Treatment of sexual offenders in Russia:

Recent developments in legislation and implementation of practices

by Rustem Safin & Alexander Salagaev
Abstract
With the collapse of the USSR, the Russian Federation started to reform its legal system, gradually incorporating
contemporary standards concerning the treatment of offenders within its penitentiary system. This process is still
ongoing and so far there are only a few advances concerning sexual offenders. The treatment of sexual offenders
is not only an issue for the legal system however, as they also face extrajudicial sanctions inside Russian prisons.
A dualism of ideas and practices is also revealed in the particular case of penitentiary system reform, including
the introduction of rehabilitation and resocialization programs for offenders, including those who have committed sexual crimes. On the one hand, a need for the humanization of the penitentiary system is acknowledged but,
on the other hand, this process is resisted by certain obstacles. So will the reform of Russian penitentiary system
succeed? All of these issues will be discussed in this article.
Keywords: sexual offenders, treatment of sexual offenders, extrajudicial sanctions, rehabilitation, reforms to the
penitentiary system.

Titel auf Deutsch: Die Behandlung von Sexualstrafttern in Russland: Neuere

Entwicklungen in Gesetzgebung und Praxis
Zusammenfassung:
Nach dem Zusammenbruch der Sowjetunion begann die Russische Fderation ihr Rechtssystem zu reformieren.
Hierzu gehrte auch, die Behandlung von Strafttern in das Vollzugswesen zu integrieren. Vor allem die
Behandlung von Sexualstrafttern befindet sich dabei immer noch in den Kinderschuhen. Dabei ist die
Behandlung von Sexualstrafttern nicht nur eine Angelegenheit der Justiz, denn es gibt auch auergerichtliche
Sanktionen, mit denen verurteilte Sexualstraftter zu rechnen haben. Bei der Implementierung von
Resozialisierungsprogrammen besteht ein Antagonismus zwischen der Konzeptionierung und der Praxis, vor
allem fr die Sexualstraftterbehandlung. Einerseits wird die Notwendigkeit, das Strafvollzugssystem zu
humanisieren, eingerumt, andererseits stt die Umsetzung in der Praxis auf multiple Hindernisse. Die Frage,
mit der sich der vorliegende Aufsatz auch auseinandersetzt, ist, ob die Entwicklungen im russischen
Strafvollzugssystem wohl erfolgversprechend sein werden.
Schlsselwrter: Sexualstraftter, Behandlung
Resozialisierung, Strafvollzugsreformen

von

Sexualstrafttern,

auergerichtliche

Sanktionen,

1. Introduction
After decades of development in the course of mainstream Western legislations, Russia experienced more than seventy years of staying behind the iron curtain, which resulted in peculiar forms of both legislation and related legal practices (special troikas, criminalization of private economic activities, belief that socialism does not beget delinquency, etc.). Attitudes to
sexual offences varied greatly throughout the history of the USSR. In its early years, the Soviet regime propagated the utmost degree of sexual freedom (Golod 1986, 152-155; Naiman
1997), sexual crimes (so-called sexual hooliganism) were seen as mild offences: 3 years of
imprisonment for ordinary rape and 5 years for perverse rape according to the Penal Code
of 1922. Not surprisingly, sexual offences were very wide-spread in the mid-1920s (Panin
2003, 141-142; Brovkin 2005, 116-119). That lasted till the famous Chubarovs gang rape
case of 1926 when a 20-year-old girl was raped by a group of 40 men in Leningrad. The case
became the focus of public attention and the offenders were charged with political banditry
on the grounds that the victim was the student of a rabfak (workers faculty) school. As a
result, 5 offenders were sentenced to death and the others received 10-years imprisonment in
1

