1 Here is a little sample: a category of “socially dangerous persons” was introduced by the Soviet legislation in the 1920s, rather than by a 1934 statute (at 12); Beria was the head of the Soviet secret police from 1938 to 1946 only, not until 1953 (at 15); criminalization of failure to report serious crimes was not Khrushchev's invention (at 17); Bierut served as president of the Polish National Home Council since 1944, not since 1945 (at 28); during the 1957 general elections to the Polish Diet, the voters did have a choice between several candidates (see a contrary statement at 32). Ms. Łoś says (at 29) that Polish “peasants were forcibly collectivized” and later contradicts herself saying that “in Poland… all official attempts at collectivization have failed” (at 81). The latter statement is much closer to the mark since even at the peak of collectivization only about 9% of the arable land belonged to collective farms. See Karl-Eugen Wädekin, Sozialistische Agrarpolitik in Osteuropa 166 (Socialist Agrarian Policy in Eastern Europe) (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1974). Professor Łoś seems to make a rather exaggerated claim about “Poland's unique humanitarian traditions and progressive legal culture” (at 135).Google Scholar

2 This section draws upon my earlier study, ”Communists and Their Criminal Law: Reflections on Igor Andrejew's ‘Outline of the Criminal Law of Socialist States,’” 7 Rev. Socialist L. 7 (1981).Google Scholar

3 For a further discussion, see id. at 7, 9, 27.Google Scholar

4 Andrejew, Igor, Ocherk po ugolovnomu pravu sotsialisticheskikh gosudarstv 37 (Outline of the Criminal Law of Socialist States) (Moscow: Iuridicheskaia Literatura, 1978) (“Andrejew, Outline”).Google Scholar

5 Fundamental Principles of the Criminal Legislation of the USSR and the Union Republics, art. 3 (Dec. 25, 1958) in 1 Ugolovnoe zakonodatel'stvo Soiuza SSR i soiuzykh respublik 29 (Criminal Legislation of the Union of SSR and Union Republics) (Moscow: Iurid Literatura, 1963).Google Scholar

6 Andrejew, Outline, at 62.Google Scholar

7 Berman, Harold J. & Spindler, James W., Soviet Criminal Law and Procedure 21–25 (2d ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972).Google Scholar

8 There exists a large body of literature on the mass terror of the Stalin era. See, e. g., Robert Conquest, The Great Terror: Stalin's Purges of the Thirties (London: Macmillan, 1968); Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956, Parts I & II (New York: Harper & Row, 1973); Roy A. Medvedev, Let History Judge: The Origins and Consequences of Stalinism (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971). For some of the findings of mass terror recently published in the USSR, see Keller, Bill, “Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died as Victims of Stalin,”N. Y. Times, Feb. 4, 1989, sec. A, at 1, 4. See also Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Failure 239–40 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1989); S. Maksudor, Poteri naseleniia SSSR (Losses of Population in the USSR) (Benson, Vt.: Chalidze Publications, 1989).Google Scholar

9 On various “schools” of criminal law thought, See Radzinowicz, Leon, Ideology and Crime (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966).Google Scholar

10 For a useful summary of the Soviet antiparasite law and its enforcement up to 1974, see Burford, Russel E. Jr., “Getting the Bugs Out of Socialist Legality: The Case of Joseph Brodsky and a Decade of Soviet Anti-Parasite Legislation,” 22 Am. J. Comp. L. 465 (1974). For a very perceptive analysis of the subject, see Lipson, Leon, “Hosts and Pests: The Fight Against Parasites,”in Cornell, R., ed., The Soviet Political System 323–32 (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970). Regarding current Soviet antiparasite legislation, see Ugolovnyi kodeks RSFSR (s postateinymi materialami), art. 209, 113, 416–48 (Criminal Code RSFSR Annotated) (Moscow: Iurid Literatura, 1987) (“Criminal Code RSFSR”). The book under review includes some very interesting and perceptive comments about the objectives of antiparasite laws in communist countries (at 102–4) as well as some useful information about the Polish 1982 antiparasite legislation (at 98–102).Google Scholar

