Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Anton Oleinik"''*
Abstract
Different degrees of criminalizadon of illegal drug use influence the overall composition of prison
populations across countries. Individuals convicted of illegal drug-related crimes represent a significant
part of the prison population in Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine. These convicts are not a part of the
traditional criminal milieu, but a product ofthe perception of certain acts as crimes in particular contexts
(e.g., an increasing social distance, the state's control over potentially dangerous groups, etc.). The
experience of incarceration might cause important changes in their life after release. The idea that prison
contributes to the interiorization of criminal norms rather than preventing deviant behavior in the future
seems especially fruitful in regard to illegal drug users. Elements of prison subculture are described on the
basis of an empirical researcb conducted in 1996-2003 in Russian prisons (^=769 (49 of these were
convicted in relation to illegal drugs) in 2000-2001; and N= 214 (24) in 2003). The social organization of
everyday life of inmates convicted of drug-related offences in Russia, Kazakhstan {N = 3Q6 (76) in 2001)
and Ukraine (W= 208 (26) in 2003) is compared with that of other convicts to test the hypothesis about the
lack of significant differences between the two groups.
Keywords
Illegal drugs; criminalizadon; prison social climate; prison subculture; comparative approach; Russia;
Kazakhstan; Ukraine
" M. Cusson, Criminologie actuelle {Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1998), p. 50. This assump-
tion does not apply to crimes committed for pecuniary gain to sustain a drug habit
^* The doctrine of natural law argues that definitions of crime and delinquency are entailed by the
nature of the world and the nature of human beings. From the perspective of natural law, common
sense and everyday practices tum out to be the best guiding principles for the justice system (A.-J.
Amaud, ed., Dictionnaire encyclopdique de thorie et de sociologie du droit (Paris: L.G.D.J., 1999), p.199).
^' N. Christie, Crime Control as Industry: Towards GULAGs, Western Style (London: Routledge, 2000).
"** M. Platek, 'Prison Subculture in Poland', 18 International Joumal of Sociology of Law (1990),
459-472; see also V. Anisimkov, Rosstya v zerkaie ugolovnyh traditsii tyurmy (Russia in the mirror of
prison criminal traditions) (St-Petersburg: Yuridicheskii tsentr Press, 2003), p. 12.
^' D. Cheatwood 'Prison movies: Films about adult, male, civilian prisons: 1929-1995', in F. Bailey,
D. Hale (eds). Popular culture, crime, andjustice (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1998), pp. 209-231.
A. Oleinik / Europeanjoumai of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminaljustice 27 (2075) 785-206 187
8' A. Oleinik, Organized Crime, Prison and Post-Soviet Societies (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003), pp. 45-48.
" V. Anisimkov,/oc.df.,p. 176.
*' See, for instance, an account of the situation in post-socialist Poland: M. Platek, loc. cit.
^' G.M.Sykes, The Society of Captives: A Study of aMaximum Security Prison {?nnceton,ti]:Pr'mceton
University Press, 1958); A. Liebling, Prison and their Moral Performance: A Study of Values, Quality,
andPrison Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
i88 A. Oieinik / European Joumal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 21 {20t3) 185-206
2. Sources of Information
This paper is based on primary and secondary sources of information. The list of
secondary sources includes official statistics on the number of registered crimes,
prison population rates (PPR), the number of persons convicted of drug-related
crimes. I also refer to legal documents (Penal Codes and anti-drug laws).
A series of surveys conducted in penitentiaries of the Russian Federation (two
surveys), Kazakhstan and Ukraine in thefirsthalf of the 2000s serve as a source of
primary data. In all cases cluster sampling techniques were used. The penitentiary
administration of a particular country gave permission to visit prisons located in a
particular region or a number of regions. No randomization at this stage was pos-
sible for administrative and financial reasons (the geographical scope of Russia,
for instance, makes extremely difficult geographical cluster sampling even in the
case of public opinion polls: as of today, this country has 83 regions). However,
the choice of a unit(s), otryad, to be surveyed within the particular prison was
randomized. The otryad is commonly composed of individuals sentenced for
various crimes (i.e., the variable 'article of Penal Code under which one was con-
victed' does not necessarily explain his or her placement in a particular unit).