Solovki labour camp. This led to a series of similar trials in various cities of the USSR and
marked the beginning of the campaign against hooliganism in general and sexual offences in
particular (Pimenova, 2008; Naiman 1990). The number of sexual offences started to decrease
by the end of the 1920s and the beginning of the 1930s, though Soviet statistics cannot be
completely relied upon and do not include (or include only partly) sexual crimes committed
during World War II, in the Gulag prison camps (for instance, mass rapes of imprisoned
women in Kolyma by fellow prison inmates referred to as the Kolyma tram) and so forth.
More reliable data exists for the period between the 1960s and 1990s. Between 1962 and the
1990s there was quite a sharp increase in the number of offenders sentenced for rapes which
rose more than four times (from 2.3 to 7.2 per 100 000 population). During the 1980s and
1990s the number of offenders convicted of rape in the former Soviet Union stabilized at the
average annual level of 22.1 thousand people (or 7.7 offenders per 100 000 population in average relative terms). Most of the rapes (62% on average) were committed in the area of the
contemporary Russian Federation (Dyachenko 1995, 35-43). According to official criminal
statistics published by the Russian interior affairs ministry, between 2000 and 2005 the number of recorded rapes in Russia rose from 4.5 to 6.4 cases per 100 000 population and from
that time on decreased to 3.1 cases per 100 000 population in 2012. The number of sexual
offences in general may seem to be low, but one has to take into account the fact that rape and
other sexual offences are heavily underreported in Russia. Moreover, there is a clear tendency
on the part of police not to register those rapes that are not likely to result in the subsequent
criminal punishment of the offender. Therefore, they try not to register rapes committed
against prostitutes and other anti-social individuals, rapes that are not supported by sufficient evidence or the willingness of a victim to get the offender punished, etc. Criminal statistics experts suggest that the real number of rapes in Russia may be some 6 or 7 times higher
(Argunova 2005, 42-44).
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, a gradual process of legislative reform started
and it still continues. One of the aims of legislative reform is to partially incorporate the
norms of international law and efficient offender treatment practices into the Russian penitentiary system. In this article we will discuss existing special norms for the treatment of sexual
offenders in Russian penal legislation, extrajudicial sanctions for rapists in prisons as well as
the situation and available problems concerning the implementation of rehabilitation and
resocialization programs for sexual offenders in the Russian Federation.

2. Special norms related to the treatment of sexual offenders within Russian penal legislation
Along with standard norms which define sanctions for sexual offences, Russian penal legislation contains two special types of sanctions that may be applied for those who have committed sexual crimes. The first one is mandatory medical treatment (its literal translation from
Russian sounds like compulsory measures of a medical character). The second one is mandatory correctional training (literally compulsory measures of an educational nature) which
is applied solely to juvenile offenders and entails sending them to special educational establishments of a closed type (Correctional Establishments).
2.1 Mandatory medical treatment
Mandatory medical treatment includes the compulsory psychiatric or pharmaceutical treatment of offenders and is ordered by criminal court decision. Mandatory medical treatment
may be ordered in different circumstances, for example, if an offender is found to be irresponsible, or to have certain psychiatric disorders and so on. One reasons which may lead to mandatory medical treatment is a sexual offence against a minor under the age of 14 by a person
who has a sexual preference disorder (paedophilia). This is mentioned in part 1 art.97 Rus2

