The victim as a part of the crime concept in the medieval criminal legislation of Russia

Ulitin Il'ya Nikolaevich ORCID: 0000-0001-8907-840X PhD in Law Lecturer, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, KubSU 350040, Russia, Krasnodar Territory, Krasnodar, Stavropol str., 149, office 1 ilia.ulitin@gmail.com

The doctrine of the victim in the framework of criminal law has accumulated a solid stock of theories perceived by modern science as a tradition. The consideration of the victim in the "criminal" legislation has acquired a classic character in two planes – criminal law ^{[3, 4]} and criminal procedure ^{[9, 11]}. Of course, both of them are interrelated, but, at the same time, they have different legal content. In the criminal legal field, the victim is considered as an institution ^[17]; a participant in legal relations ^{[1, pp. 138-141]}. But the named phenomenon acquires key importance for the domestic criminal law when it acts as a sign of the corpus delicti.

Traditionally, the victim is recognized as an optional feature of the object of criminal encroachment. As S.V. Anoshchenkova notes, he is considered as a subject possessing a social good, which is encroached upon by a person committing a crime ^{[3, p. 18]}. Thus, the specified subject is included in the configuration of public relations protected by criminal law.

It should be noted that the formation of doctrines about the composition of the crime, the transformation of criminal legislation could not but affect the formation of an approach to the victim as a sign of the composition of the crime, its essence, as well as legal protection. This statement is confirmed by the thesis of M.S. Sirik, who writes that the history of the development of legislation indicates that the signs characterizing the victim have always been taken into account by the legislator when constructing the norms of criminal law, which allows us to consider the category of "victim" criminal law ^{[17, p. 22]}.

A significant amount of research has been devoted to the doctrine of the victim ^{[16, 18, 21, 22, etc.]}, which suggests that the conceptual apparatus is sufficiently developed, as well as the existence of a system of scientific views that can be incorporated into a scientific school.

In the doctrine of criminal law, there are many approaches to the periodization of the history of its development. Traditionally, the change of stages in the evolution of criminal law is associated with a change in the criminal law policy of the state and with the adoption of new norms. One of the first such periods is the Middle Ages, which is characterized by the formation of the "rudiments" of legislative regulation associated with the adoption of such significant legal monuments as the Russian Truth in three editions (Short, Lengthy and Abbreviated); the Pskov Judicial Charter; Judicial Records.

This period is interesting because it differs in the casual presentation of the norms establishing responsibility for encroachments on the victim; pronounced inequality of subjects of legal relations; lack of an established understanding of the approach to the victim as a sign of the corpus delicti. In addition, it seems that its formation in the specified period in the specified status makes it possible to determine the determinants of the formation of an established modern understanding of it, as well as its consolidation within the framework of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

In the context of the above, we note that in the domestic criminal legislation, attention was already paid to the victim of a crime in the Russian Pravda. According to I.R. Shikul, in 18 (41.86%) of 43 articles of the Short Edition of the Russian Truth in the composition of crimes, the signs of the victim's personality (physical ^{[8, p. 132]} and social ^{[15, p. 14]}) characterized the object of the encroachment, while the scope of criminal legal protection of the individual depended on its position in society^{[22, p. 118]}.

Referring to the text of the mentioned monument of criminal law ^[14], we note some signs of the victim. For example, the social characteristics of the victim included: marital status (husband, brother, son, father, nephew); profession (gridin, merchant, sneak, swordsman, ognishchanin, senior groom at the herd, princely village headman, princely ryadovich, nurse slave); nationality or nationality (Ruthenian, Slovenian, Varangian, kolbyag); position in society (lord, master, the face of the princely tiun, smerd). Physical characteristics were reduced to a helpless state. For example, Article 2 referred to the imposition of a fine on the subject of the crime due to the lack of opportunity for the victim due to his physical condition to apply revenge to him.

The lengthy edition of the Russian Truth also took into account various characteristics of the victim. Social ones include the position in society (a free man), marital status, profession (prince's husband, prince's servant, prince's groom, prince's cook, prince's clerk, stable, artisan, uncle, nurse), negative characteristics (robber, thief), social status (master). The physical characteristics included gender. For example, in Article 88, a woman was named as a victim.

It should be noted that the Russian Truth did not consider servants, serfs and slaves as victims, since they acted as the property of a certain master.

It is noteworthy that the lengthy edition of the Russian Truth contained an indication of a more significant number of signs of the victim, while state interests were recognized as dominant, and the interests of the injured individual were secondary ^{[10, p. 272]}. Such an approach indicates the construction of a hierarchy of values, thereby allowing the object to be distributed vertically.

