The “Savchenko Law” in Numbers

The recently adopted law on crediting the time spent by convicted persons in remand prisons at the rate of one day in a remand prison for two days in a colony—which was dubbed the “Savchenko Law”—has stirred up a part of society. Some people did not like this law at all. This agitated segment is actively trying to stir up the rest of the ordinary citizens and pressure people’s deputies and the President with demands to amend this law, and some even demand its repeal. A draft law with amendments has already been prepared.
It is noteworthy that this part of society consists largely of employees of the prosecutor’s office, the police, and the prison system, as well as lawyers and deputies with a populist bent, alongside very emotional citizens who do not trouble themselves with mathematical calculations or independent thinking.
They use scare tactics, alleging a huge number of criminals who will be released under this specific law and, consequently, a surge in crime. At the same time, it is implied by default that if not for this law, many terrible criminals—murderers, rapists, robbers, and odious prisoners—would not have been released.
However, reality differs significantly from the scare stories repeated like mantras.

In order to determine whether the adoption of the “Savchenko Law” actually caused an incredible increase in the number of released dangerous criminals, we analyzed data on the actual change in the number of convicted persons of precisely “terrible” categories—murderers, rapists, robbers, and sex offenders—in the first months of 2016, based on information from the penitentiary service itself, taken from its website.

We draw the attention of readers to the fact that the analysis uses not just the number of released persons, but changes in the number of convicted persons of certain categories who are serving sentences. In doing so, it is assumed that, on average, the number of persons in each category of convicted persons who enter colonies to serve their sentences each month has not changed significantly over the last year. Therefore, if fewer people of a certain category of convicted persons are released during a month than enter prison, the number of prisoners in that category increases. And conversely, if more people are released than enter prison, the total number of convicted persons in a certain category decreases. Finally, if as many people enter institutions to serve their sentences as are released during that time, the number of prisoners in that category remains unchanged throughout the month (change = 0).
Thus, based on the results of this analysis, it will be possible to conclude that the adoption of the “Savchenko Law” led to a large-scale increase (as its critics assure) or at least a simple increase in the number of released convicted persons of the specified categories only if it turns out that, compared to the previous period—primarily 2015 and especially its final months—the number of prisoners in these categories decreased noticeably, and even faster than in the months before the law was adopted.
And conversely.
If no perceptible trend towards a decrease in the number of prisoners of these categories is found, or if the rates of decline in 2016 turn out to be lower than before, it will be possible to argue that the hype surrounding the terrible consequences of the law’s adoption is artificial and does not correspond to reality.

And one more observation. Since the statistical data are presented on the penitentiary service’s website with an accuracy of up to hundreds of people, the margin of error in our calculations in this analysis may be no more than 50 people. Therefore, it is better not to perceive the indicators presented in the analysis as absolutely precise, especially when these indicators consist of only a few dozen people. They should be perceived rather as qualitative, allowing for an understanding of the trend or the big picture.
Therefore, based on the State Penitentiary Service’s data on the number of persons in the department’s institutions as of the 1st of each of the first four months of 2016, as well as on 1 January, 1 July, and 1 November 2015, and on 1 January 2014, calculations can be made regarding the change in the number of different categories of convicted persons in 2014, in various periods of 2015, and in 2016. The most important part of this analysis is comparing the current situation (January–March 2016) with the situation as it was in the previous two years.

As a result, the following picture emerges for each of the four categories of convicted persons whose release is used to scare citizens.

Regarding persons convicted of murder:
in 2014, their number decreased from 16.3 thousand people to 14.2 thousand people, i.e., by 2.1 thousand people, and this means that throughout the year, 175 more people were released each month than were imprisoned;
in 2015, their number decreased from 14.2 thousand people to 10.6 thousand people, i.e., by 3.6 thousand people. The monthly decrease in the number of these convicted persons throughout the year amounted to 300 people monthly. Moreover, in the first half of 2015, the number of convicted persons decreased by 516 people each month, and in July–October 2015 by 125 people.
We can try to estimate the absolute number of released persons convicted of murder during this period. For this, it is worth estimating how many such criminals were convicted during these periods. We do not have exact data, but one can form an idea of their approximate number by considering the following two points.
The first point. According to the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine, 20,994 newly convicted persons of all categories entered penal institutions during 2015. If the percentage of persons convicted of murder among the newly convicted in 2015 was the same as among those serving sentences for murder (about 20%), then this is about 4 thousand people per year.
The second point. According to Ministry of Internal Affairs data, in 2007–2012, the number of intentional murders committed fluctuated within the range of 2,400–2,900 cases. Assuming that there were just as many in the following years, and assuming it would not be a major error to consider that the number of persons involved in these crimes could be of approximately the same order, then the number of persons convicted for murder annually can be estimated at no less than 2,400 people, or at least 200 people monthly.
For further analysis, let us take the smaller of the two numbers—2,400 people per year. Then it can be assumed that approximately 6,000 people convicted of murder were released throughout 2015, or 500 per month.
So now let us compare this number with the data for January–March 2016: the decrease in the number of persons convicted of murder amounted to 100 people monthly, compared with 516 in the first half of 2015. And the absolute number of those released monthly can be estimated at (100+200) = 300 people, or perhaps slightly more. These calculations are also confirmed by official statistics: in just over two months of 2016, when the “Savchenko Law” was in effect, about 700 people convicted of murder were released.
This means that during the operation of the “Savchenko Law,” almost half as many murderers were released each month as in the months preceding the adoption of this law.

