Current Definition Of Recklessness Within Criminal Law Law Essay

Current Definition Of Recklessness Within Criminal Law Law Essay Recklessness is a problematic area of the criminal law, since there is no strict definition of what constitutes it. Statutes make provision for the presence of recklessness, but have yet to define it strictly, thus it falls on the hands of the judges to interpret what is meant by recklessness. It is therefore most easily delineated via case law. Judges have had to rely on explanations in important case reports in order to decide what amounts to recklessness. This has meant delving through colossal number recklessness cases in order to find out whether the case in question falls within the confines set out there. Realising this is challenging, the Law Commission have sought to remedy the situation, by releasing several working papers on the issue. One of them gives the following explanation: a person acts recklessly [if] he is aware of a risk thatà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦exists or will exist [or] à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦when he is aware of risk thatà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦will occur and it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk.  [1]   This assignment will start by putting forward a concise history of intent in recklessness. The development of the law in this area will be looked out with the aid of case law such as Cunningham [1957] Caldwell [1982] and RvG [2003]. This paper will provide an evaluation of the current definition of recklessness within criminal law. In order to identify and understand the concept of recklessness, intention needs to be discussed. The 19th century criminal legislation required that defendants had to have acted `maliciously and `unlawfully when committing an offence. The accused will act unlawfully if he fails to present a lawful reason for his act, he would be considered acting maliciously once he satisfies the level of Mens Rea required for the Actus Reus. The word `malicious introduces the requirement of Mens Rea. The statutory definition of `malice is, requiring an actual intention to do a particular kind of harm that in fact was done, or reckless as to whether such harm should occur or not. The accused has foreseen that particular harm might be done, and has gone on to take the risk. The word `maliciously means in relation to the law of England and Wales `an intent or recklessness  [2]  . Intention is the highest level of Mens Rea. Mens Rea means `guilty mind in Latin. Intention differs from recklessness; intention commands a severe penalty within the criminal justice system, morally intent is considered objectionable, adjacent to recklessness. Recklessness was first used within criminal statute with conjunction to the Motorcar Act 1903. Professor C S Kennys opinion of recklessness required actual awareness by the defendant of the likelihood of the particular harm. Kenny considered it an element additional to awareness of risk, indifference whether the foreseen harm occurred or not. Another view is that an individual is reckless if he takes a known risk, even if he ardently trusts the foreseen harm, will not occur  [3]  . In 1957 the case of Cunningham transformed the interpretation of Recklessness. In R v Cunningham D broke a gas meter to steal the money contained within the meter. Gas seeped from the broken pipe and into the house next door, where Ds mother-in- law was sleeping. The mother-in-law became so ill, that her life was endangered. D was convicted of unlawfully and maliciously administering a noxious thing as to endanger life or inflict grievous bodily harm under S.23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Cunninghams conviction was quashed because of misdirection of the trial judge as to the meaning of maliciously.   The Court of Appeal held that malice must not be taken as to mean wickedness, but as requiring either (1) an intention to do the particular harm that was done, or (2) reckless as to whether such harm should occur or not  [4]  . Recklessness in this sense means foreseeing that harm might occur, and going ahead with the act anyway. This is called a subjective test, i.e. the accused is reckless if he realised there was a risk of gas escaping and endangering someone, and went ahead with his action anyway. Prof. Kenny wrote in his first edition of `outlines criminal law that, intent or recklessness had to be proved, as mentioned previously, he also stated that ` it neither limited to, nor does it indeed require any ill-will towards the person injured  [5]  . For a defendant to be guilty under Cunningham recklessness he must have consciously undertaken an unjust risk, he must realise that there is a risk involved. However, if he continues