Medicine, Law, and the State in Imperial Russia

Chapter 5 Reform and the Role of Medical Expertise

Chapter 5 Reform and the Role of Medical Expertise The standard periodization of the late imperial period is divided into “reform” and “counter-reform.” Historians have typically examined the 1864 judicial reform in accordance with this periodization . But this division is something of an oversimplification.1 To be sure, the introduction of the judicial reform was met with glowing optimism to the point of hyperbole in the contemporary Russian press, where it was deemed “the most capable of changing in a radical way the conditions of our national and government way of life.”2 While toned down in their rhetoric, historians also have focused on the promising innovations of the judicial reform.3 When they do address problems with the reform, scholars typically point to the 1880s and the government’s efforts to limit the jury’s jurisdiction , which become folded under the label of “counterreform .”4 However, dissatisfaction with the reform and official efforts to modify it—in order to improve it—started early. Discontents with the judicial reform emerged within the first three years of implementation. Moreover, attempts to modify and shape the reform came from both ends of the bureaucratic spectrum . In addition to conservative officials who sought to curb the courts’ independence and sphere of activity, reform-minded officials proposed changes to the new procedure in order to improve its functioning. The public also reacted to the court’s early performance . There were two primary areas of dissatisfaction that generated the most criticism. One was the performance of the jury, particularly with regard to acquittals. This has been treated by historians who have typically focused on the novel aspects of the reform.5 The other, less studied area of discontent pertains to what did not change, that is, the preliminary investigation, which was a carryover from the pre-reform system and still based on the inquisitorial principle. As early as 1869, a governmental commission was created to gather information about and reform the investigation phase, in order to align it more closely with the underlying principles of the reform and improve its performance. Physicians participated in both phases—the preliminary investigation and jury trial—and tensions and debates surrounding the physician’s legal role developed in conjunction with these broader responses to the judicial reform. As this chapter seeks to demonstrate , public dissatisfactions with the reform amplified the physician ’s role and status in the new judicial process. Many of the early cases that generated the greatest public reaction involved the insanity question—the question of the defendant’s mental condition at the time of the crime. These cases piqued the interest of both governmental officials who sought to protect administrative interests, as well as supporters of the reform who sought to protect the new judicial institutions. Under scrutiny from both sides, the role of the medical expert became enmeshed in this force field of interests.6 At the intersection of political objectives, occupational interests, and the ideology of science, physicians came to play a unique and pivotal role in official and non-official efforts to remedy the problems associated with the judicial reform. This chapter examines how the physician-expert’s role became intertwined with early dissatisfactions with the reform, and efforts to reform state structures more broadly. It is organized around three themes. First, it challenges the periodization of reform/counterreform and considers the process of judicial reform as an ongoing series of modifications and competing visions over what shape judicial process—and more broadly, the rule-of-law ideal—should take in Russia.7 To this end, it examines the confusion and stakes that shaped the expert’s role in the first years of the reform’s implementation . Second, it moves to a discussion of how the combined force of these early problems informed the conflict among medical and legal activists, practitioners, and academics dealing with the problem of the physician’s legal role. It analyzes how Medicine, Law, and the State in Imperial Russia 222 Reform and the Role of Medical Expertise physicians’ professional objectives incorporated an effort to preserve and expand their traditional role and authority in the state’s judicial system.8 Third, it summarizes the legacy of the debate over the medical expert’s status in terms of the relationship between jurists and physicians. It demonstrates how the earlier calls to enhance the medical expert’s role...