Regarding persons convicted of intentional grievous bodily harm:
in 2014, the number of such convicted persons decreased from 9.3 thousand people to 7.4 thousand people, i.e., by 1.9 thousand people, which means that throughout the year, their number decreased by over 150 people each month;
in 2015, their number decreased from 7.4 thousand people to 4.7 thousand people, i.e., by 2.7 thousand people. If we calculate the monthly decrease in the number of these convicted persons, then in 2015 it amounted to 225 people.
In January–March 2016, the number of convicted persons in this category did not change. That is, during the operation of the “Savchenko Law,” the intensity of the release of persons convicted of intentional grievous bodily harm decreased noticeably, and now the same number of convicted persons in this category were released each month as were convicted, whereas before this—in 2014 and 2015—the rates of release exceeded the flow of new convicted persons each month by 158 people (2014) and 225 people (2015), respectively.
Thus, the adoption of the “Savchenko Law” in no way increased the level of release of persons convicted of intentional grievous bodily harm; on the contrary, during this period, they were released significantly more slowly than before over a period of no less than almost two years.

Regarding persons convicted of robbery and theft (by violence):
in 2014, the number of such convicted persons decreased from 25.7 thousand people to 15.2 thousand people, i.e., by 10.5 thousand people; the monthly decrease in the number of these convicted persons throughout the year amounted to 875 people.
in 2015, their number decreased from 15.2 thousand people to 13.5 thousand people, i.e., by 1.7 thousand people. The monthly decrease in the number of these convicted persons throughout the year became noticeably smaller than the level of the previous year—by only 142 people. Moreover, in November–December 2015, their number decreased by 600 people each month.
In January–March 2016, the number of convicted persons in this category decreased from 13.5 thousand to 11.5 thousand people, or on average by 666 people each month.
Thus, during the operation of the “Savchenko Law,” the rates of release of persons convicted of robbery were almost the same as in the two months prior, although slightly higher than in the first half of the year. Therefore, the adoption of the “Savchenko Law” had practically no effect on the level of release of such convicted persons compared to previous months.

Regarding persons convicted of rape:
in 2014, their number decreased from 2.3 thousand people to 2.1 thousand people, i.e., by 0.2 thousand people per year; the monthly decrease in the number of these convicted persons throughout the year amounted to 17 people;
in 2015, their number decreased from 2.1 thousand people to 1.4 thousand people, i.e., by 0.7 thousand people; thus, the rates increased more than threefold: throughout the year, this amounts to a decrease of 58 people monthly, moreover, in the first half of 2015, this indicator was 100 people.
In January–March 2016, as in the last two months of 2015, no decrease in the number of this category of convicted persons was observed. This means that this indicator stabilized and was unchanged both at the end of 2015 and during the operation of the “Savchenko Law” in 2016. Possible fluctuations did not exceed a few dozen people. Therefore, during the operation of the law, the rates of release of persons convicted of rape, compared to previous years, especially the first half of 2015, decreased. And in 2016, the same number of convicted persons in this category were released each month as were convicted, whereas before this—in 2014 and the first 10 months of 2015—the rates of decline in their number exceeded the flow of new convicted persons each month by 17 people (2014) and 100 people (first half of 2015), respectively.
These data indicate that the adoption of the “Savchenko Law” in no way increased the level of release of persons convicted of rape; on the contrary, at the beginning of 2016, they were released less intensively than before over the course of almost two years.

In light of the intimidation by opponents of the law, it is worth asking: is it worth fearing the release of such serious criminals? In our opinion, criminals released slightly earlier than the term determined by the court thanks to the “Savchenko Law” should be feared no more than the release of those more than 20,000 criminals who were released by the penitentiary service in 2015 without the application of this law.

