The concept of speed in Luhmann’s schemata: The case of the Russian criminal justice

Konstantin Skoblik

doi:10.35295/osls.iisl.1733

Authors

Konstantin Skoblik George Washington University, Elliott School of International Affairs, Institute for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies (IERES) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2426-4129

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1733

Keywords:

Criminal Justice, Luhmann, systems theory, speed, Justicia penal, teoría de sistemas, velocidad, estudios rusos sobre tribunales, Russian studies on courts

Abstract

Notwithstanding Luhmann’s systems theory has a variety of concepts (code, structures, programs, operations, structural couplings, self-irritations, etc.) to analyze the Russian Criminal Justice as a self-referential system, it exhibits some limitations as well. A lack of fully-developed speed concept does not allow the autopoietic approach to adequately describe the Russian Criminal Justice System’s emphasis on the efficiency, which is measured by a high rate of convictions produced within the system per unit of time. Drawing primarily upon intuitions of systems theory itself, this paper reconstructs the speed as a schema for the observation of changes and the number of operations produced within the system per unit of time. At the most abstract level, the speed concept is a prerequisite for observing the rate and tempo of oscillation between sides of distinction per se. Exploiting these theoretical adjustments, it is shown that the Russian Criminal Justice System seeks to increase the rate of oscillation within guiding distinction “legally guilty (non-lawful)”/”legally non-guilty (lawful)”. In so doing, this system condenses most of meanings on the side “legally guilty” (connectivity value), minimizes the horizon of possibilities related to jury trials and due process rights, and decelerates a speed of reverse crossing to the side “legally non-guilty” (reflexive value).

A pesar de que la teoría de sistemas de Luhmann dispone de una variedad de conceptos (código, estructuras, programas, operaciones, acoplamientos estructurales, autoirritaciones, etc.) para analizar la justicia penal rusa como un sistema autorreferencial, también presenta algunas limitaciones. La falta de un concepto de velocidad plenamente desarrollado no permite al enfoque autopoiético describir adecuadamente el énfasis del sistema de justicia penal ruso en la eficiencia, que se mide por una alta tasa de condenas producidas dentro del sistema por unidad de tiempo. Basándose principalmente en intuiciones de la propia teoría de sistemas, este documento reconstruye la velocidad como un esquema para la observación de los cambios y el número de operaciones producidas dentro del sistema por unidad de tiempo. En el nivel más abstracto, el concepto de velocidad es un requisito previo para observar la tasa y el tempo de oscilación entre los lados de la distinción per se. Aprovechando estos ajustes teóricos, se demuestra que el Sistema de Justicia Penal ruso trata de aumentar la tasa de oscilación dentro de la distinción orientativa “legalmente culpable (no culpable)”/”legalmente no culpable (culpable)”. Al hacerlo, este sistema condensa la mayoría de los significados en el lado “legalmente culpable” (valor de conectividad), minimiza el horizonte de posibilidades relacionadas con los juicios con jurado y los derechos al debido proceso, y desacelera la velocidad de cruce inverso hacia el lado “legalmente no culpable” (valor reflexivo).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Views 127
Downloads:
13(S1)_Skoblik_OSLS 120
XML_13(S1)_Skoblik_OSLS 1

Author Biography

Konstantin Skoblik, George Washington University, Elliott School of International Affairs, Institute for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies (IERES)

Konstantin Vladimirovich Skoblik, Doctoral Researcher, The Institute of Criminology and Legal Policy (Krimo), The University of Helsinki | Nonresident Fellow, The Russia Program at George Washington University. Email: skoblik.konstantin@gmail.com

References

Andersen, N.A., and Born, A.W., 2000. Complexity and change: Two “Semantic Tricks” in the triumphant oscillating organization. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 13(3), 297–328.