to carry on with his conduct, he is then reckless. The case defined a type of recklessness that the knowledge of appreciation of the risk of some danger must have entered the defendants mind even, though he may have suppressed or driven it out  [6]  . Cunningham is considered the first limb of recklessness the second limb arises from the case of MPC v Caldwell (1982). The second test of Recklessness, Caldwell created a new and wider test. D was an ex-employee of a hotel and held a grudge against its owner. He started a fire at the hotel, which caused some damage D was charged with arson. The old Cunningham test of recognising theres a risk and going ahead anyway, was extended to include a second limb; namely that the D does an act which creates an obvious risk and, has not given any thought as to the possibility of there being such a risk  [7]  . The Caldwell test for recklessness is objective, i.e. the risk must be obvious to the reasonable man, in that any reasonable man would have realised it if he had thought about it. Although, it need not be obvious to the defendant: Elliott v C [1983] and R v Coles [1994]. Lord Diplock stated that the definition of recklessness in Cunningham was too narrow for the Criminal Damage Act 1971, recklessness, should not only include the Cunningham meaning. Lord Diplock stated that a person is reckless as to whether any property would be destroyed or damaged if; he does an act, which in fact creates an obvious risk that property would be destroyed, or damaged. Additionally when the act is committed he has not given any thought to the possibility of there being any such risk, alternatively, he has recognised that there was some risk involved and has nonetheless gone on to do it  [8]  . Hence, for Caldwell recklessness to be satisfied, D does not have to foresee a risk, nevertheless takes a risk that would have been obvious to a reasonable prudent man. The It was deemed that after Caldwell whenever the term reckless was involved, an objective approach would be applied to the case. However this changed with the decision in RvG, as a subjective test was applied, instead of an objective test. It was deemed that a subjective test would be applied because the Caldwell test was seen to be a model direction which contained inconsistencies and lacked precision  [9]  . The RvG case reinstated the subjective test from R v Cunningham  [10]  (Cunningham) and clarified the law on recklessness by overruling the objective test in Caldwell. Additionally one can note that from RvG, this subjective definition of recklessness would be applicable in all statutory offences of recklessness and not the definition which was illustrated in the Cunningham case. The House of Lords decision in RvG enforcing this definition of reckless, illustrated a significant impact by eradicating the definition of recklessness in Cunningham. One can note that this impact of the decision conveyed the problems with the definition of recklessness under Cunningham. For example, within the Cunningham definition, the test only refers to taking risks as a result and makes no mention of taking risks as to a circumstance. However the law commission draft criminal code adds an additional restriction on finding the term reckless. Additionally, under the draft criminal code there is the additional requirement of the awareness of the risk and that the actual damage caused might occur. Thus the reformed definition of subjective recklessness conveys a more acc urate and broad scope of the meaning of recklessness, compared to the Cunningham definition of subjective recklessness. As a result of this reform, a subjective approach will be incorporated when assessing the term recklessness. Consequently it can be seen that the House of Lords in G and another did in fact adopt the better test in terms of policy and principle. Also English law has progressed to the point where there is, almost certainly, now only one test of recklessness  [11]  which is of a subjective nature. Additionally from the Cunningham case, the expression Maliciously was replaced with the expression reckless in RvG by Lord Bingham in the House of Lords. Maliciously was an expression which was formerly recognisable within the House of Lords. This proposal was changed because the term maliciously was seen to be too narrow and with limited scope. However, the expression reckless is considered to have a wider capacity for interpretation. Therefore this modification of expressions portrays a positive impact of the decision of the House of Lords in RvG. The reasonable adult was an issue raised in RvG from the objective approach in the Caldwell test. The issue of a reasonable adult was challenged in a previous case known as Elliott v C  [12]  . This case highlighted the negative aspects of