The judicial reform of Alexander II is generally considered one of the most successful and consistent of all his reforms (along with the military reform). A completely new court system and order of legal proceedings were established. The main results were the introduction of a unified judicial system instead of a cumbersome set of estates of the realm courts, and fundamental changes in criminal trials. The latter included the establishment of the principle of equality of the parties involved, the introduction of public hearings, the jury trial, and a professional advocate that had never existed in Russia. However, there were also problems, as certain obsolete institutions were not covered by the reform. Also, the reform was hindered by extrajudicial punishment, introduced on a widespread scale during the reigns of his successors – Alexander III and Nicholas II.[1][2][3]
The judicial reforms started on 20 November 1864, when the tsar signed the decree which enforced four Regulations (Establishment of Judicial Settlements, Regulations of Civil Proceedings, Regulations of Criminal Proceedings, and Regulations of Punishments Imposed by Justices of the Peace).
Court system
The court system of Imperial Russia had remained intact since the reign of Catherine II. It included Estates-of-the-realm courts for different estates of the realm. Alexander II introduced a unified two-level system which consisted of General judicial settlements (Общие судебные установления) and Local judicial settlements (Местные судебные установления), where settlement (установление) stands for body or office. Courts were separated from the executive branch.[4]
General judicial settlements
An 1850s caricature ridiculing the pre-reform court system
General judicial settlements included district courts, judicial chambers, and the Senate.[4]
Each district court covered several uyezds. Judges were nominated by the Minister of Justice and appointed by the tsar. A judge had to meet certain requirements, which included a length of service, an immaculate reputation, and a property qualification. There was no fixed tenure for district court judges.
The law provided that different cases depending on the gravity of the offence and on the difficulty of investigation were heard by different boards of judges. The board could include three judges, the judge and the jury or the judge and representatives of the estates. The introduction of representatives of the estates, who enjoyed the same rights as judges, was heavily criticized as inconsistent with unification of court system.
One of the most important results of the reform was wide introduction of jury trials. The jury trial included three professional judges and twelve jurors. A juror had to possess real estate of a certain value. Unlike in modern jury trials, jurors not only could decide whether the defendant was guilty or not guilty but also could decide that the defendant was guilty but not to be punished, as Alexander II believed that justice without morality is wrong. The sentence was rendered by professional judges.[5]
Unlike trials with estate of the realm representatives who could also sit in upper courts, jury trials were held only on the level of district court. Most liberals praised introduction of jury trials-a few intellectuals criticized them. Two examples of such critics can be seen in Leo Tolstoy's Resurrection and Fyodor Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov. In 1878, the revolutionary Vera Zasulich failed to assassinate St. PetersburgGovernor-GeneralFyodor Trepov, who had ordered a political prisoner to be flogged. Even though it was obvious that Zasulich was guilty, the jury acquitted her completely. The verdict of the jury was based not on the law but on their feeling of injustice committed by Trepov, a case of jury nullification.
Judicial chambers were courts of appeal for cases heard in district courts. They also had original jurisdiction in certain high crimes (usually if the offender was an official). Each judicial chamber covered several guberniyas. Judges were also appointed by the tsar.
The highest court was the Senate. It included the Department of Cassation in civil cases and Department of Cassation in criminal cases. They heard appeals brought on cases heard in lower courts. The Department of Cassation, in criminal cases, was also the court of first instance for the most serious crimes. In 1877, within the Senate, the Disciplinary Commission for judges was established.
The Regulations also provided for an extraordinary Supreme Criminal Court. It was convened if a serious crime was committed by highest officials or for an assassination attempt on the tsar or his relatives.
The Regulations provided for establishment of local courts with justices of the peace, who were supposed to deal with minor offences and could not impose a sentence over one year of imprisonment. Each justice of the peace was supposed to serve in a circuit, one uyezd comprising several circuits. They were elected for three years by zemstvas. However, in many areas, there were not enough candidates who could meet the requirements for election. In other areas local authorities hindered the process of election. In several Western regions justices of the peace eventually were appointed by the Minister of Justice. In 1889, the whole institution was abolished everywhere except for Moscow and St. Petersburg. The powers of justices of the peace were vested in local executive authorities. They were restored in 1912, but the monarchy was already about to collapse.