11 See, first of all, the fundamental book by Sidney Block & Peter Reddaway, Russia's Political Hospitals: The Abuse of Psychiatry in the Soviet Union (London: Victor Gollanch, 1977). On a current, improved, but still very far from satisfactory situation in Soviet psychiatry see Reddaway, Peter, “Soviet Psychiatry: An End to Political Abuse?” 30 Survey, No. 3, Oct. 1988, at 25; B. Protchenko & A. Rudyakov, “Bol'naya Tema” (A Painful Subject), Kommunist, No. 3, Feb. 1989, at 48; Edict of the USSR Supreme Soviet, Jan. 5, 1988, “On Establishing Regulations Concerning Conditions and Procedures in the Rendering of Psychiatric Care,”Vedomosti Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR (Journal of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR) (“VVS SSSR”), 1988, no. 2, item 19; “Will Soviet ‘Psychiatry’ Go Straight?”N. Y. Times, Jan. 8, 1988, at A-30. See also S. V. Borodin & S. V. Polubinskaya, “Pravovoe regulirovanie okazanie psykhistrickeskov pomoshchi” (Legal Regulation of Rendering Psychiatric Aid), Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, 1988, No. 11, at 72 (“SGIP”); Leonid Zagalskii, “Sumashestviie” (Madness), Literaturnaia Gazeta, June 28, 1989, at 13; Robert Pear, “Report Reproaches Soviet Psychiatry,”N. Y. Times, July 13, 1989, at A-3; V. Razboinikov, “Prikazano ubrat” (Ordered to Remove), Izvestia, June 28, 1989, at 3. Judging by the current Soviet reports, psychiatric repression still remains a fact of life.Google Scholar

12 Criminal Code RSFSR, art. 70. Article 70 provides for imprisonment for a term of from three to ten years, with or without exile for two to five years. See also id., art. 190–1 (“Systematic circulation in oral form of fabrications known to be false which defame the Soviet state and social system, as well as preparation or circulation in written, printed or other form of compositions of such content”). The statutory penalty under the latter provision is imprisonment for up to three years, correctional labor tasks for up to two years, or a fine not exceeding 300 rubles. Both statutes have been recently (April 1989) revised. For a further discussion see note 51 infra.Google Scholar

13 Pomorski, Stanislaw, “Criminal Law Protection of Socialist Property in the USSR,” in Barry, Donald D., Ginsburgs, George, & Maggs, Peter B., eds., 1 Soviet Law After Stalin 235 (Leyden: Sijthoff, 1977).Google Scholar

14 Damaska, Mirjan R., The Faces of Justice and State Authority: A Comparative Approach to the Legal Process 197 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986) (“Damaska, The Faces of Justice”).Google Scholar

15 Unger, Roberto M., Law in Modern Society: Toward a Criticism of Social Theory 68–69 (New York: Free Press, 1976) (“Unger, Law in Modern Society”).Google Scholar

16 Pomorski, Stanislaw, “Crimes Against the Central Planner: ‘Ochkovtiratelstvo,’”in Barry, Donald D., Ginsburgs, George, & Maggs, Peter B., eds., 2 Soviet Law After Stalin 306–7 (Alphen aan den Rijn: Sijthoff, 1978).Google Scholar

17 Markovits, Inge, “Socialist vs. Bourgeois Rights–An East-West German Comparison,” 45 U. Chi. L. Rev. 612, 625 (1978).Google Scholar

18 Unger, Law in Modern Society, at 48–58.Google Scholar

19 Damaska, The Faces of Justice, at 194, 197.Google Scholar

20 Piontkovskii, A. A. et al., eds., 1 Kurs sovetskogo ugolovnogo prava v shesti tomakh 9 (Handbook of Soviet Criminal Law in Six Volumes) (Moscow: Nauka, 1970); Belaev, N. A. & Shargorodskii, M. D., 1 Kurs sovetskogo ugolovnogo prava 8 (Handbook of Soviet Criminal Law) (Leningrad: Izd. Leningradskogo Universiteta, 1968).Google Scholar

21 Andrejew, Outline 122 (cited in note 4).Google Scholar

22 The RSFSR Criminal Code, art. 21, lists 13 kinds of punishment, only 2 of which involve deprivation of freedom. Criminal Code RSFSR 23, 43–45 (cited in note 10). See also Andrejew, Outline 143.Google Scholar

23 Kuznetsova, N. F., Prestuplenie i prestupnost' 4 (Crime and Criminality) (Moscow: Izd. Moskovskogo Universiteta, 1969); Kriminologia 116 (Moscow: Nauka, 1968).Google Scholar