objective recklessness as the person in question was fourteen years of age with learning difficulties. Evidently the risk must be obvious to the reasonably prudent person, and not necessarily obvious to the defendant. Therefore this conveys the problems within the Caldwell test as it does not cover everything, including individual characteristics. In this case the fourteen year old girl was guilty of criminal damage as she failed to consider the risk which would have been obvious to a reasonable person. In Hardie,  [13]  which came after Elliott v C, contradicted the judgement of the latter. Hardie became intoxicated after taking valium, believing them not to be dangerous. While under this influence, he set fire to his ex-girlfriends house, with her in it. Originally convicted, Hardie appealed and his conviction was quashed on the grounds that in itself, the taking of valium was not reckless. This is contradictory because his actual mental state was considered, which was not the case in Elliott v C. Subsequently this issue was raised in RvG, where within the trial, Lord Diplocks direction in Caldwell was used and disagreement occurred as the issue of the reasonable adult was accepted in being aimed at the children of ages eleven and twelve. From this trial, the case went onto the House of Lords, which unanimously answered the conflict of this question. The impact of the House of Lords decision in RvG illustrated great criticisms on the Caldwell test, in where it was noted that the Caldwell case was based on fragile foundations because the law commission report was not referred to  [14]  and subsequently was referred to in RvG. Additionally this impact of criticism upon Caldwell was heavily enforced by other law lords, for instance, Lord Hutton illustrated his criticism nature by expressing Experience suggest that in Caldwell in law took a wrong turn  [15]  and agreeing with Lord Bingham. Therefore conveying Lord Diplocks decision in the Caldwell case was incorrect. Furthermore Lord Diplocks decision in the Caldwell case has been criticised by many academics who have described the decision to be Pathetically inadequate, slap happy and profoundly regrettable  [16]  . Therefore the decision in the House of Lords in RvG illustrated these criticisms by rejecting the Caldwell recklessness approach. On the other hand, one can note that the decision in RvG in the House of Lords has had significant criticism on the basis of the outcome of the case. Academics have criticised RvG that the decision of the case should have been different. For example, Professor Keating criticised the decision of RvG by where in his investigation, he revealed 69% of members of the public do regard behaviour such as that of the boys as criminally blameworthy  [17]   thus illustrating that the boys between ages eleven and twelve in RvG were old enough to appreciate the risks involved. Additionally, the House of Lords decision in RvG has conveyed an impact of a criticising nature. It can be seen that as a result of RvG, there are critics that illustrate that it will be too easy for a defendant to state that they have not considered a risk to others and therefore may by acquitted at their case. On the contrary, the House of Lords have reasserted the subjective test instead of the objective test seen in Caldwell and have also established that if the defendant is voluntary intoxicated, they can be convicted without the awareness of the risk present. In the RvG case, the House of Lords conveyed this to be seen as a special exception in accordance with crimes concerning intoxicated individuals. Evidently this conveys how the House of Lords in RvG took into account of refining the Caldwell test due it being unfair, and achieving justice by taking into consideration, individual characteristics which werent present before in the Caldwell test. As mentioned above, one can note that the House of Lords decision in RvG illustrated criticism thus conveying a negative impact of the case. This can be seen as the RvG case only overrules the objective test in criminal damage, therefore the Caldwell test still applies today in certain cases after RvG, this can be seen in R v Castle (Mark Anthony)  [18]  , in where both the RvG and Caldwell tests were applied. Additionally Simester and Sullivan, both academics argue that Caldwell reckless could still be applied in some offences  [19]  , an example in where Caldwell has been applied can be seen by the Data Protection Act 1998  [20]  . Alternatively, one can suggest that there has been a positive impact of the House of Lords decision in RvG. This can be conveyed by where the courts no longer have to distinguish what type of recklessness has to be applied and the House of Lords in RvG has illustrated that the subjective one will be upheld in