Regulations Concerning Peasants Leaving Serf Dependence (Положения о крестьянах выходящих из крепостной зависимости) provided for creation of volost' courts to deal with minor offences committed by the peasants. Judges in such courts were local peasants who had to be literate and not have convictions. They were elected for three years by electors elected by the peasants themselves. Appeals on decisions rendered by volost' courts were lodged to upper rural courts, which consisted of chairmen of local volost' courts. The sentence rendered by an upper rural court had to be supervised either by the justice of the peace or (if none) by local authorities.
Court-martial
Courts martial existed separately from other courts. The system of courts martial was listed in Court-Martial Regulations 1867. According to it, minor crimes were dealt with in regiment court. The judges were officers appointed by the head of the regiment. In order to enforce the decision, consent of the head of the regiment was required. Grave crimes and appeals were dealt with in district courts martial. The highest instance was the Supreme Court-Martial. The members of the Supreme Court-Martial were appointed by the tsar.[6]
Improvement of the criminal trial
Before the reform, parties in the criminal trial did not have equal rights. The defendant had no legal counsel (legal assistance and legal representation were allowed in civil cases only). There was no distinction between trial in the court and both investigation and trial conducted by police. The judicial reform instituted the modern criminal trial based on the principle of equality of the parties. The defendant was allowed to have legal representation. The defence was now able to search for or provide evidence to the court, and the court itself ceased to perform investigative functions. Its only task was to decide which party presented more convincing evidence. Introduction of jury trials rapidly increased acquittals. The trial, in all courts except for the Senate, was now public.[7]
Institution of the bar association
Prior to 1864, there was no bar association. There were scriveners (стряпчии), who did not have to satisfy any requirements and had very limited powers. The aim of the bar (Russian: Корпорация присяжных поверенных; barrister: присяжный поверенный) was to guarantee that each defendant would have access to qualified legal assistance. Also, one of the tasks of the bar was to give free legal advice to the poor. The bar was an independent corporation which had its own administration in each guberniya (Council of Barristers – Совет присяжных поверенных), which dealt with various organizational matters, imposed various disciplinary penalties on its members (expulsion was common). In 1874 their powers were transferred to local courts, and the independence of the bar was reduced. The new regulations enumerated the requirements for barristers, and the association could refuse entry into the bar without reason.[8]
↑ Riasanovsky, Nicholas V. (1984). A History of Russia (4thed.). Oxford University Press. p.377. ISBN978-0-19-503361-8– via Internet Archive. The reform of the judiciary which was largely the work of the Minister of Justice Dmitry Zamyatin, his extremely important assistant Serge Zarudny, and several other enlightened officials, proved to be the most successful of the 'great reforms'. Almost overnight it transformed the Russian judiciary from one of the worst to one of the best in the civilized world. / Later the government tried on occasion to influence judges for political reasons, and, what is more important, in its struggle against radicalism and revolution it began to withdraw whole categories of legal eases from the normal procedure of 1864 and to subject them to various forms of the courts martial. But, while the reform of the judiciary could be restricted in application, it could not be undone by the imperial government, and, as far as the reform extended, modem justice replaced arbitrariness and confusion. Russian legal reform followed Western, especially French, models, but, as Kucherov and others have demonstrated, these models were skillfully adapted to Russian needs It might be added that the courts, as well as the zemstvo institutions, acquired political significance, for they served as centers of public interest and enjoyed a somewhat greater freedom of expression than was generally allowed in Russia.
↑ Vernadsky, George (1969). "Chapter 10: The Russian Empire in the Second Half of the 19th Century". A History of Russia (6th rev.ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press. p.221. ISBN0-300-00247-5. Retrieved 2023-03-13– via Google Books. Of no less significance was the judicial reform of 1864, of which Serge Zarudny was the chief promoter. Its basic points were the improvement of court procedure, introduction of the jury system and justices of the peace, and the organization of lawyers into a formal bar. The new courts proved equitable and efficient, and in this respect Russia could be compared favorably with the most progressive European countries. ... Most of the characteristics created by the reforms of Alexander II lasted until 1905, and some until 1917.