Antonovsky, A., 2007. Niklas Luman: epistemologicheskoe vvedenie v teoriyu social'nyh sistem [Niklas Luhmann: An Epistemological Introduction to the Theory of Social Systems]. IFRAN.

Baraldi, C., Corsi, G., and Esposito, E., 2021. Unlocking Luhmann. Bielefeld University Press.

Barros, M.A., 2021. Observing courts: an organisational sociology for socio-legal research. In: C.F. Campilongo, L.F. Amato and M.A. Barros, eds., Luhmann and Socio-Legal Research: An Empirical Agenda for Social Systems Theory. Abingdon/New York: Routledge, 141–165.

Borch, C., 2012. Functional eclecticism: On Luhmann's style of theorizing. Revue internationale de philosophie, 259(1), 123–142.

Durkheim, É., 1995. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York: Free Press.

Francot, L., 2020. Sociology of legal temporalities. In: J. Přibáň, ed., Research Handbook on the Sociology of Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 190–202.

Gonçalves, G.L., 2017. Functional differentiation as ideology of the (neo)colonial society. Thesis Eleven, 143(1), 70–81.

Grabham, E., and Beynon-Jones, S.M., 2019. Introduction. In: E. Grabham and S.M. Beynon-Jones, eds., Law and Time. Abingdon: Routledge, 1–28.

Judicial Department at the Supreme Court of the RF, 2021. Otchet o rabote sudov obshchej yurisdikcii po rassmotreniyu ugolovnyh del po pervoj instancii [The report on the work of general jurisdiction courts in handling criminal cases as courts of the first instance] (online). Available at: http://www.cdep.ru/index.php?id=79&item=5671

Judicial Department at the Supreme Court of the RF, 2023. Otchet o rabote sudov obshchej yurisdikcii po rassmotreniyu ugolovnyh del po pervoj instancii [The report on the work of general jurisdiction courts in handling criminal cases as courts of the first instance] (online). Available at: http://www.cdep.ru/index.php?id=79&item=7096

Khodzhaeva, E., 2023. When juries come to Russian district courts: Lay participation expansion and court system noncompliance. Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization 31(2), 217–248. Available at: https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/280/article/889915

King, M., and Thornhill, C., 2003. Niklas Luhmann’s Theory of Politics and Law. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

Lange, B., 2021. Regulation without interests? An introduction to Luhmannian empirical mapping of system-environment relationships. In: C.F. Campilongo, L.F. Amato and M.A. Barros, eds., Luhmann and Socio-Legal Research: An Empirical Agenda For Social Systems Theory. Abingdon/New York: Routledge, 71–95.

Latour, B., 2005. Trains of thought: The fifth dimension and its fabrication In: A.N. Perret-Clermont, ed., Thinking Time: A Multidisciplinary Perspective on Time. Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe & Huber, 173–187.

Luhmann, N., 1976. The future cannot begin: temporal structures in modern society. Social Research, 43(1), 130–152.

Luhmann, N., 1988. Tautology and paradox in the self-descriptions of modern society. Sociological Theory, 6(1), 21–37.

Luhmann, N., 1990a. Essays on Self-Reference. Columbia University Press.

Luhmann, N., 1990b. The cognitive program of constructivism and a reality that remains unknown In: W. Krohn, G. Küppers and H. Nowotny, eds., Selforganization. Sociology of the Sciences (A Yearbook). Dordrecht: Springer, 64–85.

Luhmann, N., 1995. Social Systems (writing science). Redwood City: Stanford University Press.

Luhmann, N., 1997. Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

Luhmann, N., 2004. Law as a Social System. Oxford University Press.

Luhmann, N., 2013. Introduction to Systems Theory. Londres: Polity Press.

McCarthy, L., 2015. Trafficking Justice: How Russian Police Enforce New Laws, From Crime to Courtroom. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.

Moiseeva, E., 2014. Working groups in the courts of St. Petersburg. The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 17(4), 86–100.