future cases concerning recklessness. Therefore this has allowed the courts to scrutinize the expression reckless more easily than seen in cases before RvG. An illustration of this can be seen in Eliot v C as noted above. In addition one can note that RvG case has ruled out a clear distinction between negligence and recklessness. It can be illustrated by previous cases that before the decision in RvG, there was not a clear distinction between both concepts. An example of a case is Chief Constable of Avon v Shimmen  [21]  . Within this case, it was deemed that a person who stops to think will still be liable if he realised there was some risk. Therefore this case illustrates that the Caldwell test made individuals guilty who previously were not guilty due to them being careless, but now after RvG are reckless. Overall, one must appreciate the House of Lords decision in RvG, which has allowed a subjective test to be reasserted when referring to recklessness and introduced a reformed definition of subjective recklessness. Additionally the decision has allowed a clear distinction to be applied when assessing negligence and recklessness cases. Moreover, the Caldwell test has been overruled in relation to criminal damage. Furthermore it can be identified above that there are both positive and negative impacts which have departed from the RvG decision in the House of Lords. Having analysed all of the above facts and cases, it is clear that the law on recklessness has been problematic, and often contradictory in the past. However the case of RvG has gone somewhat to remedy this issue and can be said to have succeeded in many respects. But there is still room for a statutory reform even though it may be vastly difficult to make statutory provision for all potential problems within recklessness. However, in the long run, statutory definitions of all that constitutes recklessness, and explanations of issues surrounding the topic, would be most useful, and save the judiciary time and money. Booth v Crown Prosecution Service (2006)

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof is a fast paced play full of dramatic tension. Discuss how the portrayal of sex/sexuality fuels that tension, increasing the dramatic effect. Choose some but not all of the possible examples you might used â€Å"Cat On A Hot Tin Roof,† Written by Tennessee Williams is an excellent play about a troubled family that is dealing with buried acts of deception, conflict and tension. Along with these problems comes sexuality and sex, a very important aspect of the play which increases the dramatic effect. The pressure between husband and wife created by sexual tensions.The need for Brick to be seen as a man by repressing homosexual feelings from the world by turning to the effects of alcohol. Maggie’s sexual frustration with her husband who refuses to show her the passion she is longing. The frustration Big Daddy feels from not being sexually attracted to his wife. The relationship between Big Daddy and Brick, how they are more alike then they seem to be. These are among the main problems concerning sexuality escalating dramatic tension in this play. The sexual tension between Brick and Maggie is one of the most commonly occurring conflicts throughout the play.Brick and Maggie are a couple in the play who have two opposite feelings for each other. In Act 1 Maggie says to Brick â€Å"You look so cool, so cool, so enviably cool† the quote presents Brick to be represented to the audience as a man who is self contained, cool, untouchable and perfect physically. He physically embodies a real man. Maggie see’s herself as a women who is dissatisfied, ignored, and exhausted from sharing her desires with Brick as he does not feel the same way. Maggie refers to herself as a cat on a hot tin roof loving someone knowing that the love cannot be returned.Maggie confession to Brick about their relationship only increases the tensions between the two characters and forces Maggie to question their friendship for something much stronger . Maggie becomes bitter and anxious like a cat, she takes into account that without Brick’s love she will remain childless, and that they will be less favored to Big Daddy his heir and their position in his household will be put at risk. Brick, self concerned and rugged. Throughout the play, Brick continues to wash away all of his troubles and problems by drinking excessively.This is a problem that he has developed to separate himself from the problems. â€Å"One man has one great good true thing in his life. One great good thing which is true! I had a friendship with Skipper. You are naming it dirty! † This quote from Act 1 shows Brick acting out at Maggie for implying that his and Skippers relationship was more than just a friendship. This is the first time