sian Penal Code. A federal law On the amendments to be made to the Penal Code and other
laws of Russian Federation with the aim to reinforce responsibility for sexual offences against
legal minors (29/02/2012 14-FZ) introduces the possibility of voluntary chemical castration for offenders who have committed sexual crimes against minors (paedophilia) (art.2,
amendment to art.18 Penal Execution Code), that is, in cases where the offender wishes to be
chemically castrated.
Mandatory medical treatment is applied on the basis of a forensic psychiatric examination of
the sexual offender who has been found guilty of paedophilia. Such measures are applied to
an offender due to their possibilities of causing substantial harm or being dangerous towards
oneself or other people (part 2 art.97 Penal Code). With respect to sexual crimes against minors under the age of 14, there is no condition that only criminally insane sexual offenders
may be subjected to mandatory medical treatment. On the contrary, according to part 2 art.99
Penal Code, mandatory medical treatment along with a prison sentence may also be applied to
paedophiles that are judged criminally sane.
Mandatory medical treatment may take place both during imprisonment and after. If an offender is sentenced to mandatory medical treatment after release from prison, the procedure is
to be controlled by special punishment execution commissions. A released offender is obliged
to have a psychiatric examination once every 6 months in order to establish whether further
medical treatment is necessary or not. In the latter case, a medical institution that is responsible for the treatment of the offender or a punishment execution commission sends a petition to
court in order to stop or change mandatory medical treatment procedures. A psychiatric examination may also be requested by the doctor responsible for mandatory medical treatment of
the offender or by an offenders relatives (part 2 art.102 Penal Code). In this case, changing or
stopping mandatory medical treatment can also only be ordered by court decision.
There is an additional legal statement related to paedophiles. Six months prior to their release
from prison, paedophiles must be examined by psychiatrists with the aim to establish the necessity of mandatory medical treatment after their release (including parole) (part 2.1 art.102
Penal Code).
Voluntary chemical castration may be performed at the request of an offender who has been
sentenced for a sexual offence against a minor under the age of 14. As stated in Russian legislation, chemical castration may be performed in penitentiary hospitals by psychiatrists. A voluntary decision to be chemically castrated is legally considered as a sign of good will to reform and hence can be a parole or punishment reduction factor.
According to penitentiary statistics from 2012, among the 9393 offenders serving sentences
for sexual crimes against minors (which corresponds to 1.4% of the prison population), 3243
offenders (34.5%) were under psychiatric observation and 1212 (12.9%) received psychotropic treatment. No cases of voluntary chemical castration have been statistically recorded as
yet.
Mandatory medical treatment with respect to sexual offences against minors was introduced
only in 2012. The sexual abuse of minors became a part of the political rhetoric of the Russian
president D. Medvedyev in 2011 and he initiated the preparation of a draft bill that would
reinforce responsibility for the sexual abuse of minors. Before that, in 2009, the draft bill,
introducing mandatory chemical castration for sexual crimes against minors, had passed the
first reading in the Russian State Duma (parliament) but was later on severely criticized. Another unsuccessful attempt to introduce mandatory chemical castration of paedophiles to the
Russian Penal Code took place in 2010, having been initiated by Alexander Bastyrkin, Head
of the Investigative Committee of Russian Federation.
One of the reasons behind the introduction of mandatory medical treatment of paedophiles
was the growth of moral panics related to the issue of sexual violence against children in
2010-2011. Moral panics developed just the way they were described in Cohens (2011) and
3

Goode & Ben-Yehudas (2009) books on the topic: a stereotyped and dramatized presentation
of the topic in mass-media, statistical data manipulated to show the rising number of sexual
crimes against minors, political rhetoric promising to stop the evil, etc. Unfortunately, despite legislation changes in 2012, the situation with sexual violence against children has not
substantially improved and the topic of paedophilia is no longer a part of the current agenda
of either the Russian mass-media or political sphere.
2.2 Mandatory correctional training
Mandatory correctional training is the common word for certain types of reaction to crimes
which are committed by adolescents. It includes warnings, parental/institutional supervision,
harm restoration, etc. Mandatory correctional training in the form of sending the youth offender to a Correctional Establishment is applied solely to minors who have committed certain grave crimes. Several types of sexual offences are included in the list, for example, rape
(excluding gang rape, aggravated rape and rape leading to STD-infection), so-called violent
acts of sexual character (violent sexual intercourse between males buggery, or females
tribadism) and compulsion to violent acts of a sexual character (e.g. by means of blackmail,
threats, etc.). For committing such crimes, minors may be sent to a Correctional Establishment till they reach the age of 18 (but for no longer than 3 years in total).
Mandatory correctional training as a whole is not legally considered as an alternative to penal
punishment (as is the case in some countries) and even in the Penal Code it is mentioned under the caption Other measures of penal and legal character. However, such a specific type
of punishment such as sending the juvenile offender to a Correctional Establishment is an
alternative to penal punishment and it is applied instead of sending the adolescent offenders to
prison. Juvenile offenders who have been sent to a Correctional Establishment do not get a
criminal record.
Mandatory correctional training may be applied by a court if a minor is found guilty of sexual
crime. By court decision, prison punishment for a sexual offence, committed by a minor, may
be substituted by placement in a Correctional Establishment.
Mandatory correctional training in a Correctional Establishment is generally applied to offenders who need special conditions of education and a special approach on the part of the
educational staff. The aim of mandatory correctional training is the behavioural correction of
youngsters who are expected to reform without the necessity of imprisonment, though mandatory correctional training resembles imprisonment in some ways (strict discipline, obligatory
labour-training or so-called labour-therapy, movement restrictions, etc.).
Mandatory correctional training has a long history. In the Russian Empire, a special type of
closed institution existed for minors a so-called correctional shelter, introduced by the
Punishment Code of 1886 (Kashuba 2002, 29). Later on, the imposition of measures of social security of medical and educational character, including placement in a special treatment and education institution, was introduced by art.25 of the USSR Penal Code of 1926.
Introduction of mandatory correctional training was mainly due to high rates of youth delinquency after the establishment of the USSR in 1922. During the 1920s and 1930s the problem
of unattended adolescents (besprizorniki) and hence youth crime was very severe (Rozhkov
1997) and hence such quasi-prisons seemed to be the solution. Systems of mandatory correctional training existed throughout the history of the USSR, though during certain periods (especially during 1935-1941) more emphasis was made on actual imprisonment of adolescent
offenders and sending them to Gulag labour camps (Kashuba 2002, 29-30). For instance, between 1937 and 1941, the number of convicted juveniles rose from 8.5 to 11.9 per 100 000
population (Popov 2000, 32). Keeping in mind court statistics for 1935, provided by P.H.
Solomon (1996, 206), it can be concluded that roughly half of convicted juveniles got custodi4

