• What was taught in USSR law school?

    From Adam H. Kerman@ahk@chinet.com to rec.arts.tv on Fri Jan 9 21:36:17 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

    Inspired by the other thread to do some reading, did you know there was
    such a thing as jurisprudence in the USSR? If you were executed under
    the Stalin regime, you could be confident that proper procedure was
    followed.

    Here's a blog post talking about the guy who wrote the book that every
    lawyer in training read.

    https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2024/02/old-legal-theories-given-a-new-life/

    I would like my own copy to pound the clue through the skull of anyone apologizing for socialism demanding that more and more of it be
    implemented in the West. This is the most disturbing thing I've read all
    day.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Rhino@no_offline_contact@example.com to rec.arts.tv on Fri Jan 9 19:05:07 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

    On 2026-01-09 4:36 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
    Inspired by the other thread to do some reading, did you know there was
    such a thing as jurisprudence in the USSR? If you were executed under
    the Stalin regime, you could be confident that proper procedure was
    followed.

    You must be being sarcastic. The one thing you could be sure of is that
    the Soviet justice system was anything BUT just. Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago is the gold standard on this but it's three volumes and
    close to 2000 pages so that may be more than you're willing to take on.
    (I've read it three times now and HIGHLY recommend it as having done
    more to educate me about the real world than anything else I've ever read.)

    Picture a trial that lasted just 10 or 15 minutes, with no defence
    attorney present or allowed. (Show trials were the exception in that
    they pretended to permit a defence attorney, although many of them
    openly expressed their contempt for their clients in open court and
    their desire that their client should get the maximum penalty allowed by
    law.) A typical trial was in front of a "troika", a panel of three men (although there were often just two) who basically noted that you had confessed (after intensive torture, although they probably didn't
    mention that bit) and announced the sentence, which might be an
    immediate execution or a long stint in the camps.

    It should also be mentioned that it wasn't necessary to have actually
    DONE SOMETHING to be sentenced to the Gulag: merely being related to
    someone who had confessed to something was sufficient. Stalin's
    "justice" system had no hesitation in sending parents, grandparents,
    spouses, aunts and uncles, or children of confessed criminals to the
    Gulag for several years. (Very young children would get sent to brutal orphanages were they were eventually recruited to join the secret police
    in many cases, often as some of the cruelest officers).

    Here's a blog post talking about the guy who wrote the book that every
    lawyer in training read.

    https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2024/02/old-legal-theories-given-a-new-life/

    Vyshinky was among the vilest of the vile people that surrounded Stalin.

    I would like my own copy to pound the clue through the skull of anyone apologizing for socialism demanding that more and more of it be
    implemented in the West. This is the most disturbing thing I've read all
    day.

    If you read it, Gulag Archipelago will be the most disturbing thing
    you've read in your entire LIFE. My brother had little interest in
    politics - although some in history - and he read the whole thing. He
    wasn't one to talk much on the phone and even less so when it was long distance but he called me long distance after he read it and we had an extensive chat about it; it had moved him that much.

    Robert Conquest's book, The Great Terror (especially the 30th
    anniversary revision and probably the 40th anniversary revision) are considerably shorter if you want to get a sense of the times without
    reading so much. Conquest was an Anglo-American historian who, as a
    young man, had joined the (British) Communist Party about the same time
    as Kim Philby (while also at Cambridge) but who eventually soured on
    Communism and wrote many books on the history of Soviet communism. The
    revised editions of the Great Terror are especially good because he was
    able to confirm a lot of things that had only been informed speculation
    in the original version due to the opening of the Soviet archives to
    Western researchers.
    --
    Rhino
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From BTR1701@atropos@mac.com to rec.arts.tv on Sat Jan 10 06:00:52 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

    On Jan 9, 2026 at 1:36:17 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

    Inspired by the other thread to do some reading, did you know there was
    such a thing as jurisprudence in the USSR? If you were executed under
    the Stalin regime, you could be confident that proper procedure was
    followed.

    Here's a blog post talking about the guy who wrote the book that every
    lawyer in training read.

    https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2024/02/old-legal-theories-given-a-new-life/

    I would like my own copy to pound the clue through the skull of anyone apologizing for socialism demanding that more and more of it be
    implemented in the West. This is the most disturbing thing I've read all
    day.

    https://ibb.co/fVNpr1qn

    https://ibb.co/Y7VkvBGy


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Pluted Pup@plutedpup@outlook.com to rec.arts.tv on Sun Jan 11 22:50:16 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

    On 1/9/26 1:36 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
    Inspired by the other thread to do some reading, did you know there was
    such a thing as jurisprudence in the USSR? If you were executed under
    the Stalin regime, you could be confident that proper procedure was
    followed.

