Areas of interest:

  • criminal justice system;
  • jury trials;
  • establishment of facts in criminal proceedings;
  • criminal trial modelling;
  • decision-making in criminal trials.

Senior lecturer at the Department for Criminal Procedure and Criminology of the Siberian Federal University Law Institute, Krasnoyarsk.

Completed BA (2013), MA (2015), and graduate programmes (2018) at the Siberian Federal University (SFU), Krasnoyarsk, with a specialisation in jurisprudence.

Recipient of the Oxford Russia Fund scholarship in 2015−16.

Winner of the 2015 International Open Competition «Administration of criminal justice through the prism of criminal-processual, criminological, operational and forensic experience» in Memory of E. G. Martynchik for best academic paper. South-West State University, Kursk. 2017

Finalist of the All-Russian Scientific Research Paper Competition «Science of the Future — Science of the Young», Nizhny Novgorod.

Academic publications (selection):

Barabash, A.S., Skoblik, K.V. On the public model of Russian criminal procedure. In: Journal of Sibierian Federal University of the Humanities of Social Sciences. 12(3). 2019. pp. 314−324.

Skoblik K. V. Dostatochnost' v ugolovnom protsesse kak rezul’tat vzaimodeystviya zakonov formal’noy i dialekticheskoy logiki [Sufficiency in criminal trials as a result of the interaction of the laws of formal and dialectical logic]. In: Rossijskij Juridiceskij Zhurnal 2019. Vol. 126. No. 3.

Skoblik K. V. Vliyaniye tekhnologiy na prinyatiye resheniy v ugolovnom protsesse: obzor zarubezhnykh issledovaniy [Technological influences on decision-making in criminal trials. In: A survey of international research]. Pravo i politika 2019. No. 5.

Skoblik K. V. Tozhdestvennost' ponyatiy ‘Poznaniye' i ‘Ugolovno-protsessual'noye dokazyvaniye' [The identity of the concepts of ‘investigation' and ‘criminal-processual proof']. In: Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta 2017. Seriya 14. Pravo. Series 14. No. 2.

Skoblik K. V. Gnoseologiya rossiyskogo ugolovnogo protsessa i kriterii yeye vybora [The epistemology of Russian criminal trials and its criteria of judgement]. In: Izvestiya Baykal’skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta 2017. Vol. 27, No. 2.

Skoblik K. V. Prichina otritsaniya yedinoy osnovy ponyatiy ‘Poznaniye' i ‘Ugolovno-protsessual'noye dokazyvaniye'-ponimaniye rossiyskogo ugolovnogo protsessa kak smeshannogo [Reasons for rejecting a unified basis for the notions of ‘investigation' and ‘criminal-processual proof'. Understanding the mixed logic of Russian criminal trials]. In: Vestnik Udmurtskogo universiteta. Seriya «Ekonomika i pravo» 2017. Vol. 27, No. 4.

Skoblik K. V. Prognosticheskiye i poznavatel’nyye resheniya v rossiyskom ugolovnom protsesse [Prognostic and investigative decisions in Russian criminal trials]. In: Rossiyskii yuridicheskii zhurnal 2017, No. 1.

Skoblik K. V. Klassifikatsiya resheniy v rossiyskom ugolovnom protsesse [Judgement classicifications in Russian criminal trials]. In: Rossiyskii yuridicheskii zhurnal 2016, No. 2.

Shaginyan A. S., Skoblik K. V. Mery ugolovno-protsessual'nogo prinuzhdeniya. Obzor kruglogo stola ot 22.09. 2017 [Coercive means in criminal procedure. A summary of the roundtable of 22.09.2017]. In: Aktual’nyye problemy rossiyskogo prava 2018. No. 9 (94).

Shaginyan A. S., Skoblik K. V. Ugolovnyy protsess: optimizatsiya ili neopravdannoye uproshcheniye? Obzor kruglogo stola ot 24. 09. 2015 [The criminal process. Optimisation or unjustified simplification? Summary of roundtable held 24.09.2015]. In: Aktual’nyye problemy rossiyskogo prava 2015. No. 12.

Skoblik K. V. «Semeynaya model' ugolovnogo protsessa [The Family Model]. From the article: Griffith John. Ideology in Criminal Procedure or a Third «Model» of the Criminal Process, 1970, p. 367−386 (translation from English). In: Ugolovnyy protsess i advokatskaya deyatel’nost'. Krasnoyarsk: Siberian Federal University, 2018.