As for the sentence conditions, usloviya (Article 87 of the Criminal and Correctional
Code (Ugolovno-hpolniteliiyi Kodeks) of the Russian Federation, for instance,
defines three types of conditions: regular, strict and facilitated), they do vary
across the detachments. The detachment was randomly chosen among those in
regular sentence conditions (the absolute majority). When visiting individuals
placed in strict conditions was allowed, efforts were made to interview a few of
them too.
All members of this unit available at the time of my visit were requested to take
part in the survey. The participation had a voluntary character, yet the decision to
administer the survey in groups (questionnaires werefilledout individually but at
a session where everyone was present) contributed to extremely low levels of
refusals, varying from zero to 15%. As a rule, a minimum of 30-35 inmates per peni-
tentiaryfilledout the questionnaires. All completed questionnaires were simulta-
neously submitted to the researcher. This, together with the fact that no
information revealing the identity of the participant was requested, ensured the
protection of anonymity. No staff member was present inside the room where the
A. Oleinik / Europeanjoumal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminaljustice 2; {2013) 185-206 189
survey took place. In-depth interviews, also conducted by the author, comple-
mented the data collected through the surveys.
The collection of all primary data by the same person helps control the impact
of the researcher's personality, although this might decrease reliability of the pre-
sented findings. The researcher's personality has an especially important impact
in the context of total institutions where speculations that one is working for the
administration can destroy trust necessary for obtaining valid results. The author
was introduced to inmates as an independent university researcher and, in fact, a
reputation of reliability has been built in the process of the survey as the informa-
tion freely circulates in the post-Soviet prison world by word of mouth and other
informal yet sometimes highly sophisticated and efficient channels (according to
an informant, a message originating in Moscow can easily reach the region of
Arkhangelsk located 1,500 km North of the capital city in just one or two days'").
The survey in Russia was organized in two waves, in 2000-2001 and in 2003." In
2000-200129 penitentiaries {N= 769) all regimes, minimum, medium and max-
imum security, combined located in five regions (Ivanovo, Moscow, Murmansk,
Perm and Sverdlovsk) were visited. In 2003, the survey was conducted a second
time in six penitentiaries in the Moscow region {N= 214). The sample in Kazakhstan
is composed of 12 penitentiaries located in two regions (Kazakhstan includes in
total 14 regions), Oskemen (Ust-Kamenogorsk) and Akmola (Af=396). Finally, the
Ukrainian sample included five prisons located in the region of Kharkiv. A caveat
concerning the limited representativeness of the sample in this country has to be
put forward. First, the data collected in one region can hardly be generalized to
the country as a whole (Ukraine has 24 regions). Second, I did not manage to ran-
domize the choice of respondents within a particular penitentiary as a sample
of inmates who took part in a cultural event (a theatre show) filled out
questionnaires.'^
The data used in the reported study have an important limitation which the
reader has to bear in mind when considering its outcomes. The available data do
not differentiate between drug-users and drug-traffickers: both of these categories
are included in the category 'persons convicted for illegal drug-related offenses'.
On the one hand, the existing literature suggests that in the West drug-users are
often involved in drug dealing. This involvement regular or occasional
allows them to generate personal income and to cover the cost of their own drug
use. A study conducted in Canada reports that every fifth active drug user engaged
in drug dealing during the six months prior to their interview.'^ An American
study produced similarfigures:twenty-nine percent of participants reported deal-
ing an illegal drug that they consume in the past two months.'* The empirical
evidence in this regard in the post-Soviet countries is scarcer, but it also suggests
that drug dealers turn often out to be current or past drug users. Namely, drug
users can commonly be found at the lowest and most exposed to law enforcement
levels ofthe distribution system.'^
On the other hand, the law both in the West and the post-Soviet countries treats
drug users differently from drug dealers. Those who fall in the latter category are
expected to receive heaviersanctions. In reality, however, the situation is clear-cut
neither in the West nor in the post-Soviet countries. For instance, an analysis of
trends in drug user and drug dealer arrest rates in Australia produces a rather
unexpected result: provider-type offences lead to fewer arrests (20-30% of all
drug-related arrests) than consumer-type offenses (70-80%).'^ A case study ofthe
relevant law enforcement practices in a Russian region suggests an opposite pic-
ture: the number of drug dealers receiving prison sentences is almost twice as
high as the number of prosecuted drug users.'^ Nevertheless, it remains unclear
whether thesefindingscould be generalized to other Russian regions.