    Here's a blog post talking about the guy who wrote the book that every
    lawyer in training read.

    https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2024/02/old-legal-theories-given-a-new-life/

    I would like my own copy to pound the clue through the skull of anyone apologizing for socialism demanding that more and more of it be
    implemented in the West. This is the most disturbing thing I've read all
    day.

    What was disturbing? The book Theory of Legal Evidence in Soviet Law, by Andrei Vyshinsky, has not been translated into English so it's hard to
    be disturbed by a book that can't be read. Are you afraid that if you
    could read the book that Vyshinsky's arguments are so compelling that
    it might convince the world of the merits of Soviet Justice?

    I'd like to read Vyshinsky's book "from crime to labor", but again,
    the book was quickly banned in the USSR and it was never translated.


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Pluted Pup@plutedpup@outlook.com to rec.arts.tv,rec.arts.books on Sun Jan 11 23:12:24 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

    On 1/9/26 4:05 PM, Rhino wrote:
    On 2026-01-09 4:36 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
    Inspired by the other thread to do some reading, did you know there was
    such a thing as jurisprudence in the USSR? If you were executed under
    the Stalin regime, you could be confident that proper procedure was
    followed.

    You must be being sarcastic. The one thing you could be sure of is that the Soviet justice system was anything BUT just. Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago is the gold standard on this but it's three volumes and close to 2000 pages so that may be more than you're willing to take on. (I've read it three times now and HIGHLY recommend it as having done more to educate me about the real world than anything else I've ever read.)

    Picture a trial that lasted just 10 or 15 minutes, with no defence attorney present or allowed. (Show trials were the exception in that they pretended to permit a defence attorney, although many of them openly expressed their contempt for their clients in open court and their desire that their client should get the maximum penalty allowed by law.) A typical trial was in front of a "troika", a panel of three men (although there were often just two) who basically noted that you had confessed (after intensive torture, although they probably didn't mention that bit) and announced the sentence, which might be an immediate execution or a long stint in the camps.

    Worse than that, Troikas were trials in absentia.


    It should also be mentioned that it wasn't necessary to have actually DONE SOMETHING to be sentenced to the Gulag: merely being related to someone who had confessed to something was sufficient. Stalin's "justice" system had no hesitation in sending parents, grandparents, spouses, aunts and uncles, or children of confessed criminals to the Gulag for several years. (Very young children would get sent to brutal orphanages were they were eventually recruited to join the secret police in many cases, often as some of the cruelest officers).

    Here's a blog post talking about the guy who wrote the book that every
    lawyer in training read.

    https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2024/02/old-legal-theories-given-a-new-life/

    Vyshinky was among the vilest of the vile people that surrounded Stalin.

    I would like my own copy to pound the clue through the skull of anyone
    apologizing for socialism demanding that more and more of it be
    implemented in the West. This is the most disturbing thing I've read all
    day.

    If you read it, Gulag Archipelago will be the most disturbing thing you've read in your entire LIFE. My brother had little interest in politics - although some in history - and he read the whole thing. He wasn't one to talk much on the phone and even less so when it was long distance but he called me long distance after he read it and we had an extensive chat about it; it had moved him that much.

    Which version? The author approved Abridged version pulls
    punches, the real version is three volumes totaling 1,600
    pages or so.


    Robert Conquest's book, The Great Terror (especially the 30th anniversary revision and probably the 40th anniversary revision) are considerably shorter if you want to get a sense of the times without reading so much. Conquest was an Anglo-American historian who, as a young man, had joined the (British) Communist Party about the same time as Kim Philby (while also at Cambridge) but who eventually soured on Communism and wrote many books on the history of Soviet communism. The revised editions of the Great Terror are especially good because he was able to confirm a lot of things that had only been informed speculation in the original version due to the opening of the Soviet archives to Western researchers.


    Factual warnings and descriptions were given about the Communists,
    in book form, since they got into power in 1917. There is no merit
    to the argument that anti-communism only became "acceptable" in the
    West at some later date, after a book is published, like 1941, with
    Valtin's The Night, 1947 with Kravchenko's I Choose Freedom, or
    1956 with Khruschev's Secret Speech, 1961 with A Day In The Life,
    1973 with Gulag Archipelago, or after the USSR broke up, even
    though anti-communism was always dismissed by the "cultural elite"
    as Sour Grapes.









    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2