Russian political regime could be broadely defined as totalitarian/authoritatian. Central to it were a significant limitation of individual freedoms, one-party rule (Communist Party of the Soviet Union), and the presence of an ideology (Marxism-Leninism). However, there has been much debate among historians as to the concrete actors that brought this regime into being. The representatives of the so-called ‘totalitarian’ school mostly focused on the state, the Party, and key political figures. Some of the well-know representatives of the ‘totalitarian school’ are Richard Pipes and Robert Conquest. The ‘revisionist’ school, instead, paid attention to the ways in which forces from below sustained the Soviet political regime. The most influential representative of this school is Sheila Fitzpatrick. ‘Post-revisionists’, represented by Stephen Kotkin, Igor Halfin among others, shifted the focus even further and and explored the self-perception and subjectivation of Soviet citizens as well as the role that ideology and the existing power relations played it.

Atheism was actively supported by the Communist Party and state authorities right until Perestroika. In addition to the propaganda of atheism, state authorities, particularly in the 1920s – 1930s, carried out mass arrests and persecution of clergy and religious preachers. However, there has never been a complete elimination of organized religious life, and in certain periods of its history the Russian authorities allowed – and even provided support to – some confessions (e.g. Eastern orthodox) in pursuit of their political interests.

Russia had a civil legal system, which meant that the legislation, rather than case law, was the main source of law. Similar to other civil law countries, all law was codified. Throughout the whole period, the development of Soviet law was significantly affected by Marxism-Leninism. For example, as a result of this influence the principles of ‘class approach’ and ‘socialist legality’ (which preceeded the principle of ‘revolutionary legality’ of the 1920s) became central to the Soviet law. Private property was famously abolished. In addition, Soviet law did not have separation of powers in the traditional liberal sense; for example, the judicial branch was subordinated to the Communist Party. In terms of the type of legal process, Russia belonged to the inquisitorial legal systems, with the notable absence of a jury.

One of the man social commitments of the Revolution was to promote the equality of men and women. It also sought to bring women into the paid labor force and free them from their traditional domestic responsibilities so they could participate in work outside home. New Russian law decriminalized abortion, introduced equal rights of men and women, simplified divorce and marriage procedures, and introduced civil marriage. At the same time, many Russian gender ideologists did not completely reject the important role of the woman as a mother. This construction of the woman as both a mother and a worker would be a very important element of gender ideology of the soviet gender policy.

Alongside this progressive gender ideology, more conservative views on women continued to exist. One of them was the explanation provided by criminologists regarding the causes of female criminality. As the historian sharon Kowalsky argued, many criminologists attribued the causes of female criminality to their subordinate status and male influence, particularly in crimes such as infanticide. In the case of the wife of Petrov-Komarov Sofia we also see that psychiatrists believed that Sofia became an accomplice of Petrov-Komarov due to her absolute obedience to him, warranting a more lenient punishment.

With the coming to power of Stalin, the official approach to gender policy changed. In 1936 the Soviet Union made abortion illegal again, which was part of Stalin’s initiative to encourage population growth, as well as place a stronger emphasis on the importance of the family unit to communism. In 1944, and particularly due to the war and population decline, Russian authorities issued an edict according which ‘only a registered marriage creates rights and responsibilities for the spouses’. One of the implications of this edict was that the children born outside marriage were illegitimate even if their father would acknowledge his paternity. All responsibilities related to raising these children were attributed to women and the state refused to accept any responsibility for taking care of these children.

After the death of Stalin, again a more liberal and progressive gender policy was introduced. To tackle the problem of backstreet abortion the latter became again legally possible. The programmes and gender ideology established in the 1930s continued with better funding for social services and education. To alleviate the ‘double shift’ the women experienced in the Soviet Union, state authorites engaged into improving social services. For example, by 1970, fifty percent of urban children were enrolled in daycare. Subsidies paid during maternity leave were increased, and welfare payments for children in low-income families were established.

Media and the state

Mass media, including printed press, radio and television broadcasts, cinema and photography, were heavily censured in Soviet Russia. The dissemination of information that contradicted the official sources was strongly suppressed. The ways in which this was done included the direct ban on alternative sources of information, but also indirect ways, including the appointment of the individuals with the right ‘biography’ in media outlets. The objects of censorship included all information that could ‘discredit’ the social authorities and the soviet regime, particularly ‘anti-Soviet propaganda’, the information about social, economic problems (including criminality), etc.

Main newspapers

The main Russian newspapers included Pravda (the Truth), Izvestia (News), Komsomolskaya Pravda (Komsomol Truth), Vecherniaa Moskva (Evening Moscow), and many others.

Printed media also included many specialised newspapers and magazines such as Nauka I Zhizn (Science and Life, a popular magazine about science) and magazines for the youth such as Junyi Naturalist (a journal about nature), Murzilka (for children from six to twelve years old, which has been running since 1924).

Mass media and crimes

Generally, soviet mass media did not publish the official statistics about criminality in Russia and did not openly discuss the continuously rising criminality rates. The official newspapers such as Pravda and Komsomoslkaya Pravda typically published articles about crimes “efficiently” solved by the Soviet law enforcement to increase public confidence in Soviet criminal justice. Often, they published these articles in a sensationalised manner, with details of the concrete cases aimed at provoking a stronge emotional response  on the part of the reader. Other magazines such as Literaturnaya gazeta (Literary newspaper) were aimed at a more educated audience and thus were more sober and analytical. Such media outlets were aimed not at impressing, but rather addressing the continuously failing attempts of the Soviet authorities to combat criminality, both through the publishing journalist articles and the opinions the readers (who were generously invited to send their opinions to newspapers and publish them in a specialised section). Whereas these outlets were still censored, they became a platform for Soviet citizens to voice their concerns about crime and criminality which coninued to exist despite the official propaganda, hence leading to cynicism and distrust of the state on the part of the citizenry.