these implications are made and the first time in the play that Brick looses his cool, he links thoughts of homosexuality with disgust.This shows that the implications could be true, because when Maggie shares her own sexual approach, he reacts in a cool, calm and a completely removed manner, not showing any signs of concern. â€Å"You two had something that had to be kept on ice, yes, incorruptible, yes! † Maggie continues on about Brick’s relationship with Skipper, forcing Brick to acknowledge the fact that he did have homosexual feelings for his best friend rather than continuously mourning his death over the fact that his feelings had to be kept in secret from society.Bricks main goal is to keep his masculinity intact â€Å"Why can’t exceptional friendship.. Between two men be respected† Brick is disturbed by the fact that his desire is jeopardizing his masculinity, something that he cannot throw away because of sharing the possibility of his homosexuality. Big Daddy, the large â€Å"Mississippi Redneck† is the millionaire father of the family, effected with cancer unknowingly. Brick is the only one who knows, and hides it. Big Daddy believes that he ha s come back from the dead, realizing that his money cannot buy him happiness.His sexual life is now brought back into the picture. He was never pleased with his wife and did not love her the time they were married, he wants to explore sex again now that he has a second chance. This is much like Brick and Maggie’s current relationship, except Brick’s preference in gender, showing how alike Brick is to his father. He has a strong affection for his son Brick, who reminds him very much of himself. For this reason he wants Brick to be the heir to his throne. The only way to achieve this is if Brick and Maggie provide a grandchild for Big Daddy to continue his legacy.Although the possibility of this grandchild in unlikely because of Brick and Maggie’s sexual relationship. â€Å"Now, hold on.. I knocked around in my time† When Big Daddy finally learns the truth about his son’s sexuality he confesses his experimentation as a growing man, it is here that Br ick and Big Daddy are more alike than ever. Now that the truth behind Brick’s sexuality is revealed he tells Big Daddy that he is still dying from cancer. â€Å"You told me! I told you! † As a result of Big Daddy forcing Brick to face his homosexuality, Brick forces Big Daddy to receive the news of his inevitable death.Now Big Daddy is occupying the position that Brick has just gotten out of, Brick is revealing and Big Daddy is receiving. Sexuality and sex in this play does increase the dramatic tension between the characters. It is something that effects everyone in the play somehow. The examples above are only three of many others. The relationship between Maggie and Brick, is almost completely dependent on Bricks sexuality, even his excessive drinking is strongly related to his sexuality.He knows that he cannot be the heir to Big Daddy without a child, yet still chooses not to engage in sexual relations with Maggie. This makes Maggie greatly concerned about her plac e in the household. Big Daddy comes to a sort of revelation, thinking he has been given a second life. He acts cruel with his wife, because he accepts the fact that he never truly loved her and has been hiding his sexual appetite their entire marriage. The dramatic effect in this play is lead by sexuality and sex, it acts as foundation that builds up to vital events in the play.

Chitral Vocational Training Case Study Essay

Case Study: Sabira Bibi Persistance and perserverence always yield results SABIRA BIBI IS FROM CHINAR VILLAGE IN MASTUJ, UPPER CHITRAL. SHE GOT MARRIED IN 1994 AT THE YOUNG AGE OF 16 TO GULISTAN KHAN WHO WAS THEN EMPLOYED IN THE CHITRAL SCOUTS. AS HER HUSBAND WAS MUCH OLDER, HE RETIRED IN 2003 BUT THEY WERE ABLE TO MEET THEIR MONTHLY EXPENSES SINCE THEY OWNED LAND. IN 2008, TRAGEDY STUCK THE FAMILY WHEN THE YARKHOON RIVER WASHED AWAY THEIR HOME AND ALL 8 KANALS OF THEIR CULTIVABLE LAND. SABIRA BIBI AND HER FAMILY MOVED IN WITH HER HUSBAND’S BROTHER BUT LIVING ON HER HUSBAND’S 5000 RUPEE PENSION WAS PROVING TO BE DIFFICULT. SABIRA BIBI FELT VERY HELPLESS AS SHE WAS NOT ABLE TO COMPLETE HER EDUCATION AND ALSO FELT THAT LIVELIHOOD OPPORTUNITIES ARE LIMITED FOR WOMEN AS THE COMMUNITY DOES NOT ACCEPT WOMEN WORKING OUTSIDE THEIR HOME. SABIRA BIBI HAS MADE SURE ALL HER DAUGHTERS ARE ENROLLED IN SCHOOL, HER ELDEST DAUGHTER IS CURRENTLY COMPLETING B. COM AND THE REST ARE IN MIDDLE AND SECONDARY SCHOOL. SHE TOLD US THEY ARE EXCELLENT IN THEIR STUDIES AND SHE WOULD LIKE ALL OF THEM TO GO TO COLLEGE. Cross stitch used to make book marks WHEN SABIRA BIBI LEARNT THAT VOCATIONAL TRAINING ON LOCAL EMBROIDERY AND HANDICRAFT PRODUCTION FOR 25 WOMEN WAS BEING OFFERED BY FIDA IN