sud’i prinimaiut resheniia: empiricheskie issledovannia prava. Moscow: Statut, 54106.Google Scholar
Pozdniakov, M. (2014a) ‘Sud i pravookhranitel’naia sistema: politika otmeny opravdatelnykh prigovorov’, Preprint. St Petersburg: Institut problem pravoprimeneniia, http://enforce.spb.ru/images/Issledovanya/2014/IRL_Preprint_2014_03_M.Pozdnyakov_Sud-i-pravoohranitelnaya-sistema.pdf.Google Scholar
Pozdniakov, M. (2014b) ‘Kriterii otsenki kachestva raboty sudei i distsiplinarnaia otvetstvennost’, www.enforce.spb.ru/images/Issledovanya/2014/2014.03_Mihail-Pozdnyakov_Voprosy-disciplinarnoy-otvetstvennosti.pdf.Google Scholar
Province of Ontario (2005) Role of the Crown: Preamble to Crown Policy Manual. Toronto: Province of Ontario, available at http://attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/crim/cpm/2005/CPMpreamble.pdf.Google Scholar
Ramseyer, J. M. and Rasmusen, E. (2001) ‘Why is the Japanese conviction rate so high?Journal of Legal Studies, 30(1): 5388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, M. (2009) ‘The attorney-general and the prosecution function in the twenty-first century’, Queen’s Law Journal, 43(2): 813–62.Google Scholar
Sheinin, G. and Albitskii, P. (1933) ‘K voprosu o zadachakh sledstvennogo apparata na sovremennom etape’, in Voprosy sovetskoi kriminalistiki. Leningrad: 39.Google Scholar
Sheinin, G. and Albitskii, P. (1951) Rabota luchshikh sledovatelei. Materialy uchebno-metodicheskoi konferentsii luchshikh sledstvennykh rabotnikov organov Prokuratury (sbornik 1). Moscow: Prokuratura SSSR.Google Scholar
Sheinin, G. and Albitskii, P. (1940) ‘Respublikanskoe soveshchanie sledstvennykh otdelov’, Sotsialisticheskaia zakonnost, 7(1): 2244Google Scholar
State Archive of the Russian Federation (1957) ‘Tablitsy sravnitel’nykh statisticheskikh dannykh o dvizhenii i rezul’tatakh rassmotreniiu sudami ugolovnykh del po SSSR i soiuznym respublikam za 1937–1956 gg’, GARF, f.9492, op.6S, d.15, ll.6–21, state archive.Google Scholar
State Archive of the Russian Federation (1948) ‘Osnovnye pokazateli raboty Prokuratury goroda Moskvy za 1945–1947 gg’, GARF, f.8131, op.24, d.34, 22–25, state archive.Google Scholar
Shkliaruk, M. (2013) ‘Nevernyi diagnoz’, Polit.ru, 4 February, http://polit.ru.Google Scholar
Shkliaruk, M. (2015) ‘Rossiiskii ugolovnyi protsess kak sistema fil’trov: dosudebnye traektorii i otbor ugolovnykh del na primere MVD’, in Volkov, V. V. (ed.) Obvinenie i opravdanie v post-Sovetskoi ugolovnoi iustitsii. Moscow: Statut, 154–82.Google Scholar
Shkliaruk, M. (2014) ‘Traektoriia ugolovnogo dela v ofitsial’noi statistike na primere oboshchennykh dannykh pravookhranitel’nykh organov’, Institut problem Pravoprimeneniia. St Petersburg.Google Scholar
Shkliaruk, M. and Paneiakh, E. (2013) ‘Extra jus: sistema ne filtruet. Skol’ko ugolovnykh del otseivaetsia na rannykh stadiiakh’, Vedomosti, 25 April.Google Scholar
Shtykina, A. (2014) ‘Putin vernet Genprokurture obshchei nadzor nad Sledstvennym komitetom’, RBK, 26 September, http://top.rbc.ru/politics/26/09/2014/951553.shtml.Google Scholar
Sobolev, V. and Potapenko, S. (1989) ‘“Boiazn” vyneseniia opravdatel’nykh prigovorov: ee korni’, Sovetskaia iustitsiia, 10, 8.Google Scholar
Solomon, P. H. Jr (2013b) ‘The accountability of judges in post-communist states: from bureaucratic to professional accountability’, in Seibert-Fohr, A. (ed.) Judicial Independence in Transition. Heidelberg: Springer, 909–36.Google Scholar
Solomon, P. H. Jr (1987) ‘The case of the vanishing acquittal: informal norms and the practice of Soviet criminal justice’, Soviet Studies, 39(4): 531–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, P. H. Jr (2013a) ‘Courts, law, and policing under Medvedev: many reforms, modest change, new voices’, in Black, J. L. and Johns, M. (eds.) Russia After 2012: From Putin to Medvedev to Putin – Continuity, Change or Revolution. London: Routledge, 1941.Google Scholar
Solomon, P. H. Jr (2005) ‘The Criminal Procedure Code of 2001: will it make Russian justice more fair?’ in Pridemore, W. (ed.) Ruling Russia: Law, Crime, and Justice in a Changing Society. Lanham: Rowan and Littlefield, 77100.Google Scholar
Solomon, P. H. Jr (2015b) ‘Dosudebnoe prekrashchenie del i prokurorskoe usmotrenie v razlichnykh pravovykh sistemakh’, in Volkov, V. (ed.) Obvinenie i opravdanie v postsovetskoi ugolovnoi iustitsiia. Moscow: Norma, 131–53.Google Scholar