al sentences. Between 2001 and 2006, 1.5% to 2% of convicted young delinquents underwent
mandatory correctional treatment. More recent data is not available.
3. Extrajudicial sanctions against sexual offenders
In the paragraphs above we have briefly analysed special types of sanctions that are found
within Russian penal legislation. However, one cannot but mention extrajudicial sanctions
related to sexual offenders. Such sanctions are the direct consequence of informal rules and
power relations existing in Russian prisons with unofficial support on the part of prison staff.
Until 1990-2000 it was quite common that an imprisoned rapist would himself get raped,
physically or symbolically, by other inmates and become a member of the lowest rank in the
prison hierarchy petukhi (literally roosters) or opushennye (literally lowered down).
Subsequently, they would be constantly humiliated by the other inmates (they had to avoid
contact with normal inmates, they slept and ate separately from others and they were raped
on a regular basis) (Oleinik 2001, 102-103). Nowadays the custom of raping a rapist in prison
is very rare and sexual offenders generally feel safe (especially in cases where they claim to
be innocent) (Holodyakov 2006, 24-25), though the petukhi stratum still exists. The majority
of the petukhi are homosexuals, incarcerated for various offences; they constitute some 810% of the prison population (Kon 1997, 364). Despite these improvements, there has still
been cases of paedophiles and serial rapists being lynched by inmates in recent years. For
instance, in February 2012, Roman Yesaulkov, a paedophile serving his sentence in Yekaterinburg prison, was beaten and raped by twelve of his fellow inmates. Afterwards, he was
severely beaten once more, and as a result died two days later. In December 2012, serial rapist
Andrei Fadeyev was taken to hospital with craniocerebral injuries, crushed ribs and genitalia
burns, having been beaten and tortured by other prisoners. Although such cases are not frequent, they clearly show that the prison custom of punishing rapists still exists though to a
lesser extent. It should be noted that generally only such notorious cases result in a harsh reaction from authorities and prison rapes themselves receive almost no attention. Moreover, there
is a feeling within the general public that rapists and paedophiles deserve such treatment (a
peculiar way of restorative justice, so to speak).
In this respect, the custom of raping a rapist is quite paradoxical because in prison subculture
a woman is considered and spoken of as a lower creature, a slut, a sexual object, someone
who must obey to the power of men (Oleinik 2001, 122-123). Therefore this very custom is
not actually a kind of general public dream of restorative justice, but more likely a pretext to
obtain sexual slaves in prison. Thus, petukhi not only make it possible to ease out tensions,
they are also those outcasts who face the major impact of prisoners negative emotions: [It is]
aspiration for humiliating the other to raise oneself (Holodyakov 2006, 24).