There is much historical debate about the social structure of Soviet Russia, and the processes between/within different social groups (e.g. upward and downward mobility, the changing support of different social groups of the Stalin policy, the emergence of the new social groups, etc). The revisionist school of soviet history, particularly owing to archival research, has provided a great contribution to research in this area. While accepting a more or less traditional division of the soviet society into the ‘working class’, ‘peasantry’, and ‘intelligentsia’, these works showed that the boundaries between these classes and the values they shared were fluid for the most of the soviet history.

Some of the important conclusions of these works were:

• The emergence of the ‘new elite’ group – or the soviet ‘middle class’ – which started in 1929 and lasted till 1980s due to the working class’ and peasantry’s upward mobility. The ‘new elite’ group included educated Russians, such as engineers, scientists, managers, etc. This group was characterised by particular social and cultural values (conservatism, puritanism, particularly regarding family and gender relations, the appreciation of stability), and generally accepted the intervention of the state in personal and social life. The members of the ‘new elite’ were generally trained in technical subjects, which made them particularly in demand for the running of the industrial society which the Soviet Union was for the most part of its history.
• Significant mobility from peasants’ classes into the cities, leading to the ‘peasantization’ of the urban classes, and the introduction of habits and mores that were typical for the then peasants (illiteracy, backwardness, authoritarianism; for example, in family relations) in the new urban classes. According to some researchers, precisely this ruralisation of the city paved the ground for the emergence and consolidation of the Russian authoritarianism.
• The rise of the marginalized groups (prostitutes, beggars, trumps, released prisoners) which undermined the correctness of the idea of class stratification as propagated and deployed in the soviet times.

Criminal Code 1926. Sexual intercourse committed by excertion of physical violence, threats, intimidation or using, through deception, the helpless state of the victim (rape) is punished by deprivation of freedom for a term up to five years (Art 153).

Criminal Code 1960. Rape, that is, sexual relations by application of physical force or threats or by taking advantage of the helpless condition of the victim shall be punished by deprivation of freedom for a term from three to seven years (Art 117).

Criminal Code 1996. Rape, that is, sexual relations by application of physical force or threats to the victim or other persons or taking advantage of the helpless condition of the victim shall be punished by deprivation of freedom for a term of three to six years (Art 131).

Criminal Code 1926. Intentional homicide committed without the circumstances indicated in art. 136 shall be punished by deprivation of freedom for a term up to eight years (Art 137).

Criminal Code 1960. Intentional homicide committed without the aggravating circumstances indicated in Article 102 of the present Code shall be punished by deprivation of freedom for a term of three to ten years (Art 103).

Criminal Code 1996. Homicide, or an intentional deprivation of life of another person shall be punished by deprivation of freedom for a term from six to fifteen years (Art 105).

Criminal Code 1926. Intentional homicide committed (…)  e) by a person responsible for providing special care to the victim (…) shall be punished by deprivation of freedom with severe isolation for a term up to ten years (Article 136).

Criminal Code 1960.  A special reference to infanticide (i.e. “Intentional homicide committed (…) by a person responsible for providing special care to the victim”) was excluded and infanticide was included in a general definition of ‘intentional homicide’.

Criminal Code 1996. The homicide by the mother of her newborn baby 1) during or immediately after birth, 2) as well as the killing by the mother of her newborn baby due to a psychotraumatising situation or 3) due to a psychic disorder, not excluding sanity, shall be punished by limitation of freedom for a term from two to four years, or by compulsory work for a term up to five years, or deprivation of freedom for the same term (Art 106).

Andrei Snezhnevskii was a key personality in Soviet psychiatry. Snezhnevskii delivered the main speech at the Pavlov’s session of 1951, heavily criticizing those Soviet psychiatrists who in their work deviated from Pavlov’s physiology. In 1950-1951 he was the director of the Serbsky Institute.  From 1962 till 1987 he served as director of the Institute of Psychiatry of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences. The key contribution of Snezhnevsky to Soviet psychiatry was his studies of schizophrenia, called ‘spectrum theory’. Snezhnevsky’s theory of schizophrenia was at the basis of the political abuse of psychiatry in Soviet Russia.

Piotr Gannushkin was a well-known and influential psychiatrist. He developed the nosology of psychopathies, or what he called ‘constitutional psychopathies’. Most fully they were described in his book Manifestations of psychopathies: statics, dynamics, systematic aspects. According to him, psychopathies were ‘borderline disorders’, in the sense of being situated between mental health and mental illness. In addition, he argued that psychopathies did not affect only one aspect of a person’s identity but, instead, their entire personality. This definition of psychopathies is almost entirely synonymous with what is now seen as ‘personality disorders’. In his understanding and explanation of psychopathies, he substantially built on the work of German psychiatrists Ernst Kretschmer and Emil Kraepelin but further detailed and specified the classification of psychopathies.

Andrei Tkatchenko is a well-known Russian sexologist and psychiatrist. From 1994 till 2007 he was the head of the forensic sexology department at the Serbsky Institute. Among his patients were such serial killers as Andrei Chikatilo and Sergei Golovkin. Tkachenko has published much on different aspects of (forensic) sexology, particularly, sexual pathologies (paraphilia), both alone and with other famous psychiatrists such as Ivan Vvedenski and a well-known lawyer and criminologist Yuri Antonian.