3 ms·

This is a very bad example. USSR had "civil law" system, which, unlike "common law" in the US does not depend on the interpretation. "Civil law" is direct and i

This is a very bad example. USSR had "civil law" system, which, unlike "common law" in the US does not depend on the interpretation. "Civil law" is direct and is not up for interpretation by judges. So, naturally, criminal code under Gorbachev has been very different from Stalin's (as well as civil code and the constitution). For example, the article 58, counter-revolutionary activity, which has been used to send millions to GULAG under Stalin, has been removed in 1960s.

vkou 9y ago
Yes, but treason was still on the books, and Gorbachev's USSR was less inclined to kidnap and beat people until they confess to plotting against the Glorious Leader, because their neighbour denounced them for hanging a portrait of Stalin ten centimeters lower then the portrait of Lenin. Even if the law is not under discretionary interpretation[1], prosecution, analysis of evidence, verdicts of guilt or innocence, policing methods, and everything else is. Counter-revolutionary activity was hardly the only thing people were purged for - espionage and treason were other incredibly popular charges. If Stalin's officials were to be believed, half the country earned its daily bread by selling the secrets of the motherland to nebulous foreign powers.[2] Not to say that the USSR was a shining paragon of legalism in 1987, but the letter of the law was not what made it different from 1937. The USSR had all sorts of, uh, wonderful laws, most of which were enforced with incredible discretion. [1] Although, given the incredibly broad and poorly defined nature of Article 58, its application was 100% based on discretionary interpretation. http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/uk58-e.html#58-1a http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/uk58-e.html#58-1a [2] Or at least, that's how Solzhenitsyn tells it.
- pandaman 9y ago
  I am not arguing this. Your example is bad by: a) bringing a civil law system to argue a point about a common law. It's like arguing about Linux with BeOS examples. b) saying that the law was more or less the same while it has changed rather dramatically. Saying the US law has not significantly changed between Coolidge and Reagan would be less false than this.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> USSR had "civil law" system, which, unlike "common law" in the US does not depend on the interpretation. "Civil law" is direct and is not up for interpretation by judges. That's not a accurate at all; language of law always requires interpretation and application to the facts, that doesn't change in a civil law system. Moreover, the different role of the judiciary isn't germane to what GP referenced, which was different approach to executive enforcement practices and priorities.

vkou 9y ago

Yes, but treason was still on the books, and Gorbachev's USSR was less inclined to kidnap and beat people until they confess to plotting against the Glorious Leader, because their neighbour denounced them for hanging a portrait of Stalin ten centimeters lower then the portrait of Lenin. Even if the law is not under discretionary interpretation[1], prosecution, analysis of evidence, verdicts of guilt or innocence, policing methods, and everything else is. Counter-revolutionary activity was hardly the only thing people were purged for - espionage and treason were other incredibly popular charges. If Stalin's officials were to be believed, half the country earned its daily bread by selling the secrets of the motherland to nebulous foreign powers.[2] Not to say that the USSR was a shining paragon of legalism in 1987, but the letter of the law was not what made it different from 1937. The USSR had all sorts of, uh, wonderful laws, most of which were enforced with incredible discretion. [1] Although, given the incredibly broad and poorly defined nature of Article 58, its application was 100% based on discretionary interpretation. http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/uk58-e.html#58-1a http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/uk58-e.html#58-1a [2] Or at least, that's how Solzhenitsyn tells it.

pandaman 9y ago
I am not arguing this. Your example is bad by: a) bringing a civil law system to argue a point about a common law. It's like arguing about Linux with BeOS examples. b) saying that the law was more or less the same while it has changed rather dramatically. Saying the US law has not significantly changed between Coolidge and Reagan would be less false than this.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> USSR had "civil law" system, which, unlike "common law" in the US does not depend on the interpretation. "Civil law" is direct and is not up for interpretation by judges. That's not a accurate at all; language of law always requires interpretation and application to the facts, that doesn't change in a civil law system. Moreover, the different role of the judiciary isn't germane to what GP referenced, which was different approach to executive enforcement practices and priorities.