Skoblik K. V. Publichnaya model' rossiyskogo ugolovnogo protsessa: politicheskiy i istoricheskiy konteksty yeye poyavleniya"[The public model of Russian criminal procedure. Political and historical contexts of its emergence]. In: Pravovyye problemy ukrepleniya rossiyskoy gosudarstvennosti. Tomsk: Tomsk State University Publishing House, 2018.

Skoblik K. V. Formal’no-logicheskaya storona protsessa prinyatiya poznavatel’nogo ugolovno-protsessual'nogo resheniya [The formal-logical side of decision-making in investigative criminal procedure]. In: Pravovyye problemy ukrepleniya rossiyskoy gosudarstvennosti. Tomsk: Tomsk State University Publishing House, 2018. p.114−121.

Skoblik K. V. Osnovaniya prinyatiya poznavatel’nogo ugolovno-protsessual'nogo resheniya [Grounds for decision-making in investigative criminal procedure]. In: Yeniseyskiye pravovyye chteniya: sbornik materialov XI Vserossiyskoy nauchnoy konferentsii studentov, aspirantov i molodykh uchenykh s mezhdunarodnym uchastiyem (April 20−21, 2017). Krasnoyarsk, 2017 pp. 566−573.

Skoblik K. V. Problema prinyatiya poznavatel’nykh i prognosticheskikh ugolovno-protsessual'nykh resheniy [The problem of investigative and prognostic decision-making in criminal procedure]. In: V.A. Utkin (ed.), Rossiyskoye pravovedeniye: tribuna molodogo uchenogo. Tomsk: Tomsk State University Publishing House, 2017. pp. 297−298.

Skoblik K. V. Dve logiki ugolovno-protsessual'nogo dokazyvaniya [Two logics of criminal-procedural evidence]. In: Ugolovno-protsessual'nyy kodeks Rossiyskoy Federatsii: dostizheniya i problemy primeneniya 2016. pp. 182−186.

Skoblik K. V. «Vidy ugolovno-protsessual'nykh resheniy» [Means of criminal-procedural judgement]. On V. A. Utkin (ed.). Rossiyskoye pravovedeniye: tribuna molodogo uchenogo. Tomsk: Tomsk State University Publishing House, 2016. pp. 243−244.

Participation in conferences and seminars:

International Scientific-Practical Conference of Students, Graduate Students and Young Scientists «Yenisei Legal Readings.» Krasnoyarsk, 2019. Paper: Changing the decision-making process in the criminal justice system under the influence of the fourth industrial revolution.

All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference «Legal Problems of Strengthening Russian Statehood». Tomsk, 2019. Paper: Sufficiency of proof in the Russian criminal process.

All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference «Legal Problems of Strengthening Russian Statehood». Tomsk, 2018. Paper: The public model of the Russian criminal process: political and historical contexts of its emergence.

III All-Russian Scientific Forum «Science of the Future — Science of the Young.» Nizhny Novgorod, 2017. Paper: Prognostic and investigative decisions in the Russian criminal process.

All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference «Legal Problems of Strengthening Russian Statehood». Tomsk, 2017. Paper: The formal-logical side of decision-making in Russian investigative criminal procedure.

XVI Interregional Scientific and Practical Conference of Students and Young Scientists «Russian Legal Studies. Young Scholar’s Tribune.» Tomsk 2016. Paper: The classification of criminal procedural decisions.

The ongoing jury reform in Russia has already posed many crucial challenges for the domestic criminal justice system. The acquittal rate among juries at the district level has risen sharply. Keeping this in mind, it is clear that jury trials present a disturbance to the Russian criminal justice system, which traditionally has a 99% conviction rate.

I intend to draw upon Niklas Luhmann’s theory of autopoiesis to examine how the emergence of jury trials in Russia affects the contemporary justice system, which operates according to the crime control model. Luhmann’s theory of autopoiesis makes it possible to consider jury trials as structural couplings of the crime control model and the political system.

The present study also draws upon other theoretical concepts developed by Luhmann, including irritation, systemic capacities for resonance, and co-evolution. The research methodology is based on interviews, participant observation, and the analysis of criminal case materials. Preliminary results show that the evolution of the crime control system is ongoing. This system deploys various strategies to reduce the prospects of acquittal in jury trials.