24 Pomorski, 7 Rev. Socialist L. at 24 (cited in note 2). It should be noted in this connection that according to a recent Soviet official report, “During the past three years, the number of convicts in colonies dropped 40% as a result of the humanization of judicial practice.” B. Pitia, “Punishment and Correction,”Pravda, June 8, 1989, at 4, 41 Current Digests of the Soviet Press (CDSP), No. 23, at 25.Google Scholar

25 Andrejew, Outline 126; “Novyi pravovoi orientir” (A New Legal Guidepost), Izvestia, Dec. 18, 1988, at 3 (an interview with Professor Gal'perin).Google Scholar

26 Severin, Iu. D., Kommentarii k ugolovnomu kodeksu RSFSR 48–49 (Commentary to the RSFSR Criminal Code) (Moscow: Iuridicheskaia Literatura, 1984); Sakharov, Andrei D., My Country and the World 43 (New York: Vintage Books, 1975); Simis, Konstantin, “Death Penalty Under Socialism,” 1 Russia 23, 24 (1981).Google Scholar

27 Van den Berg, Ger, “The Soviet Union and the Death Penalty,” 35 Soviet Stud. 154, 162 (1983).Google Scholar

28 Andrejew, Igor et al., Kodeks karny z komentarzem 178 (Criminal Code with Commentary) (Warsaw: Wyd. Prawnicze, 1973); Pomorski, 7 Rev. Socialist L. at 24, 34 (cited in note 2). A comprehensive reform of criminal law in Poland is underway. For a report on its current, early stage, see Lech K. Paprzycki, “Reforma ustawodawstwa karnego. Uwagi do zalozen” (Reform of Criminal Legislation: Remarks on the Guidelines), Gazeta Prawnicza, May 1, 1989, at 3, 9.Google Scholar

29 Much of the criticism of prison conditions in the USSR is currently confirmed by the Soviet authors. See in particular a three-part article by Leonid Shinkarev entitled “Zona” (Zone) and published in Izvestia, Aug. 4, 5, and 7, 1988, at 3. See also a sharp criticism of cruel and corrupting conditions in Soviet penal institutions by Professor Yakovlev, Alexandr, in Literaturnaia Gazeta, Feb. 1, 1989, at 10.Google Scholar

30 See, for example, Sakhnin, Arkadii, “Korruptsia” (Corruption), Izvestia, Nov. 2, 1988, at 3; “Prava cheloveka i sila zakona” (Human Rights and Force of Law), Izvestia, Dec. 29, 1988, at 3; Feofanov, Iu., “Unter v lampasakh” (A Noncommissioned [Officer] in Stripes), Izvestia, Jan. 2, 1989, at 4 (about the trial of lurii Churbanov, Brezhnev's son-in-law, on charges of bribery); Liapunov, Iu. I., “Aktual'nye voprosy ugolovno-pravovoi okhrany sotsialisticheskoi sobstvennosti” (Current Problems of Criminal Law Protection of Socialist Property), SGIP, 1988, No. 2, at 78. See also recent, rather alarmist remarks by General Secretary Gorbechev about the rise of serious criminality delivered at the plenum of the Party Central Committee on April 25, 1989. Izvestia, April 27, 1989, at 2 col. 7. The essence of these remarks was repeated in a major policy address to the new Congress of People's Deputies, Izvestia, May 31, 1989, at 3.Google Scholar

31 Shchekochikhin, Iuri & Gurov, Alexandr, “Lev prygnul” (A Lion Jumped), Literaturnaia Gazeta, July 20, 1988, at 13; see also Gurov, A. I., “O nekotorykh voprosakh izuchenia kriminal'nogo profesionalizma” (On Some Problems of Study of Criminal Professionalism), SGIP, 1987, No. 5, at 82. There has also arisen a Soviet mafia in the United States. It is engaged in activities such as murder, drug trafficking, fraud, and extortion. Having begun as a phenomenon within the émigré communities, it is now branching out into American society. N. Y. Times, June 4, 1989, at A-1, 38 col. 1.Google Scholar

32 Abalkin, L., “Obnovlenie sotsialisticheskoi sobstvennosti” (Renewal of Socialist Ownership), Ekonomicheskaia Gazeta, Nov. 1988, No. 45, at 10–11; V. Shkredov, “Sotsialism i sobstvennost'” (Socialism and Ownership), Kommunist, Aug. 1988, No. 12, at 28, 36.Google Scholar

