116 professionals in the wake of the État providence changed the general picture of the legal profession as well. The liberal bourgeois groups themselves, of course, had acquired the political power in the Third Republic, and among this group lawyers played an important role. By the beginning of the Third Republie, the juxtaposition of the notables, the traditional governing class, and the liberal bourgeoisie had disappeared.The dangers were no longer seen as coming fromabove, but rather from below, for as of the 1870s the workingclass movement was gaining importance.^' The working-class, in turn, was by law excluded from jury duty; besides, leading left-wing intellectuals, such as Tarde, tended to favor the newscientific streams of criminological and penological thinking and thus held a negative attitude towards juries. In short, the jury was a liberal and bourgeois institution, but the bourgeoisie needed it less and less as the century advanced. The liberal middle classes, steadfastly entrenched in the power structures of the Third Republic, had no need to seek protection fromthemselves. In France, the principle of free evaluation of proof was, from the start, intimately linked to the jury system. This linkage is not as evident in the countries where the debate began later. There is an obvious reason for this. When the question of the abolition of the statutory rules of proof appeared on the legal political agenda in other European countries during the second half of the century, it occurred simultaneously with the building of the modern bureaucratic state. With this development, solutions other than combining free evaluation with the jury were envisaged as well: it was becoming logical to think that legal professionals, the kernel of the modern bureaucratic state, should be awarded the right to freely evaluate evidence. In France, on the contrary, the political activity of the legal professionals in the eighteenth century had been directed at taking the lead within the revolutionary movement and not so much at widening the faculties of the legal profession itself. Fromthe point of viewof the revolutionary movement, in fact, one of the most severe problems of the ancien régime was the overly powerful judiciary. As we will see in the following chapters, what was an impossibility in pre-revolutionary France turned out to be a plausible alternative in Germany. In Finland it became a reality. 8. Germany: Jury, Publicity, Orality, and the Proof In German criminal procedure, the move away from the statutory theorv of proof occurred more than half a century later than in France. Another significant dissimilarity between France and Germany is that in Germany the discussion on the procedural reforms such as the abolition of the legal rules of proof Anderson 1977 pp. 33, 36, 160. «>> Ibid. pp. 118-123; Charle 1991 pp. 215-216, 222-226.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=