If Russian scholar and cultural historian George Feifer (1934-2019) had not died, it's unlikely I would have ever known about his book, Justice in Moscow (1964), which I found listed in Harrison Smith's engaging obituary of Mr. Feifer in the Washington Post last November.
The book is all about the lower court system in Russia in the 1960s, and if the subject sounds dull, believe me, the way Mr. Feifer writes, it's anything but.
Written from an American perspective (Mr. Feifer was born in Paterson, N.J. and educated in the U.S.), Justice was one of several books Mr. Feifer wrote about Russia, including two semi-autobiographical novels.
He first went to Russia in 1959 as a guide for an American automotive show and then later as an exchange
student. That led to his affinity for and writing about Russian everyday life and the characters he discovered and befriended (one of whom he married and later divorced).
The book's dialogue can run for pages, but Mr. Feifer's excellent writing never leaves a reader wondering who is speaking. He brings the courtroom to life with his personal descriptions of domestic conflicts, minor crimes, and harsh penalties. (Shouts from the audience were [are?] permissible.)
Disagreements about childcare, living arrangements, alcohol's effects, and financial responsibilities filled the courts. Grandmothers often were handed parental roles while parents continued their flings. Marriage then (and now? Russia's divorce rate in 2016 was 60%, meaning there were more divorces than marriages) seemed like a sometime-thing which few took seriously.
Courts were open to anyone who wanted to come and see. On the occasions when the courtrooms were crowded and no seats were available, Mr. Feifer's dress (coat and tie) got him in. (Pages 200-201)
Before trial, a two-to-four months' wait in jail for lesser crimes was not unusual. Many charged remained free, but Russia had no patience with those who failed to contribute to society. (88-89)
There was "the Soviet tendency to set an example by punishing the more affluent wrongdoers more severely. In the People's Court it is poor work in the factory, rather than a poor purse, that puts a defendant at a disadvantage." (79)
"Hooliganism" (being lazy without contributing to society) was a crime frequently mentioned. Russian citizens then could not understand the "American way," i.e., that many Americans live at societal expense. Mr. Feifer quotes a cleaning woman: "I just don't see how you can justify people living off capital instead of sweat." (198) (A label commonly applied was known as "the Parasite Law.")
It was assumed that most of the accused were to be found guilty (216-17), and not every accused (save juveniles and mentally ill persons) were represented by lawyers.
Mr. Feifer often observed "palsy-walsy" relationships between prosecutors and judges in courtrooms where the accused had no legal representation!
In some cases, the defendant's attorney was so harsh on the client, the attorney came across as a prosecutor, and in one courtroom, the attorney stated he didn't believe his own client!
Many defendants relied on "the investigator" who supposedly acted as a researcher of the crime. Individuals had little protection in the courts which Mr. Feifer blamed on Peter the Great, Nicholas I, "and even the Moguls," rather than Stalin. (102)
Unlike American legal hierarchy, Russian judges often abandoned the judiciary to become lawyers since the pay was about the same and attorneys' hours were shorter with opportunities to earn more "on the side." (234)
Mr. Feifer found lawyers to be better dressed than judges, friendlier to strangers (like himself), and full of questions about American legal practice.
He observed many scars and amputations among Russian lawyers whose World War II experiences were evident. "When these Russians talked about disarmament, there was a ring of honesty to their appeals." (237-38)
In the early 60s punishment for "economic crimes" was treated in the extreme. Despite earlier codes which defined sentencing for "currency speculation" to several years in prison, upper courts could change punishments to executions which they did. (247-248)
But rather than punishment and in "spirit of dedication to the Fatherland and to Communism," the book cites the primary purpose of Soviet courts was to educate the people about laws, discipline, and the respect of others related to "the rules of socialist living and behavior." (107)
Sixty years later and one wonders how this 1960s version compares to present-day Russia. With a thriving bureaucracy, it is doubtful much has changed.
A great book which I obtained through Fairfax County's interlibrary loan program.
patricialesli@gmail.com
Posts