33 Dyatlov, A., “Vpervie i navsegda?” (For the First Time and Forever?), Komsomol'skaya Pravda, Feb. 15, 1989; Illesh, A., “Kto iz a chto zaklyuchen v. koloniyakn?” (Who Is in the Colonies and What Are They There For?), Izvestia, March 13, 1989, at 3; “Crime Statistics Released: An Act of Glasnost,”New Times, Feb. 28-March 6, 1989, at 30.Google Scholar

34 For a useful summary of the Soviet publications on the subject, see Wishnevsky, Julia, “An Unjust Court Is Worse than Brigandage,”Res. Bull. RL 224/86, June 9, 1986; Valerii Konovalov, “Cases of Erroneous Passing of the Death Sentence in the Soviet Union,”Res. Bull. RL 248/87, July 1, 1987; id.“The Mogilev Affair,”Res. Bull. RL 446/87, Nov. 11, 1987.Google Scholar

35 See in particular a collective article authored by the Institute of State and Law of the USSR Academy of Sciences entitled “Iuridicheskaia nauka i praktika v usloviakh perestroiki” (Legal Science and Legal Practice Under the Conditions of Perestroika), Kommunist, No. 14, Sept. 1987, at 42, 47 (“Legal Science and Legal Practice”). The article was followed by an extensive and, for the most part, critical discussion published by the authoritative Kommunist in four subsequent issues (Nos. 15 and 18 of 1987, and nos. 2 and 4 of 1988). In addition, about two hundred letters to the editor written in response to the initial article as well as to the questions raised by the editorial board were summarized in Iu. Kudriavtsev's, “Na putiakh pravovoi reformy” (On the Roads of Law Reform), Kommunist, No. 14, Sept. 1988, at 77. Most letters depict the administration of criminal justice as manipulative and/or corrupt. Id. at 82–83. See also Iu. Feofanov, “Delo” (Case), Izvestia, Sept. 26, 1987, at 3; Igor Gamaiunov, “Nakanune: Chto dolzhna nam dat' pravovaia reforma” (On the Eve: What Should Give Us the Law Reform), Literaturnaia Gazeta, Nov. 2, 1988, at 12; “Prava cheloveka v pravovom gosudarstve” (Human Rights in the Legal State), Izvestia, Jan. 3, 1989, at 3 (“Human Rights”); “The Law and Only the Law” (interview with chairman of the USSR Supreme Court, Terebilov, V. I.), Pravda, Dec. 5, 1988, at 3, 39 Current Digests of the Soviet Press (“CDSP”), No. 49, at 14, 23–24.Google Scholar

36 “Kakim byt' ugolovnomu kodeksu” (What the Criminal Code Should Be Like) (interview with Kudriavtsev, V., director of the institute of State Law, the USSR Academy of Sciences), Izvestia, Aug. 27, 1987, at 3; Kudriavtsev, V. & Kelina, S., eds., Ugolovyi zakon: Opyt teoreticheskogo modelirovania 3–12 (Criminal Legislation: Experience of Theoretical Modeling) (Moscow: Nauka, 1987) (“Kudriavtsev & Kelina, Criminal Legislation”); Kelina, S. G., “Ob osnovaniakh i posledstviakh dekriminalizatsii” (On Grounds and Consequences of Decriminalization), SGIP 1988, No. 11, at 12.Google Scholar

37 “Legal Science and Legal Practice,” at 47; Kudriavtsev, Iu., Kommunist, No. 14, Sept. 1988, at 80; ‘Podchinaetsia tol'ko zakonu” (Is Subordinate Only to Law) (interview with Iu. Severin, first deputy minister of justice of the RSFSR), Izvestia, Oct. 28, 1987, at 3; Savitskii, V., “Tak kakoi sud nam nuzhen” (So, What Kind of Court Do We Need), Pravda, Oct. 3, 1988, at 3.Google Scholar

38 “Human Rights,”Izvestia, Jan. 3, 1989, at 3; “The Law and Only the Law,”Pravda, Dec. 5, 1988, at 14; see also “Decree of the USSR Supreme Soviet, May 26, 1988, on the Report on the Activity of the USSR Supreme Court,”VVS SSSR, 1988, No. 22, item 357.Google Scholar