Solomon, P. H. Jr (1990) ‘Gorbachev’s legal revolution’, Canadian Business Law Journal, 17(2): 184–94.Google Scholar
Solomon, P. H. Jr (2012) ‘Plea bargaining Russian style’, Demokratizatsiya, 20(3): 282299.Google Scholar
Solomon, P. H. Jr (2015c) ‘Post-Soviet criminal justice: the persistence of distorted neo-inquisitorialism’, Theoretical Criminology, 19(2): 159–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, P. H. Jr (1996) Soviet Criminal Justice under Stalin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Solomon, P. H. Jr (2015a) ‘Understanding Russia’s low rate of acquittals: pretrial screening and the problem of accusatorial bias’, Review of Central and East European Law, 40(1): 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, P. H. Jr and Foglesong, T. S. (2000) Courts and Transition: The Challenge of Judicial Reform. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Stith, K. and Cabranes, J. (1998) Fear of Judging: Sentencing Guidelines in Federal Courts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Stuntz, W. J. (2011) The Collapse of American Criminal Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuntz, W. J. (2001) ‘The pathological politics of criminal law’, University of Michigan Law Review, 100: 505600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svod statisticheskikh svedeniia po delam ugolovnym proizvodivshimsia v 1904 godu v sudebnykh uchrezdeniiakh (1907) [Corpus of statistical information on criminal cases in 1904 in judicial institutions] St Petersburg: Publication of the Ministry of Justice, 15.Google Scholar
Tak, P. (2012) ‘The Dutch prosecutor: a prosecuting and sentencing officer’, in Luna, E. and Wade, M. (eds.) The Prosecutor in Transnational Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 35155.Google Scholar
Thaman, S. (ed.) (2010) World Plea Bargaining: Consensual Procedures and the Avoidance of the Full Criminal Trial. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (2008/2009) Adult Criminal Court Statistics, 2008/2009, www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/.Google Scholar
Titaev, K. D. and Pozdniakov, M. P. (2012) ‘Poriadok osobyi – prigovor obychnyi: praktika primeneniia osobogo poriadka sudebnogo razbiratelstva (Glava 40 UPK RF) v rossiiskikh sudakh’, Analiticheskaia zapiska Instituta prava i pravoprimeneniia, March, www.enforce.spb.ru/analiticheskie-zapiski/5683-2012-mart.Google Scholar
Tonry, M. (2012) ‘Prosecutors and politics in comparative perspective’, in Tonry, M. (ed.) Prosecutors and Politics: A Comparative Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 134.Google Scholar
Trochev, A. (2014) ‘How judges arrest and acquit: Soviet legacies in post-communist criminal justice’, in Beissinger, M. R. and Kotkin, S. (eds.) Historical Legacies of Communism in Russia and Eastern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 152–78.Google Scholar
Vaksberg, A. (1986) ‘Pravde v glaza’, Literaturnaia gazeta, 17 December, 13.Google Scholar
Van de Bunt, H. and van Gelder, J. -L. (2012) ‘The Dutch prosecution service’, in Tonry, M. (ed.) Prosecutors and Politics: A Comparative Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 117–40.Google Scholar
Volkov, V. V., Dmitreva, A. and Skugarevskii, D. (2014) Ugolovnaia iustitsiia v Rossii v 2009: kompleksnyi analiz sudebnoi statistiki. Moscow: Statut, 44–9, www.enforce.spb.ru/images/Issledovanya/2014/IRL_2014.06_Ugolovnaya-Justicia-Rossii-v-2009-g.pdf.Google Scholar
Vorenberg, J. (1981) ‘Decent restraint of prosecutorial power’, Harvard Law Review, 94(2): 1521–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wade, M. (2008) ‘The januses of justice: how prosecutors define the kind of justice done across Europe’, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 16(4): 433–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wade, M. (2006) ‘The power to decide: prosecutorial control, diversion, and punishment in European criminal justice systems today’, in Jehle, J. -M. and Wade, M. (eds.) Coping with Overloaded Criminal Justice Systems: The Rise of Prosecutorial Power Across Europe. Berlin: Springer, 27126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, R. F. and Miller, M. L. (2010) ‘The worldwide accountability deficit for prosecutors’, Washington and Lee Law Review, 67(4): 1587–620.Google Scholar
Zelitch, J. (1931) Soviet Administration of Criminal Law. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×