In these circumstances, I considered the fact that most respondents failed to
clearly indicate the particular drug-related offense for which they had been sen-
tenced'* as a factor that does not undermine the overall validity ofthe findings
reported in this paper. The principal objective, it should be recalled, consists in
demonstrating the re-socializing effects of prison incarceration as a result of
which people, who committed victimless crimes, interiorize criminal norms and
values. The existing contradictions in the law and in law enforcement practices
'3* T. Kerr, W. Small, C. Johnston, K. Li, J.S.G. Montaner and E. Wood, 'Characteristics of Injection
Drug Users Who Participate in Drug Dealing: Implications for Drug Policy*, ^oJournal ofPsychoactive
Drugs (2008), 147-152, at p. 150.
"** S.J. Semple, S.A. Strathdee, T. Volkmann, J. Zians and T.L. Patterson, ""High on My Own Supply":
Correlates of Drug Dealing among Heterosexually Identified Methamphetamine Users', 20 The
Americanjoumal on Addictions (2011), 516-524, at p. 518.
'5' L. Paoli, 'Drug trafcking in Russia: A form of organized crime?', yijoumal of Drug Issues (2001),
1005-1034, at pp.1016-1019; R.E. Booth , J. Kennedy, T. Brewster and 0. Semerlk, 'Drug Injectors and
Dealers in Odessa, Ukraine', ^^Joumal of Psychoactive Drugs (2003), 419-426, at p. 422.
'* D.A. Bright and A. Ritter, 'Australian Trends in Drug User and Drug Dealer Arrest Rates: 1993 to
2006-07', 18 Psychiatry, Psychoiogy and Law {2011), 190-201.
'^' V.l. Kuznetsov, 'Primenenie sudami Irkutskoi oblasti "antinarkoticheskikh" statei Ugolovnogo
Kodeksa RF' (The application of'anti-drug* articles ofthe Penal Code ofthe RF by the courts in the
region of Irkutsk), 2 Sibirskiiyuridicheskii vestnik (2006), p. 73.
8> One reason for this failure refers to the grouping of provider-related and consumer-related
offenses in a single article (for example, in Russia Article 218 of the Penal Code refere to drug-users,
whereas Article 228.1 refers to drug dealere).
A. Oleinik / European Joumal of Crime, Criminal Law and CriminalJustice 21 (2013) 185-206 191
make a finer distinction desirable (especially in further research), but not abso-
lutely necessary.'^
Type of offence Penal Code of the Penal Code of the Penal Code of
Russian Federation Republic of Ukraine
Kazakhstan
Unlawful purchase. Substantial quantity Substantial quan- Restriction of
storage, transporta- (see Table 3): fine tity:fineup to freedom up to 3
tion, production and up to the equivalent 55700 OR years OR imprison-
processing of drugs of1150 OR compulsory work up ment up to
or narcotic sub- compulsory work up to 2 years OR 3 years
stances (with no to 2 years OR imprisonment up to Substantial quan-
intention to sell) imprisonment up to 3 years tity: imprisonment
3 years Very large quantity: from 2 up to 5 years
Very large quantity: imprisonment from Very large quantity:
imprisonment from 3 up to 7 years imprisonment from
3 up to 10 years OR (Article 259!, 2592) 5 up to 8 years
fine up to 14350 (Article 309)
(Article 228)
(Continued)
'3' Indeed, the eventual decriminalization of drug use also undermines the character of drug traf-
ficking as a crime. Being decriminalized, drugs are a regular commodity like many others.
^' This description provides a snapshot of the situation in the first half of the 2caos when the sur-
veys were conducted.
2" World Bank, World Development Indicators, available online at: http://data.worldbank.org/data
-catalog/world-development-indicators.
192 A. Oleinik / Europeanjoumai of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminaljustice 21 {2013) 185-206
Table 1. {Con't).