MASTUJ, SHE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A GOOD WAY OF UTILIZING HER EXISTING SKILLS IN LOCAL EMBROIDERY. WHEN SHE INITIALLY APPLIED FOR A POSITION IN THE TRAINING HER APPLICATION WAS REJECTED AS SHE DID NOT MEET THE MINIMUM EDUCATION CRITERIA AS PARTICIPANTS WERE EXPECTED TO READ AND WRITE. SABIRA BIBI MET WITH HER LOCAL COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION MEMBERS AS SHE WAS VERY UPSET AND WANTED THEM TO  CONSIDER HER AS A SPECIAL CASE. FIDA’S TEAM THEN CALLED HER FOR A SECOND INTERVIEW AND REALIZED SHE WAS VERY SKILLED IN LOCAL EMBROIDERY. SABIRA BIBI TOOK PART IN THE ONE MONTH TRAINING AND LEARNT HOW TO USE HER EMBROIDERY SKILLS TO MAKE SMALL HANDICRAFT PRODUCTS LIKE BOOK MARKS AND PENCIL CASES. BEFORE THE TRAINING, SABIRA BIBI WAS ABLE TO MAKE TRADITIONAL BRIDAL CAPS FOR WOMEN BUT SAID IT WAS VERY TIME CONSUMING AND DIFFICULT TO SELL AS PEOPLE ONLY BOUGHT THEM FOR WEDDINGS. BY LEARNING HOW TO MAKE DIFFERENT PRODUCTS, SABIRA BIBI SAID IT WILL BE  EASIER TO ATTRACT CUSTOMERS. Bookmarks made during the training Sabira bibi receiving her certificate from the trainer Sabira bibi told us ‘I am hopeful to generate enough income to pay for my children’s education and save for building our own home. I will always pray for FIDA’s success. It is one of only organization’s that is selecting people based on merit and I was able to explore my talent through them and am thankful to my community organization for providing me with such an opportunity. † Mobile pouches made during the training.

Causes of the Russian Revolution Part 2

Causes Part 1. Ineffective Government The ruling elites were still mostly land owning aristocracy, but some in the civil service were landless. The elites ran the state bureaucracy and sat above the normal population. Unlike other countries the elites and the landed depended on the tsar and had never formed a counter to him. Russia had a strict set of civil service ranks, with jobs, uniforms etc., where advancement was automatic. The bureaucracy was weak and failing, losing the experience and skills needed in the modern world, but refusing to let people with those skills in. The system was a vast overlapping chaos, full of confusion, tsarist divide and rule and petty jealousy. Laws overrode other laws, the tsar able to override all. To the outside it was arbitrary, archaic, incompetent and unfair. It stopped the bureaucracy from becoming professional, modern, efficient or as a counter to as medieval looking monarch.Russia had got like this by making a choice. An influx of professional civil servants produced the Great Re forms of the 1860s, to strengthen the state through western reform after the Crimean War. This included ‘freeing’ the serfs (of a sort) and in 1864 created zemstvos, local assemblies in many areas leading to a form of self-rule sandwiched between nobles, who resented it, and peasants, who often did too. The 1860s were liberal, reforming times. They could have led Russia towards the west. It would have been costly, difficult, prolonged, but the chance was there.However, the elites were divided on a response. Reformists accepted the rule of equal law, political freedom, a middle class and opportunities for the working class. Calls for a constitution led Alexander II to order a limited one. The rivals of this progress wanted the old order, and were made up of many in the military; they demanded autocracy, strict order, nobles and church as dominant forces (and the military of course). Then Alexander II was murdered, and his son shut it down. Counter reforms, to centralize control, and strength the personal rule of the tsar followed. Alexander II’s death is the start of the Russian tragedy of the twentieth century.   The 1860s meant Russia had people who had tasted reform, lost it and looked for†¦ revolution.Imperial government ran out below the eighty nine provincial capitals. Below that peasants ran it their own way, alien to the elites above. Localities were under governed and the old regime was not a hyper powerful all seeing oppression. Old government was absent and out of touch, with a small number of police, state officials, who were co-opted for more and more by the state as there wasn’t anything else (for instant checking roads). Russia had a small tax system, bad communications, small middle class, and a serfdom which ended with the landowner in charge still. Only very slowly was the Tsar’s government meeting the new civilians.Zemstvos, run by locals, became key. The state rested on landowning nobles, but they wer e in decline post emancipation, and used these small local committees to defend themselves against industrializing and state government. Up to 1905 this was a liberal movement pushing for safeguards and provincial society, e.g. peasant