We also analyzed changes in the number of convicted women, minors, and persons convicted for drug-related crimes.
Thus, an analogous analysis of the release of the number of persons convicted for drug-related crimes allows us to conclude that during the operation of the “Savchenko Law,” the intensity of the release of such persons (by 233 people monthly) is noticeably higher compared to the indicator of 2015 (by 60 people monthly). At the same time, this is much lower than the rates of decline in the number of such persons in 2014 (by 960 people monthly).
An analysis of the release of the number of convicted minors reveals that during the operation of the “Savchenko Law,” the rates of decline in their number practically did not change compared to the indicator of 2015. On the other hand, this indicator (a decrease in the number of convicted persons by 8–9 people monthly) is noticeably lower than the rates of decline in the number of minors in 2014 (by 38 people monthly). Although it is obvious that such numbers are within the margin of error of our analysis.
Data on the release of convicted women allow us to conclude that during the operation of the “Savchenko Law,” the rates of decline in their number (66 people monthly) are noticeably lower than in 2014 (a decrease of 235 people monthly), although these rates are slightly higher compared to the data for 2015 (by about 30 people monthly), when the “Savchenko Law” was not yet in effect. On the other hand, in absolute indicators, this amounts to a few dozen people per month, and therefore it makes no sense to speak of any influence of the “Savchenko Law” on the release of women.

The total decrease in the number of convicted persons in 2015 amounted to 3,920, i.e., their number decreased by 327 people monthly. In January–March 2016, the decrease in the total number of convicted persons amounted to 5,603 people, or 1,868 people monthly. That is, during the operation of the “Savchenko Law,” the intensity of the release of all categories of convicted persons increased noticeably.
Based on the results of the above analysis, it can be argued that since the rates of decline in the number of persons convicted of serious and particularly serious crimes at the beginning of 2016 are small, the main “contribution” to the decrease in the total number of convicted persons was made by the release of persons convicted of non-serious and non-violent crimes. This convincingly testifies to the fact that the “Savchenko Law” did not actually lead to the release of an incredibly large number of murderers, rapists, and robbers. Moreover, those who claim the release of a significant number of terrible criminals remain silent about the fact that no fewer—and sometimes even noticeably more—such criminals were released previously, and therefore any grounds to believe that the situation worsened due to the law’s adoption are completely absent.
The conclusion suggests itself that the panic being sown in society serves completely different goals than a concern for the safety of citizens.
One of the likely explanations may be the fright of those involved in corrupt deals. After all, one of the conditions for the prosperity of corruption is the presence of as many restrictions as possible, as many prohibitions as possible, as much rigidity as possible. Then, lovers of bribes have something to trade: allowing what is supposedly forbidden. Strict restrictions also greatly expand the opportunities for manipulation and pressure on prisoners. It is not a secret that the existing procedure for early release is extremely prone to corruption. So when suddenly hundreds, if not thousands, of prisoners have a legal opportunity to be released slightly earlier than expected, without paying for it, then for someone, this is a tragedy and a reason to panic.
The artificial nature of the complaints against the “Savchenko Law” is also evidenced by the lack of statistics on releases comparable to past years, and the extremely meager arsenal of “scare tactics,” such as the continuously spread falsehood about the release of the murderer Lozinsky supposedly due to the “Savchenko Law.” But those who repeat this nonsense remain silent about the fact that, in reality, under the “Savchenko Law,” Lozinsky’s term of served sentence was only recalculated—and that is all! And he has the opportunity to get out due to completely different factors, namely: first, the appellate court replaces the 15-year prison sentence with 10 years, and already now, the institution where he was serving his sentence has submitted a petition to the court for his early release, and finally, the court satisfied this petition and actually released Lozinsky. Although it could have chosen not to release him. And it turns out that the “guilty” party is the “Savchenko Law.” Thus, everyone who claims that Lozinsky was released under the “Savchenko Law” is deliberately twisting the circumstances, to put it mildly.
The insincerity of their arguments also lies in the fact that the release of both Lozinsky and judge Zvarych is presented as if they would have sat in prison forever if not for the “Savchenko Law.” But it is obvious that this is not the case, because both the mentioned odious figures and the mentioned hundreds of released murderers, all of them have to be released sooner or later anyway. Inevitably. The only question is that thanks to the “Savchenko Law,” they will come out slightly earlier. And that is all.
It is very indicative that during the attacks on the law, the main motives for its adoption are almost never mentioned—those terrible, inhumane conditions in which remand prison residents often stay for months or even years. The law’s opponents are not bothered by such conditions of detention, or by the fact that staying in them is often an mockery of people, which is sometimes equated to torture. European institutions constantly reproach the state for this. And when the state, as a form of compensation for inhumane detention conditions, decided to count one day of such stay as two, this initiative received resistance, because someone did not like it. Often, it is precisely those who are responsible for the long-term existence of such inhumane conditions in remand prisons.
And finally.
The “Savchenko Law” has certain flaws; it is worth talking about them. But its real flaws are not at all what the law’s opponents so persistently repeat. Unjust and false accusations regarding the harmfulness of the law are refuted by the analysis provided above.