Nobles, R., and Schiff, D., 2013a. Observing Law through Systems Theory. Oxford: Hart.

Nobles, R., and Schiff, D., 2013b. Structural coupling between the systems of law and the media: the contrasting examples of criminal conviction and criminal appeal In: A. Febbrajo and G. Harste, eds., Law and Intersystemic Communication. Farnham: Ashgate, 317–326.

Nuotio, K., 2010. Systems theory with discourse ethics: Squaring the circle? Comment on Marcelo Neve’s Zwischen Themis und Leviathan. No Foundations: journal of extreme legal positivism, 7, 59–85.

Ostrom, B.J., et al., 2007. Trial Courts as Organizations. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Packer, H.L., 1964. Two models of the criminal process. University of Pennsylvania Law Review [online], 113(1), 1–68. Available at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6428&context=penn_law_review

Packer, H.L., 1968. The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. Redwood City: Stanford University Press.

Paneyakh, E., 2014. Faking performance together: systems of performance evaluation in Russian enforcement agencies and production of bias and privilege. Post-Soviet Affairs 30(2–3), 115–136

Paneyakh, E., Titaev, K., and Shklyaruk, M., 2018. Traektoriya ugolovnogo dela: institucional'nyj analiz [The Trajectory of the Criminal Case: An Institutional Analysis]. St. Petersburg: EUSP Press.

Paterson, J., and Teubner, G., 2021. Changing maps: Empirical legal autopoiesis. In: C.F. Campilongo, L.F. Amato and M.A. Barros, eds., Luhmann and Socio-Legal Research: An Empirical Agenda For Social Systems Theory. Abingdon/New York: Routledge, 33–67.

Petrukhin, I.L., 2009. Opravdatel'nyy prigovor i pravo na reabilitatsiyu [Acquittal and the Right to Rehabilitation]. Moscow: Prospect.

Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, A., 2009. Niklas Luhmann: Law, Justice, Society. Abingdon: Routledge.

Qvortrup, L., 2005. Society’s educational system – An introduction to Niklas Luhmann’s pedagogical theory. Seminar.net – International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning, 1(1), 1–21.

Silva, A.S., 2020. Legal decision in socio-legal research: systemic elements to observe the construction of sense in law In: M.A. Barros, L.F. Amato and G.F. Fonseca, eds., World Society’s Law: Rethinking Systems Theory and Socio-Legal Studies [online]. Porto Alegre: Fi, 251–301.

Skoblik, K.V., 2022. Coping with the undesired consequences of jury reform: How does the Russian criminal justice system control an acquittals spike over the reform 2018–2020? Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 12(4), 790–821. Available at: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1268

Skoblik, K., 2023. The human rights backlash in criminal justice: The case of Russia’s exit from the European Convention on Human Rights. EJIL:Talk!. [online], 1 August. Available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-human-rights-backlash-in-criminal-justice-the-case-of-russias-exit-from-the-european-convention-on-human-rights/

Solomon, P.H., 1987. The case of the vanishing acquittal: informal norms and the practice of soviet criminal justice. Soviet Studies, 39(4), 531–555.

Solomon, P.H., 2015. Understanding Russia’s low rate of acquittal: pretrial screening and the problem of accusatorial bias. Review of Central and East European Law, 40(1), 1–30.

Teubner, G., 1993. Law as an Autopoietic System. Padstow: T.J. Press.

The State Duma of the Russian Federation, 2023. Federal'nyj Zakon N 216 “O vnesenii izmeneniya v stat'yu 30 Ugolovno-processual'nogo kodeksa Rossijskoj Federacii” [Law No. (216) “On Amendments to the Article 30 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation”] (online). Available at: https://sozd.duma.gov.ru/bill/291794-8

Thornhill, C., 2012. Sociological enlightenments and the sociology of political philosophy. Revue internationale de philosophie., 1(259), 55–83.

Virilio, P., 1994. The Vision Machine. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.