39 “Human Rights”, Izvestia, Jan. 3, 1989 (cited in note 35): One of the participants of the “round table” discussion, a member of the USSR Supreme Court, Temushkin, reportedly witnessed a telephone conversation between the then Supreme Court Chairman Smirnov and the First Secretary of the Azerbaidzhan Communist Party, Aliev. Aliev forbade Smirnov to review supposedly unfounded convictions of two defendants condemned to death by the Azerbaidzhan Supreme Court for economic crimes. Both condemned men were executed. Two features of the reported event are noteworthy: (1) The chief judicial officer of the country was given an obviously unlawful order by a party functionary and obediently followed it. (2) The order was given by a party leader at the republican level to the head of the top federal court. This incident well illustrates the pitiful status of the judiciary. According to George Fletcher and his sources, Party officials intervene in about 10–12% of the cases. George P. Fletcher, “In Gorbachev's Courts,”N. Y. Rev. Books, No. 8, May 18, 1989, at 13. Gorbachev expressed cautious support for proposals to introduce the jury system in criminal cases. The jury system if introduced would make the effectiveness of telephone justice more problematic, providing something of a buffer. Izvestia, May 31, 1989, at 3.Google Scholar

40 Wishnevsky, Res. Bull., RL 224/86; Konovalov, Res. Bull., RL 248/87, 446/87; Feofanov, Izvestia, Sept. 26, 1987, at 3; “The Law and Only the Law,”Izvestia, Dec. 5, 1988, at 3; Iu. Kudriavtsev, Kommunist, No. 14, Sept. 1988, at 82–84. In an important theoretical article, two highly authoritative academic writers pointed out that one symptom of the systemic malaise of the Soviet legal system was domination by the police investigation over the trial proceedings in criminal cases. Kudriavtsev, V. & Lukasheva, Ie., “Sotsialisticheskoe, pravovoe gasudarstvo” (Socialist Legal State), Kommunist, No. 11, July 1988, at 44, 55. In such a police-dominated climate, defense attorneys have been routinely mistreated and intimidated. For a further discussion see Peter H. Solomon, “The Role of Defence Counsel in the USSR: The Politics of Judicial Reform Under Gorbachev,” 31 Crim. L. Q. 76, 82 (1988) and authority collected there in note 14.Google Scholar

41 For a further discussion, see Knight, Amy W., The KGB: Police and Politics in the Soviet Union 100–102 (Boston: Unwin Hymon, 1988) (“Knight, The KGB”).Google Scholar

42 Gazeta, Ekonomicheskaia, No. 28, July 1988, at 12.Google Scholar

43 Savitskii, Pravda, Oct. 3, 1988, at 3. One should also register in this context the fact that the Soviet practicing bar was at last allowed to establish its national association. Burns, John F., “Soviet Lawyers, in Feisty Session Form Bar Group,”N. Y. Times, Feb. 26, 1988, at A-12.Google Scholar

44 Izvestia, Dec. 17, 1988, at 1–3 (articles/sections cited parenthetically in the text are those of the draft). For a general survey of the draft provisions see Orland, Leonard, “Soviet Justice in the Gorbachev Era: The 1988 Draft Fundamental Principles of Criminal Legislation,” 4 Conn. J. Int'l L. 513 (1989).Google Scholar

45 A complete model of the fundamental principles of criminal legislation, including a detailed commentary and analysis, was prepared well ahead of time by a group of Moscow legal scholars. See Kudriavtsev & Kelina, Criminal Legislation.Google Scholar

46 Yakovlev, A., “Smysl zakona” (Sense of Law), Pravda, Feb. 26, 1989, at 3. The provision was, reportedly, included in the draft due to the support of the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Thus a liberalizing tendency gained an additional mooring in public international law. Julia Wishnevsky,”‘Flight Abroad’ No Longer Equals Treason,” 1 Report on the USSR No. 6, at 20 (Feb. 10, 1989).Google Scholar

47 “Vysokaia tsena sudebnoi oshibki” (High Price of Judicial Error) (interview with Professor Alexandr Yakovlev), Literaturnaia Gazeta, Feb. 1, 1989, at 10 (“Judicial Error”). This opinion marks a radical departure from the traditional Soviet position according to which Soviet municipal law is either in full conformity with international standards or, most of the time, even superior to them.Google Scholar