1 2 Kazantsev, Sergei M. (2017). "The judicial reform of 1864 and the procuracy in Russia". Reforming Justice in Russia, 1864-1994: Power, Culture and the Limits of Legal Order. Routledge. pp.44–60.
↑ Violette, Aurele J. (1978). "Judicial reforms in the Russian Navy during the 'Era of Great reforms': The reform act of 1867 and the abolition of Corporal punishment". Slavonic and East European Review. 56 (4): 586–603. JSTOR4207723.
↑ Pomeranz, William E. (1999). "'Profession or Estate'? The Case of the Russian Pre-Revolutionary 'Advokatura'". Slavonic and East European Review. 77 (2): 240–268.
Bhat, Girish Narayan (1995). Trial by jury in the reign of Alexander II: a study in the legal culture of late imperial Russia, 1864-1881. University of California, Berkeley.
Eklof, Ben; Russell, John; Zakharova, Larisa Georgievna; eds (1994). Russia's great reforms, 1855-1881. Indiana University Press.
A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. It is distinguished from a bench trial in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions.
A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence and render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment.
A court-martial or court martial is a military court or a trial conducted in such a court. A court-martial is empowered to determine the guilt of members of the armed forces subject to military law, and, if the defendant is found guilty, to decide upon punishment. In addition, courts-martial may be used to try prisoners of war for war crimes. The Geneva Conventions require that POWs who are on trial for war crimes be subject to the same procedures as would be the holding military's own forces. Finally, courts-martial can be convened for other purposes, such as dealing with violations of martial law, and can involve civilian defendants.
An inquisitorial system is a legal system in which the court, or a part of the court, is actively involved in investigating the facts of the case. This is distinct from an adversarial system, in which the role of the court is primarily that of an impartial referee between the prosecution and the defense. Inquisitorial systems are used primarily in countries with civil legal systems, such as France and Italy, or legal systems based on Islamic law like Saudi Arabia, rather than in common law systems. It is the prevalent legal system in Continental Europe, Latin America, African countries not formerly under British rule, East Asia, Indochina, Thailand, and Indonesia. Most countries with an inquisitorial system also have some form of civil code as their main source of law.
A reform movement or reformism is a type of social movement that aims to bring a social or also a political system closer to the community's ideal. A reform movement is distinguished from more radical social movements such as revolutionary movements which reject those old ideals, in that the ideas are often grounded in liberalism, although they may be rooted in socialist or religious concepts. Some rely on personal transformation; others rely on small collectives, such as Mahatma Gandhi's spinning wheel and the self-sustaining village economy, as a mode of social change. Reactionary movements, which can arise against any of these, attempt to put things back the way they were before any successes the new reform movement(s) enjoyed, or to prevent any such successes.
The courts of England and Wales, supported administratively by His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service, are the civil and criminal courts responsible for the administration of justice in England and Wales.
The judicial system of Ukraine is outlined in the 1996 Constitution of Ukraine. Before this there was no notion of judicial review nor any Supreme court since 1991's Ukrainian independence when it started being slowly restructured.
The Judiciary of Russia interprets and applies the law of Russia. It is defined under the Constitution and law with a hierarchical structure with the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court at the apex. The district courts are the primary criminal trial courts, and the regional courts are the primary appellate courts. The judiciary is governed by the All-Russian Congress of Judges and its Council of Judges, and its management is aided by the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court, the Judicial Qualification Collegia, and the Ministry of Justice, and the various courts' chairpersons. And although there are many officers of the court, including jurors, the Prosecutor General remains the most powerful component of the Russian judicial system.
Courts-martial of the United States are trials conducted by the U.S. military or by state militaries. Most commonly, courts-martial are convened to try members of the U.S. military for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). They can also be convened for other purposes, including military tribunals and the enforcement of martial law in an occupied territory. Federal courts-martial are governed by the rules of procedure and evidence laid out in the Manual for Courts-Martial, which contains the Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM), Military Rules of Evidence, and other guidance. State courts-martial are governed according to the laws of the state concerned. The American Bar Association has issued a Model State Code of Military Justice, which has influenced the relevant laws and procedures in some states.