4. Current state and problems related to the implementation of rehabilitation and resocialization programs for sexual offenders
The introduction of rehabilitation and resocialization programs for sexual offenders has to be
analysed in the broader context of developing and introducing such programs within the Russian penitentiary system in general. In 2010, the Russian government prepared the Conception
of Penitentiary System Reform, which is to be finished by 2020. Among other measures, the
Conception envisages the necessity of legally defining social and psychological work with
offenders as a factor of behavioural correction. According to the Conception, from 2016-2020
programs aimed at resocializing offenders and helping them to adapt to post-prison life are to
be launched.
Currently there are some 30-40 organizations (NGOs and religious organizations) which try to
help released offenders resocialize and adapt. They generally provide ex-convicts with tempo5

rary shelter (so-called social ho(s)tels), medical treatment, psychological and legal support,
assist with necessary documents, help to find a job, etc. Also there are some state-funded municipal rehabilitation centres that help ex-convicts (as well as other people in crisis, like
homeless people, etc.) in the manner described above.
Conditions for taking part in rehabilitation programs vary. Municipal rehabilitation centres are
normally free (including residence and food) but are available only for those ex-convicts who
used to reside on the municipalitys territory. NGO-run rehabilitation centres sometimes
charge for a stay in social ho(s)tels and do not provide ex-convicts with food.
There are some rehabilitation centres that work with those offenders that have not been released yet (for example, Arkhangelsk rehabilitation centre for adolescents, designed for 16
people, provides offenders with a 6-month rehabilitation program). Rehabilitation and resocialization of inmates is also a duty of penitentiary psychologists that work in Russian prisons, though taking part in resocialization courses in prison is voluntary (such courses are
deemed more suitable for the offenders who have been sentenced to more than 8 years in
prison, because these offenders have more fear of being incapable of adapting to life outside
the jail). In 2011, the Federal Punishment Execution Service launched a pilot project of socalled educational centres for adolescents. The educational centres project places special
emphasis on redesigning interior prison spaces by introducing more comfortable 4-person
rooms with toilets for offenders instead of keeping them in overcrowded cells. Another peculiarity is that educational centres are supposed to be oriented towards social and psychological
methods of treating the convicts. The overall aim of this pilot project is to efficiently resocialize offenders before they are released. Within the framework of the Conception of Penitentiary System Reform, it is aimed to launch 35 educational centres by 2016.
The current state of affairs concerning the rehabilitation and resocialization of offenders is
quite complicated. On the one hand, efforts are being made to reform the Russian penitentiary
system to fully comply with international prison-related standards and norms and there are
long-going discussions that aim to achieve this goal. On the other hand, there is an evident
problem when it comes to the practical implementation of steps to build a more humanistic
prison system. First of all, the Russian penitentiary system is still largely what it used to be
back in the Soviet times (a repressive state apparatus). The law-enforcement system is based
on a punishing function and hence it is not surprising that, for instance, not guilty verdicts
account for less than 1% of Russian court decisions. Despite quite dramatic changes in political, economic and social life during the past two decades, the penitentiary system has changed
just a little and punishment is still a priority while there is almost no care for rehabilitation.
Secondly, there are problems related to the work of prison psychologists who are supposed to
carry the main burden of the rehabilitation and resocialization of inmates. They are overloaded with work (there is often one prison psychologist per 500-600 inmates, which is 1.5-2
times higher than the maximum allowed by Russian penitentiary work standards) and heavily
underpaid (they get just 180-200 euros per month, compared to the average salary of 650 euros in Russia). Due to ongoing process of workforce reduction in the Russian penitentiary
system, female psychologists find it difficult to have personal access to inmates as, during
their visits and work with offenders, they must be guarded by wards whose numbers have
been significantly reduced since 2010. Hence, in such cases they just have to imitate the work
with inmates filling in necessary report-journals in their offices without any personal contact
with them.
Another problem is that the efficiency of Russian law-enforcement bodies in general is not
measured by the results but by the numbers (i.e. quantitative indicators). It is a so-called
stick system (palochnaya sistema), which has its roots back in the Soviet era when different activities used to be planned. Therefore, unofficially, there used to be plans even in the
sphere of law-enforcement stating how many people have to be detained for certain offences.
6