Type of offence Penal Code of the Penal Code of the Penal Code of
Russian Federation Republic of Ukraine
Kazakhstan
Unlawful production Imprisonment from Substantial quan- Imprisonment from
and sale of drugs or 4 up to 8 years tity: imprisonment 3 up to 8 years
narcotic substances Substantial quan- from 7 up to Substantial quan-
tity: imprisonment 12 years tity: imprisonment
from 5 up to Very large quantity: from 5 up to
12 years WITH a imprisonment from 10 years WITH
fine up to 14350 10 up to 15 years seizure
Very large quantity: (Article 259.3, Very large quantity:
imprisonment from 259-4) imprisonment from
8 up to 20 years 8 up to 12 years
WITH afineup to WITH seizure
28 700 (Article (Article 307)
228.1)
Transgression of Fine up to 8615 Fine up to 2800 Fine up to 150 OR
norms regulating the OR imprisonment OR imprisonment restriction of
turnover of drugs or up to 3 years up to I year freedom up to 4
narcotic substances (Article 228.2) (Article 265) years OR imprison-
ment up to 3 years
(Article 320)
Theft of drugs or Imprisonment from Imprisonment from Imprisonment from
narcotic substances 3 up to 7 years 3 up to 7 years 3 up to 6 years
(Article 229) (Article 260) (Article 308)
Involving a new Restriction of Restriction of Restriction of
person in drug freedom up to freedom up to freedom up to
consumption 3 years OR impris- 3 years OR impris- 5 years OR impris-
onment up to 5 onment up to onment from 2
years (Article 230) 4 years (Article 261) up to 5 years
(Article 315)
Unlawful cultivation Fine up to 8615 Fine up to 4000 Fine up to 150 OR
of plants containing OR imprisonment OR imprisonment restriction of
drugs up to 2 years up to 2 years freedom up to
Substantial quan- Substantial quan- 3 years
tity: imprisonment tity: imprisonment Substantial quan-
from 3 up to 8 years from 3 up to 8 years tity: imprisonment
(Article 231) (Article 262) from 3 up to
7 years (Article 310)
Organization of Imprisonment up to Imprisonment up to Imprisonment from
drug dens 4 years (Article 232) 4 years (Article 264) 3 up to 5 years
(Article 317)
A. Oieinik / EuropeanJoumal of Crime, Criminal Law and CriminalJustice 21 (2013) 185-206 193
Table 1. {Con't).
Type of offence Penal Code of the Penal Code of the Penal Code of
Russian Federation Republic of Ukraine
Kazakhstan
Falsification of Fine up to 2300 Fine up to 2800 Fine up to 150 OR
documents entitling OR compulsory OR compulsory restriction of
the bearer to get work up to 1 year work up to 2 years freedom up to 3
drugs or narcotic OR imprisonment years (Article 318,
substances up to 2 years 319)
Unlavi^l turnover of Imprisonment up to Fine up to 530 OR
tools used in 6 years (Article 263) restriction of
processing of drugs freedom up to 3
and narcotic years (Article 313)
substances
Smuggling in or out Imprisonment from Imprisonment up to Imprisonment from
drugs and narcotic 3 up to 7 years OR a 5 years (Article 3 up to 8 years
substances fine up to 28700 250.1) (Article 305)
(Article 188.2)
The similarity of legal frameworks with regard to drug-related offences does not
necessarily involve uniformity in tbe application of tbe law. Tbe ratio of drug-
related crimes to tbe total number of registered crimes varies over time and across
countries (Table 2). In the Russian Federation, the share of drug-related offences
rapidly increased during the 1990s, but it bas been declining since tbe start of tbe
new century. Tbe official data for Kazakbstan sbow a similar pattern, yet at tbe
peak of this trend, in 2000, illegal drug transactions constituted almost every fifth
crime.22 In Ukraine the upward trend has been less manifest, yet it continues to
tbe present. Tbe lack of agreement as to bow to enforce anti-drug laws aggravates
controversies related to tbe labeling of drug abuse and dependence a crime. So,
elements of arbitrariness seem inevitable botb at tbe stage of drafting tbe laws and
that of enforcing them.
Practices not uncommon in the post-Soviet context of counting on anti-
drug laws if the police cannot collect enough evidence about a suspect's involve-
ment in more serious crimes serves a practical illustration of the arbitrariness of law
enforcement. If the suspect, who is believed dangerous by tbe police, cannot be sent
to jail due to lack of evidence, an accusation of illegal drug possession sometimes
becomes a strategy of'last resort' for putting bim or ber bebind bars.^^ In contrast to
^^' The author thanks Gesa Walcher of Penal Reform International for providing some secondary
data on the Kazakhstan case.