The Criminal Court of the City of New York is a court of the State Unified Court System in New York City that handles misdemeanors and lesser offenses, and also conducts arraignments and preliminary hearings in felony cases.
In England and Wales, a magistrates' court is a lower court which hears matters relating to summary offences and some triable either-way matters. Some civil law issues are also decided here, notably family proceedings. In 2010, there were 320 magistrates' courts in England and Wales; by 2020, a decade later, 164 of those had closed. The jurisdiction of magistrates' courts and rules governing them are set out in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is a wide-ranging measure introduced to modernise many areas of the criminal justice system in England and Wales and, to a lesser extent, in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Large portions of the act were repealed and replaced by the Sentencing Act 2020.
The judicial system of the Russian Empire was established as part of the system of government reforms of Peter the Great.
The magistrates' courts, an office held by a magistrate or justice of the peace, is a court within the judiciary of Russia.
A lay judge, sometimes called a lay assessor, is a person assisting a judge in a trial. Lay judges are used in some civil law jurisdictions. Lay judges are appointed volunteers and often require some legal instruction. However, they are not permanent officers. They attend proceedings about once a month, and often receive only nominal or "costs covered" pay. Lay judges are usually used when the country does not have juries. Lay judges may be randomly selected for a single trial, or politically appointed. In the latter case they may usually not be rejected by the prosecution, the defense, or the permanent judges. Lay judges are similar to magistrates of England and Wales, but magistrates sit about twice as often.
North v. Russell, 427 U.S. 328 (1976), is a United States Supreme Court case which held that a non-lawyer jurist can constitutionally sit in a jail-carrying criminal case provided that the defendant has an opportunity through an appeal to obtain a second trial before a judge who is a lawyer.
In England and Wales, magistrates are trained volunteers, selected from the local community, who deal with a wide range of criminal and civil proceedings. They are also known as Justices of the Peace. In the adult criminal court, magistrates decide on offences which carry up to twelve months in prison, or an unlimited fine. Magistrates also sit in the family court where they help resolve disputes that involve children, and in the youth court which deals with criminal matters involving young people aged 10-17. Established over 650 years ago, the magistracy is a key part of the judiciary of England and Wales, and it is a role underpinned by the principles of 'local justice' and 'justice by one's peers'.
Alexander Sergeyevich Zarudny was a Russian lawyer and politician. In 1887 he was arrested regarding the assassination of Alexander II of Russia but was released due to lack of evidence. In 1902-1917 he worked as a lawyer and a judge. Soon he found that his conscience did not square well with the work of a prosecutor or a judge, and devoted himself to defense work in political cases involving miscarriage of justice, press censorship, or mistreatment of ethnic minorities. His colleague, Oskar Grusenberg, likened him to "a one-man rescue squad." Grusenberg recounts that Zarudny once compiled a list of 157 cases he handled all over Russia, from Eastern Siberia to the Caucasus and Moldavia, in the period 1885-1917, and then added, "there were also 265 other cases." He was one of several Russian lawyers who stepped forward gratis to defend Menahem Mendel Beilis, a Jew accused of ritual murder in the infamous Beilis trial. In 1917 he was the Minister for Justice in the Russian Provisional Government but resigned twice. After the October Revolution he was protected by his election as an honorary member of a prestigious Association of Political Convicts, and did some defense work, but soon stopped in frustration and made his living giving lectures throughout the Soviet Union about his courtroom career, to large, enthusiastic audiences.
The Government reforms imposed by Tsar Alexander II of Russia, often called the Great Reforms by historians, were a series of major social, political, legal and governmental reforms in the Russian Empire carried out in the 1860s.
Sergei Ivanovich Zarudny was a legal scholar, lawyer, senator, and privy councillor in the Russian Empire, mostly during the reign of Alexander II. He was a supporter of the emancipation reform of 1861, which freed serfs; and played a key role in writing the Russian Judicial Reform Act of 1864, which established an independent judiciary and extended the right to a trial by jury to all defendants.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