In such a system, police efficiency is evaluated not by prevented crimes, but by number of
detained criminals, solved criminal cases and so on. In the case of prison psychologists, this
system means that their assessment reports should display growing numbers of offenders that
have taken part in individual and group treatment activities, attended the delivered lectures,
etc., whereas the actual result of these activities is of no importance. Quite naturally, those
prison psychologists who know the rules of the game too well mainly imitate their work by
preparing false reports and playing a few statistical tricks (e.g. recording the same inmate
twice under the captions individual work and group work).
Moreover, the problem of rehabilitation and resocialization programs seems for Russian authorities less significant than those which are related to basic needs of the prison population.
There are still problems of human rights abuses, overcrowded cells in detention centres, poor
food, healthcare and sanitation, etc.; finding solutions to these problems seems to be more
important than dealing with problems related to rehabilitation and resocialization issues.
Other reasons peculiar to treatment programs for sex offenders should also be mentioned. The
first one is that chemical castration for paedophiles, if made mandatory, would be very costly
for the Russian budget. Not the least important reason is that the efficiency of chemical castration depends on the regular use of prescribed drugs and currently it seems difficult to have
sufficient control over released sexual offenders. Many people also object to the idea of chemical castration itself and suggest that paedophiles should be castrated physically.
Yet another reason is that there is growing demand for capital punishment with respect to
paedophiles. As opinion polls suggest, some 70% of the Russian population are in favour of
capital punishment for crimes against children, and hence seemingly mild treatment of sexual offenders is not very popular among the general public.

5. Conclusion
It is quite difficult to predict whether the declared reform of the Russian penitentiary system
will succeed or not. It is certainly not an issue of mere funding. What is more important is to
break the long-lasting punishing mentality of the state in general and its attitude towards its
citizens. As long as ordinary citizens do not feel safe from various forms of abuse by state
authorities, it is impossible to expect that there will be respect for law and order. A penitentiary system is a reflection of society and there is a direct relationship between a states attitude to its citizens in general and its attitude to imprisoned offenders. Unfortunately, the current situation concerning human rights and basic freedoms in Russia is such that it does not
allow one to be optimistic about the success of penitentiary system reforms.
References
Argunova, Yu.N. (2005). Problemy latentnosti iznasilovaniy. Nezavisimiy psihiatricheskiy jurnal 1, 42-48.
Brovkin, V. (2005). Russia After Lenin. Politics, Culture and Society, 19211929. New York.
Cohen, S. (2011). Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. New York.
Dyachenko, A.P. (1995). Ugolovno-pravovaya ohrana grajdan v sfere seksualnyh otnosheniy. Moscow.
Golod, S.I. (1986). Izuchenie polovoi morali v 20-e gody. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya 2, 152-155.
Goode, E. & Ben-Yehuda, N. (2009). Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance. Oxford.
Holodyakov, I. (2006). Vot ya k vam zaehal snova, zdravstvuy Dunya Kulakova. Nevolya 9, 15-26.
Kashuba, Yu.A. (2002). Ugolovno-ispolnitelnaya politika v otnoshenii nesovershennoletnih (PhD thesis abstract). Ryazan.
Kon I.S. (1997). Klubnichka na berezke. Seksualnaya kultura v Rossii. Moscow.
Naiman, E. (1990). The Case of Chubarov Alley: Collective Rape, Utopian Desire and Mentality of NEP. Russian History 1, 1-30.
Naiman, E. (1997). Sex in Public: The Incarnation of Early Soviet Ideology. Princeton.
Oleinik, A.N. (2001). Tyuremnaya subkultura v Rossii: ot povsednevnoi jizni do gosudarstvennoi vlasti. Moscow.

Panin, S. (2003). Hozyain ulits gorodskih. Huliganstvo v Sovetskoi Rossii v 1920-e gody. Vestnik Evrazii 4,
135-154.
Pimenova, V. (Ed.) (2008). Ugolovniy rozysk. Petrograd Leningrad Peterburg. St.Petersburg.
Popov, V.I. (2000). Pravovoe i organitsionnoe obespechenie deyatelnosti organov vnutrennih del po profilaktike
pravonarushenii nesovershennoletnih (PhD thesis abstract). Yekaterinburg.
Rozhkov, A. (1997). Besprizorniki. Rodina 9, 70-76.
Solomon, P.H. (1996). Soviet Criminal Justice Under Stalin. Cambridge.
(The Authors addresses: Dr Rustem Safin, Center for Analytic Studies and Development, Kazan, Russia, safrus@mail.ru; Prof Dr Alexander Salagaev, National Research Technological University, Kazan, Russia, salagaev@mail.ru)