versus landowner, calling for more local power, a Russian parliament, a constitution. The provincial nobility were the early revolutionaries, not workers. Alienated Military The Russian military was full of tensions against the Tsar, despite it supposedly being the man’s biggest supporter. Firstly it kept losing (Crimea, Turkey, Japan) and this was blamed on the government: military expenditure declined. As industrialization was not as advanced in the west, so Russia became poorly trained, equipped and supplied in the new methods and lost. The soldiers and self-aware officers were being demoralized. Russian soldiers were sworn to the Tsar, not the state. History seeped into all aspects of the Russian court and they obsessed over little details like buttons, not fixing a feudal army lost in a modern world.Also, the army was being used more and more to support the provincial governors in suppressing revolts: despite the facts much of the lower ranks were peasants too. The army began to fracture over demand to stop civilians. That was before the condition of the army itself where people were seen as serfs, sub civilian slaves by officers. In 1917, ma ny soldiers wanted a reform of the army as much as of the government. Above them were a group of new professional military men who saw the faults through the system, from trench technique to supply of arms, and demanded effective reform. They saw the court and the tsar as stopping it. They turned to the Duma as an outlet, beginning a relationship which would change Russian in early 1917. The Tsar was losing the support of his talented men. An Out of Touch Church The Russians were involved in a foundation myth of being at one with and defending the Orthodox Church and orthodox Russia, which began at the very start of the state. In the 1900s this was stressed this over and over. The Tsar as political-religious figure was unlike anywhere in the west and he or she could damn with the church as well as destroy with laws. The church was vital for controlling the mostly illiterate peasants, and priests had to preach obedience to the Tsar and report objections to police and to state. They allied easily with the last two Tsars, who wanted a return to medieval times.But industrialization was pulling peasants into secular cities, where churches and priests lagged behind the vast growth. The church did not adapt to urban life and a growing number of priests called for reform of it all (and the state too). Liberal clergy realized reform of church only possible with a move away from the tsar. Socialism was what answered the workers new needs, not old Chri stianity. Peasants not exactly enamored of priests and their actions harked to a pagan time, and many priests were underpaid and grasping. A Politicized Civil Society By the 1890s, Russia had developed an educated, political culture among a group of people who were not yet numerous enough to truly be called a Middle Class, but who were forming between the aristocracy and the peasants / workers. This group were part of a ‘civil society’ which sent their youth to be students, read newspapers, and looked towards serving the public rather than the Tsar. Largely liberal, the events of a severe famine in the early 1890s both politicized and radicalized them, as their collective action outlined them to them both how ineffective the Tsarist government now was, and how much they could achieve if they were allowed to unite. The members of the zemstvo’s were chief among these. As the Tsar refused to meet their demands, so many of this social sphere turned against him and his government. Nationalism Nationalism came to Russia at the end of the nineteenth century and neither Tsars government nor liberal opposition could cope with it. It was the socialists who pushed regional independence, and socialist-nationalists who did best among the different nationalists. Some nationalists wanted to stay in the Russian empire but get greater power; the Tsar inflamed this by stamping on it and Russifying, turning cultural movements into fierce political opposition. Tsars had always Russified but it was now much worse Repression and Revolutionaries The Decembrist uprising of 1825 triggered a series of reactions in Tsar Nicholas I, including the creation of a police state. Censorship was combined with the ‘Third Section’, a group of investigators looking into acts and thoughts against the state, which could exile to Siberia suspects, not just convicted of any transgression, but just suspected of it. In 1881 the Third Section became the Okhranka, a secret police fighting a war using agents everywhere, even pretending to be revolutionaries. If you want to know how the Bolsheviks expanded their police state, the line started here.The revolutionaries of the period had been in harsh