^ ' Similar practices have also been used in the US, at least in the past, where Al Capone was eventu-
ally jailed for tax evasion, not for the organization of a criminal syndicate, see P. Buckley and
194 A. Oleinik / European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminaljustice 21 {2013) 185-206
Russian 1839.5 2755.7 2581.9 3001.7 2952.4 2968.3 2756.4 3554-7 3855
Federation
including 16.3 79.9 190.1 216.4 243.6 241.6 181.7 175.2 212
drug-related
crimes
% of drug- 0.1 2.9 7.4 7.2 8.25 8.1 6.6 4.9 5.5
related
crimes
Kazakhstan 173-9* 1839 142.1 139.4 150.8 152.2 118.5 109 3 105
Including 4.6 13.2 18.7 21.1 23.3 17.4 11.7 5.3 6
drug-related
crimes
% of drug- 2.6 7.2 13.2 15.1 15.5 11.4 9.9 4.9 5.7
related
crimes
Ukraine 369.8 641.9 576 559 5678 5i4-6 566.4 491-8 428.2
Including 7.2 38.2 39.9 42.7 45-75 47-9 57-4 65 64
drug-related
crimes
% of drug- 1.9 5.95 6.9 7.6 8.1 9.3 10.1 13.2 15
related
crimes
the task of looking for hard evidence of the suspect's involvement in a serious
crime, that of proving his or her possession of illegal drugs taking into consider-
ation the minimal quantities specified in the by-laws (the 'substantial quantity' can
be as small as o.oooi gram in the case of LSD) seems far easier. A 'thief-in-law',
i.e., a highly respectable individual outlaw in the Russian milieu (their high status
makes it unnecessary for them to transgress the law on their own), witnesses:
M. Meese, The Financial Front in the Global War on Terrorism', in R. Howard and R. Sawyer (eds).
Defeating Terrorism: Shaping the New Security Environment (Guilford, GT: McGraw-Hill, 2004), p. 58.
A. Oleinik/Europeanjoumal of Crime, Criminai Law and Criminaijustice 21 (2015) 185-206 195
'They (the police) put stealthily illegal drugs or weapons to many thieves (in-law)... I met here
(in prison) Khobot (another thief-in-law, A.O.), he didn't ever smoke even hashish! Yet he was
sentenced to three years of prison. He was really furious: other thieves-in-law got six months
of prison at maximum in a similar situation. He doesn't smoke even poppy, not to speak about
heroin. They pretend to have found heroin in his pocket...' (October 2000, a high-security
prison in the region of Murmansk).
It is worth mentioning that the minimal quantities are specified by decrees ofthe
government, not by the law. They are subject to more frequent changes, thereby
providing the executive with a venue for exercising the power of labeling (Table 3).
Even the procedure for calculating the quantities varies. The 'substantial' and
'very large' quantities replaced 'average' ones in Russian law enforcement prac-
tices in 2006.
An analysis ofthe dynamics ofthe share of prisoners convicted of drug related
offences (Table 4) shows further divergence in the policies of law enforcement.
Chances of receiving a sentence in cases involving drug-related offences are higher
than average in Kazakhstan whereas in the Russian Federation such cases result in
a sentence less frequently than average. This divergence might be due to different
priorities set in police investigations, depending on the type of offense to variability
Table 3. Quantities of illegal drugs the possession of which leads to criminal prosecution,
selected illegal drugs, the Russian Federation, 2004 and 2006.
Sources: Federal'naya Sluzhba Gosudarstvennoi Statistiki, loc. cit., Table 10.6; Y. Gilinski, he cit,
p. 279; Ministertstvo Vnutrennih Del, Prestupnost' i pravonarusheniya: 13^6-2000 (Crime and
Delinquency: 1996-2000) (Moscow, 2001), p. 156; Agenstvo Respubliki Kazakhstan po statistike, loc.
cit., p. 127; Agenstvo Respubliki Kazakhstan po statistike, Statisticheskii Ezhegodnik Kazakhstana
(Statistical Yearbook of Kazakhstan) (Almaty, 1999), pp. uo-111; Derahavnyi Komitet statistiki
Ukrainy, loc. cit, p. 516; Derzhavnyi Komitet statistiki Ukrainy (available online at: http://www
.ukrstatgov.ua/); Verkovnyi Sud Ukrainy, Analiz stanu zdiisnennya sudochinstva sudamy zagal'noi
yurisdiksii v 2005 r. (Survey of court decisions in 2005) (Kyiv, 2005); Verkovnyi Sud Ukrainy, Sudymist'
osib ta priznachenrrya mir kriminat'nogo pokaranr^a u 2003 r. (Convictions and criminal penalties in
2003) (Kyiv, 2003), Verkovnyi Sud Ukrainy, Rozglyad sudamy sprav pro zlochiny u sferi obigu
narkotuchr^h zasobiv u 2001-2002 r. (Legal practice in regard to drug-related offences) (Kyiv, 2002).