In addition, an important circumstance is that in the named source of law, the unlawful behavior of the victim was recognized as a circumstance affecting the responsibility of the perpetrator, and therefore acted as a criterion for individualization of punishment ^{[22, p. 120]}. For example, Article 88 of the Russian Truth pointed to such a circumstance as the provocative behavior of the wife towards her husband, causing violence towards her. In this monument of law, responsibility for harming criminals (robbers and thieves) was also lowered.

It is difficult to agree with the position of the authors who claim that the term "victim" was absent in the Russian Truth ^{[5, p. 36]}. The provisions presented earlier indicate the active introduction of the considered sign of a crime, as well as its unambiguous understanding.

The Pskov court charter, unlike the Russian Truth, consolidated mainly the norms of procedural law, as well as provisions of a civil nature. At the same time, it also contained an indication of various characteristics of the victim. In particular, the father and brother were recognized as a special type of victims (Article 97) ^[12].

The subsequent modernization of criminal law can be traced in the Court Book of Ivan III of 1497 (hereinafter referred to as the Court Book of 1497) and the Court Book of 1550. Article 9 of the Judicial Code of 1497 and Article 61 of the Judicial Code of 1550 provided for responsibility for the murder of a gentleman (a peasant who killed his owner) ^{[19, 20]}. The rest of the provisions of the aforementioned documents mentioned the victim and his signs in the framework of the criminal process, which excluded his significance for substantive law.

It is worth noting that in the Judicial Code of 1497, the concept of "complainer" was used to designate a person injured by the commission of illegal acts, in the Cathedral Code of 1649 – "petitioner" ^{[7, p. 37]}.

I.R. Shikula, analyzing the legal status of the victim in the Judicial Records, established three special characteristics, which are as follows: they provide for illegal trafficking in human beings and the conversion of free people into servitude; the question of the possibility of a person who is unable due to physical properties to defend his interests in court by putting a hireling in his place is regulated; property rights are differentiated punishments for insult and dishonor not only taking into account the social status, but also the gender of the victim ^{[22, p. 121]}. The status of these signs is different. The first attribute refers to the crime attribute, the second characterizes the procedural aspect, and the third indicates the criminal-legal significance, having to do with the issues of sentencing.

There is an opinion in the literature that the mention of the victim within the framework of criminal law began to be traced only in the Statute of Criminal Proceedings of November 24, 1864. Thus, I.M. Ibragimov ^{[6, p. 77]} and S.V. Anoshchenkova ^{[2, p. 95]} indicate that the term "victim" legally appeared for the first time in the Statute of Criminal Proceedings 1864 and designated "victims of crime persons", "victims of harm and losses", in a word, "offended" criminals people. There is also a position that this term appeared only in the Code of Criminal and Correctional Punishments of 1845, while the word "victim" is always accompanied by a clarification of what or what the person suffered ^{[13, p. 137]}.

In our opinion, it is difficult to agree with the positions presented. Perhaps the authors who support this point of view imply the consolidation of the corresponding definition. However, the absence of a normative concept does not indicate the absence of one or another feature in the structure of certain social relations. The legislator of the medieval period substituted the term of the victim with an indication of his characteristics, which allows us to talk about the direct participation of the named sign in the construction of the composition of the criminal act.

Summing up the analysis of the victim as a sign of the corpus delicti in medieval legislation, a number of conclusions can be drawn:

1. Understanding of the legal status of the victim in medieval legislation is mostly reduced to criminal procedure. At the same time, there are provisions indicating the material and legal consolidation of the victim as a sign of the corpus delicti.

2. Already in the first norms of domestic criminal law, the sign of the victim participated in the construction of the corpus delicti. At the same time, the casual presentation of norms in medieval domestic criminal law demonstrates a heterogeneous approach to determining the characteristics of the victim.

3. The victims indicated in the norms of medieval legislation as signs of the corpus delicti can be divided into two signs – social and physical and classified into groups, as it is implemented in modern criminal law, but in relation to the subject of the crime. In particular, the complex of social characteristics includes marital status, profession, nationality or nationality, position in society, and physical – helplessness and gender.

4. Comparing the modern regulation of the sign of the victim in the composition of crimes under the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with the provisions of medieval legislation, we can state their undoubted continuity. This is observed, in particular, in the regulation of qualified and privileged elements of crimes.

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.