Development of the Russian legislation on criminal liability for theft during the reign of the Rurikids (the 9th - 16th centuries)

The paper explores the norms of criminal liability for theft in the Old Rus state legislation. The author analyses the legal acts related to the first ruling dynasty - the Rurikids - in the 9th - 16th centuries AD: Russkaya Pravda (Rus Justice^, The Sudebnik (Code of Laws) of Ivan III and Ivan IV. It is noted that the provisions of Russkaya Pravda were on similar to those of the early medieval acts in Western Europe. The specificity of Russkaya Pravda legal regulations related to the criminal liability for crimes against property was their casuistry. The main penalties for these crimes were multiple compensation for damages and fines -"sale." However, the tendency to identify various forms of theft and their types could be observed even at this stage. They distinguished such types of crimes against property as theft (tatba) and robbery. We assume that the early editions of Russkaya Pravda qualified robbery not as a crime against property in its modern sense, but as a kind of murder. Unlike murder "in the course of a dispute", robbery described a premeditated murder for financial gain or other reasons. The paper draws attention to the significant changes undergone by the Russian legislation after the Mongol-Tatar yoke and in the beginning of the unification of Russian lands around the Grand Duchy of Moscow. The Sudebniks of the first Russian tsars Ivan III and Ivan IV show a completely different approach to crimes against property, in comparison with Russkaya Pravda. Such crimes are qualified as a public offense ("notorious deed"), rather than as a private delict ("insult"). Accordingly, the system of penalties for such crimes is shifted from a multiple compensation of damage and fine to greater punitive measures. For example, according to Article 10 of the Ivan III's Sudebnik, if a perpetrator committed theft (tatba) for the first time, he was whipped on the market place. In case of a repeated theft, the perpetrator was sentenced to death. The death penalty was also given for the theft from church, or if theft was committed by a particularly dangerous criminal ("notorious or known dangerous criminals").

Keywords

Authors

References