Sergei Yakovlevich Bulatov

Сергей Яковлевич Булатов

The Soviet jurist who defended the sodomy law in 1935

In 1935 Bulatov wrote that Marxist morality had always opposed male homosexuality, answering the German jurist Maurach, who had criticised the new Soviet law.

Born in Morshansk in Tambov province, the son of a gymnasium teacher, Bulatov finished school with a gold medal in 1917, had his studies cut short by the Civil War and graduated in law from Moscow University in 1925. After postgraduate work at the RANION Institute of Soviet Law (1929) he joined the criminal-law research led by Krylenko and Pashukanis, helped draft the 1930 criminal code and criticised the older natural-scientific study of offenders. In 1935 he answered Maurach by defending the law against male homosexuality. In 1941 he moved to head the criminal-law chair at the Alma-Ata Law Institute; his 1948 doctoral thesis was passed but then annulled by the Higher Attestation Commission. From 1955 he led the criminal-law chair at Kazakh State University. He died in 1965.

Activities and affiliations

Career Timeline

Related historical events

Criminology and criminal policy

Bulatov graduated from Moscow University in 1925 and completed postgraduate study in 1929. He attacked natural-scientific and anthropological approaches to criminals and helped draft a criminal code in 1930. His institute’s biography also describes his involvement in theories imposing responsibility for a person’s dangerous condition rather than a specific guilty act.

He moved to the Alma-Ata law institute in 1941 and headed criminal law at Kazakh State University from 1955. Approval of his 1948 doctoral thesis was subsequently revoked amid accusations of cosmopolitanism.

The reply to Maurach

In 1935 Bulatov defended the law by asserting that Marxist morality had always opposed male homosexuality, attributing the legislation to performers in Moscow and Leningrad who allegedly recruited young men. Roldugina notes his omission of their existing convictions under Article 58 and of the espionage allegations in Yagoda’s report, interpreting these gaps as evidence of inconsistent official explanations.