48 Criminal Code RSFSR, art. 64.Google Scholar

49 A statement by Professor Yakovlev, Alexandr, a member of the drafting committee, as related by Wishnevsky, Report on the USSR, Feb. 10, 1989, at 20. The anticipated change to this effect has not occurred so far. See Edict, April 8, 1989, amending Law “On Crimes Against the State,”VVS SSSR No. 15, item 106.Google Scholar

50 See supra note 12 and the accompanying text.Google Scholar

51 “Human Rights,”Izvestia, Jan. 3, 1989, at 3. It will be recalled that in February 1987 the Soviet government announced that it was releasing some 140 individuals who had been imprisoned for “anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda.” An amnesty announced in July for the first time included prisoners convicted of “disseminating fabrications discrediting the Soviet system.” Knight, The KGB 102 (cited in note 41). Nonetheless, the most promising statutory changes announced by Professor Kelina must have been halted, perhaps at the last stages of the legislative process. The April 8 Edict (cited in note 49) is in this regard clearly regressive; particularly ominous sounds its language criminalizing acts of “public insulting or discrediting” of government or party officials (art. 11–1). After initial lavish praise heaped on the edict by duly enthusiastic establishment experts (see “Demokratiiu okhraniaet zakon” (Law Protects Democracy), interview with Kudriavtsev, V., Pravda, April 11, 1989, at 3)) it was increasingly becoming an embarrassment. The most offensive to the idea of the glasnost' part of the edict was reportedly repealed. Bill Keller, “Of Sakharov, Gorbachev and Free Speech,”N. Y. Times, June 6, 1989, at A-1.Google Scholar

52 Wishnevsky, Report on the USSR, Feb. 10, 1989, at 21.Google Scholar

53 The death penalty is allowed for the following crimes: “state treason,” espionage, terrorist act, sabotage, aggravated murder, and rape of a minor.Google Scholar

54 A strong current of academic opinion, on the other hand, seems to favor either a total abolition of the death penalty or its further limitations. See “Human Rights,”Izvestia, Jan. 3, 1989, at 3; “Judicial Error,”Literaturnia Gazeta, Feb. 1, 1989, at 10; Zagorodnikov, N., Naumov, A., & Sakharov, A., “Ischerpan li potentsial gumanizma” (Is the Potential of Humanitarianism Exhausted?), Izvestia, Jan. 24/, 1989, at 3. See also “Capital Punishment Debate Heats Up,” 40 CDSP No. 2, at 10–12. See also O. K. Pavlova, “Obsuzhdenie proyekta osnov ugolovnogo zakonotatel'stva Soiuza SSR i Soiuznik Respublik” (Discussion of the Fundamental Principles of Criminal Legislation of the USSR and the Union Republics), SGIP, 1989, no. 3, at 143. The following principal arguments against the death penalty were advanced by the liberal camp during the current discussion: (1) the death penalty is incompatible with the supreme value and sanctity of human life; it represents legalized murder and causes brutalization of any society that applies it; (2) the death penalty is ineffective, as evidenced by the rising crime rate in the Soviet Union; (3) the death penalty for nonviolent offenses-embezzlement of state property, for example-is particularly impermissible, as no degree of material harm can justify taking human life; and (4) finally, the death penalty has in the past been inflicted upon the innocent, and there is no way to exclude such tragic errors in the future.Google Scholar

55 See sources cited in the preceding note. See also the following very characteristic exchange: V. Ol'nev, “Ne mnogovato li gumanitarnosti?” (Isn't There Too Much of Humanitarianism?), and a reply by Professor I. Gal'perin, “O zhivuchesti opasnykh zabluzhdenii” (On Viability of Dangerous Errors), Izvestia, Feb. 6, 1989, at 3. The configuration of the clashing views will not surprise anyone who studied the history of Russia. The rift between crude, unenlightened “masses” and the sophisticated elite is very wide indeed. The reformist writers lament the desperately low levels of legal and political culture of the populace. See, for example, “Judicial Error,”Literaturnaia Gazeta, Feb. 1, 1989, at 10.Google Scholar

56 “Judicial Error,”Literaturnaia Gazeta, Feb. 1, 1989, at 10; Gal'perin, Izvestia, Feb. 6, 1989, at 3.Google Scholar