Tsarist prisons, hardened into extremism, the weak falling away. They started as intellectuals of Russia, a class of readers, thinkers and believers, and were turned into something colder and dark. These derived from the Decembrists of the 1820s, their first opponents and revolutionaries of the new order in Russia, and inspired intellectuals in succeeding generations. Rejected and attacked, they reacted by turning to violence and dreams of violent struggle. A study of terrorism in the twenty first century finds this pattern repeated. A warning was there. The fact that western ideas which had leaked into Russia ran into the new censorship meant they tended to be distorted into powerful dogma rather than argued into pieces like the rest. The revolutionaries looked to the people, who they were usually born above, as the ideal, and the state, who they reviled, with guilt driven anger. But the intellectuals had no real concept of peasants, just a dream of the people, an abstraction that led Lenin and company to authoritarianism.Calls for a small group of revolutionaries to seize power and create a revolutionary dictatorship to in turn create a socialist society (including removing enemies) were around far before the 1910s, and the 1860s were a golden age for such ideas; now they were violent and hateful. They didn’t h ave to choose Marxism. Many didn’t at first. Born in 1872, Marx’s Capital was cleared by their Russian censor as they though to too hard to understand to be dangerous, and about an industrial state Russia didn’t have. They were terribly wrong, and it was an instant hit, the fad of its day – the intelligentsia had just seen one popular movement fail, so they turned to Marx as a new hope. No more populism and peasants, but urban workers, closer and understandable. Marx seemed to be sensible, logical science, not dogma, modern and western.One young man, Lenin, was thrown into a new orbit, away from being a lawyer and into being a revolutionary, when his older brother was executed for terrorism. Lenin was drawn into rebellion and expelled from university. He was a fully blown revolutionary derived from other groups in Russia’s history already when he first encountered Marx, and he rewrote Marx for Russia, not the other way round.   Lenin accepted the ideas of the Russian Marxist leader Plekhanov, and they would recruit the urban workers by involving them in strikes for better rights. As ‘legal Marxists’ pushed a peaceful agenda, Lenin and others reacted with a commitment to revolution and creating a counter Tsarist party, strictly organised. They created the newspaper Iskra (the Spark) as a mouthpiece to command the members. The editors were the First Soviet of the Social Democratic Party, including Lenin. He wrote What Is To Be Done? (1902), a hectoring, violent work that set out the party. The Social Democrats split into two groups, the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, at the second Party Congress in 1903. Lenin’s dictatorial approach pushed the split. Lenin was a centraliser who distrusted the people to get it right, an anti-democrat, and he was a Bolshevik whereas the Mensheviks were prepared to work with the middle classes. World War 1 Was the Catalyst The First World War provided the catalyst for Russia’s revolutionary year of 1917. The war itself went badly from the start, prompting the Tsar to take personal charge in 1915, a decision which placed the full responsibility for the next years of failure on his shoulders. As demand for ever more soldiers increased, the peasant population grew angry as young men and horses, both essential for the war, were taken away, reducing the amount they could grow and damaging their standard of living. Russia’s most successful farms suddenly found their labour and material removed for the war, and the less successful peasants became ever more concerned with self-sufficiency, and even less concerned with selling a surplus, than ever before.Inflation occurred and prices rose, so hunger became endemic. In the cities, workers found themselves unable to afford the high prices, and any attempt to agitate for better wages, usually in the form of strikes, saw them branded as disloyal to Ru ssia, disaffecting them further. The transport system ground to a halt due to failures and poor management, halting the movement of military supplies and food. Meanwhile soldiers on leave explained how poorly supplied the army was, and bought first hand accounts of the failure at the front. These soldiers, and the high command who had previously supported the Tsar, now believed he had failed them.An increasingly desperate government turned to using the military to curb the strikers, causing mass protest and troop mutinies in the cities as soldiers refused to open fire. A revolution had begun.