Estimated figures in italics (incomplete data on the number of some drug-related offences).
in the level of tolerance to particular delinquent acts. At any rate, the divergent
trends confirm that law enforcement in the area of drug-related offences depends
less on their nature than on priorities in social control and a number of other
external factors. In function ofa particular context, the same use of drugs might or
might not lead to a sentence, all other things, e.g., the legal framework, being equal.
From the point of view ofa drug user or addict, the chances of landing in prison
are the question of'good' or 'bad' luck. Unlike professional criminals, they do not
see any reason in including prison in their 'curriculum' and they do not prepare
themselves for such 'course'. After arriving in prison, they must start to adapt to a
A. Oteinik / European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and CriminalJustice 21 (2013) 185-206 197
new life and to learn new norms of behavior. Prison has its own 'constitution' com-
posed of both formal and informal norms. The latter often contradict the former
(set in the Correctional Code, by-laws and internal regulations). Hence, a significant
part of the population its relative size can be assessed with the help of Prison
Population Rate (PPR, the number of inmates per 100 000 of the national popula-
tion) lives under a constitution which departs from the official one (Table 5).
Prison subculture as an alternative system to officially imposed norms reaches
a high level of sophistication in post-Soviet countries, especially in Russia. Its ori-
gins go back to the 1930s, i.e., to the period of large-scale mass imprisonment in
labor camps. The administration was unable to control such large prison popula-
tions day and night. Informal leaders organized in a hierarchy topped by
thieves-in-law^* started to perform functions of everyday management and
See more on informal leaders and theirjustice in A. Oleinik, loc. cit., pp. 71-101.
198 A. Oieinik / European Joumal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 21 {2013) 185-206
^^* 1. Goffman, Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates
(Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968).
2*' M. Weber, Econorrvy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology VoL 1 {New York, NY:
Bedminster Press, 1968), p. 4.
" ' Y. Levada, Entre pass et l'avenir: L'homme sovitique ordinaire. Enqute (Paris: Presses de la
Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, 1993), pp. 139-144, see also F. Dauc and E. Sieca-
Koztowski (eds), Dedovshchina in Post-Soviet Military: Hazing of Russian Army Conscripts in a
Comparative Perspective (Stuttgart: Ibidem-Verlag, 2006).
A. Oteinik / European Joumai of Crime, Criminal Law and CriminalJustice 21 {2013) 185-206 199
the association exists (x^ statistics are powerful enough to detect the association
yet it fails to assess its strength and direction).
Let us examine whether the social indicators show statistically significant vari-
ability between the two groups of prisoners in all four cases (I consider results of
the two surveys conducted in Russian prisons separately for the sake of increasing
the reliability of findings). For instance, both drug offenders and other offenders
equally reject the system of official authority (members ofthe penitentiary admin-
istration are vested in this type of authority). Theirwillingness to take part in mass
protest actions does not vary across the groups (Table 6). Only in one case (the
Ukrainian sample) the modal answer is 'no',^^ whereas in the three other cases a
majority of respondents from both groups declare their readiness to join mass
protest actions either unconditionally or on the condition that they are led by
persons respectable in the prison milieu. It is worth noting the projective charac-
ter of this question: such actions are explicitly prohibited by the law (Article 321
'Disorganization ofthe work of penitentiary institutions' ofthe Penal Code ofthe
Russian Federation; Article 392 ofthe Penal Code of Ukraine and Article 361 ofthe
Penal Code ofthe Republic of Kazakhstan). The readiness to participate in prison
riots mainly serves as a proxy indicator for the perception of official authority and
the degree of obedience/disobedience to its representatives.
A second indicator useful for evaluating the perception of official authority
refers to the level of trust in the penitentiary administration. Both Russian surveys
show no statistically significant difference between the group convicted of
drug related crimes and that of other convicts (Table 7; here and in what follows
Table 6. Are you ready to take part in mass protest actions? % of valid responses.
Russia Russia Kazakhstan Ukraine
2003 2000-2001 2001 2003
^2' The analysis of some other indicators also suggests the 'deviant' character ofthe Ukrainian case.
This might be due to particularities ofthe sample in Ukraine mentioned in Section 2.
A. Oleinik/European Joumal of Crime, Criminal Law and CriminalJustice 21 {2013) 185-206 201
y2 _ ().57 at p = 0.002.
33) For a list of particular/jonyatiya and the level of support that inmates give to each of them see V.
Anisimkov, loc. cit., p. 28; A. Oleinik, loc. cit., p. 80.
202 A. Oleinik / European Journal of Crime, Criminal IMW and Criminaljustice 21 {2013) 185-206
Table 9. Do you agree with the principle that "One should not do anything that might be
harmful to all of us"? % of valid responses.
Table 10. 'Do you trust the informal leaders? % of valid responses'.
people and fellow inmates less than convicts for other crimes, there are no statisti-
cally significant differences between them (Tables 11 and 12). These findings con-
firm the commonsense wisdom that prison teaches mistrust; after all, this is the
major lesson of the Prisoner's Dilemma.
Not surprisingly, prisoners convicted of drug-related crimes do not necessarily
believe that life outside prison walls is easier than in rclusion. After learning rules
of a new game, they gain the full rights of citizenship in the prison community.
A. Oteinik / Europeanjoumal of Crime, Criminal Law and CriminalJustice 21 {2013) 185-206 203
Table 12. Do you trust other inmates in this penitentiary? % of valid responses.
Russia 2003 Russia 2000-2001 Kazakhstan 2001 Ukraine 2003
Results of the 2000-2001 Russian survey deserve a more detailed discussion in this
regard. On the one hand, they indicate the only instance of statistically significant
difference between the two groups in answers to the question as to whether life is
easier in reclusin than outside prison walls (Table 13). On the other hand, the same
survey shows that 88% of convicts for drug-related crimes believe that they can
Influence decisions taken in prison compared with 70.4% of convicts in the second
group who share this opinion (the difference is not statistically significant).
The reported similarities in the organization of everyday life of both groups
might raise doubts on the validity of the assumption that the group convicted of
drug-related crimes is mostly composed of delinquents who landed in prison
because of 'bad luck' as opposed to career criminals. Nevertheless, the composi-
tion of the 2000-2001 Russian sample, the most representative of the four, suggests
that newcomers represent indeed an absolute majority of this group of respon-
dents (Table 14).
The structure of the sample in Kazakhstan gives a completely different picture;
here recidivists for whom the current sentence is fourth, fifth or sixth form a
modal group among those convicted for drug-related crimes. This fact brings us
back to the discussion of particularities of enforcement of anti-drug laws in
204 ^- Olend/European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 21 {2013) 185-206
Table 13. Do you believe that life is easier in prison than outside prison v^falls?
% of valid responses.
Table 14. Is the current sentence your first prison term? % of valid responses.
Kazakhstan. Here chances of being sent to jail for a drug-related offence are higher
than in the two other post-Soviet countries. More rigorous policies of law enforce-
ment and attempts to segregate convicts for drug-related crimes from other crimi-
nals in specialized camps do not prevent the former, in the period of time under
consideration, from interiorizing norms of the prison subculture during their mul-
tiple yet short-term stays in prison (62% of sentences in this group of respondents
do not exceed 2 years compared with only 6.6% of such sentences in the second
group of respondents in Kazakhstan), in short, the two groups of respondents
have different legal status and profiles in Kazakhstan too, yet their social profiles
nevertheless converge.
^'" The economics of crime and punishment assumes that 'some individuals become criminals
because ofthe financial and other rewards from crime compared to legal work, taking into account
of the likelihood of apprehension and conviction, and the severity of punishment' (G.S. Becker,
'Nobel Lecture: The Economic Way of Looking at Behavior', loi Journal of Political Economy (1993),
385-409, at p. 390).
2o6 A. Oleinik / Europeanjoumal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminaljustice 21 {2013) 185-206
^^* T. Stucky, K. Heimer and J. Lang, 'A Bigger Piece of the Pie? State Corrections Spending and the
Politics of Social Order", 44 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency (2007), gi-123.
^^' D. Matza,Oe/m^uenya/i/Dr/^{New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1990).
3'* For a first attempt to explore it, see A. Oleinik, loc. cit
^* Including strategies of legalization of currently extralegal and criminal practices, see, for instance,
H. de Soto, The Other Path: The Economic Answer to Terrorism (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2002).
Copyright of European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law & Criminal Justice is the property of
Martinus Nijhoff and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.