<<
>>

Classification of crimes against religion in the Penal code of criminal and corrective 1885

The section of the Penal code of the criminal and corrective 1885, devoted to religious offences, opened the head «About blasphemy and belief censure».

In the pre-Christian world the religion was national and official body.

Any insult of a local deity or its image was considered as the greatest crime. However the ancient Roman Law adhered to principle Deorum injuriae diis curae («the insult of gods concerns only gods»). The Christianity has adopted a sight of the Jewish right at blasphemy: «who will talk scandal to my God, that will incur the sin and who hulitelno will say the Name Supreme, yes will die, yes will beat it kamenjami, whether there will be it the or the stranger» 1.

The criminal law science saw crime signs in blasphemy only when it was made publicly and had character of the personal insult. As blasphemy it was understood not only the abuse concerning the concrete person, but also directed to the address of his parents, the spouse and other relatives. Was considered, that swear words to the God in the presence of religious people caused the insult to their moral feelings. In the Russian jurisprudence of XIX century blasphemy and belief censure (blasphemia) were understood as a crime against a society, instead of against a deity. The blasphemy made publicly represented danger to a public order and a state system for a number of reasons. Orthodoxy in Russian empire was a symbol of national pride, the basis of the monarchical power was under construction on respect for religion, and the marriage institute has been based on a religious principle [123 [124].

On the basis of the analysis of considerable number of judicial-investigatory affairs about blasphemy and religious freethinking, professor E.B.Smiljansky
Has made an attempt to establish the reason of "spiritual crimes» in Russia. Blasphemy and blasphemy, in its opinion, became the "turned out" display of steady lines more likely «national belief», than «national unbelief». Blasphemous statements occurred «... Not from doubt in omnipotence of the God, and from rapprochement peculiar to ordinary religious consciousness sacral with terrestrial and carrying over of terrestrial relations on relations with Supreme» 1.

Blasphemy definition in Ulozhenii has not undergone serious changes in comparison with previous editions of the code 1885, but has received the expanded list of objects. Criminal protection extended on all ideas and representations about the God, professed by Christian doctrines. Ulozhenie provided punishment for those who «will dare 1885. To assign an abuse on slavimogo in Edinosushchnoj to the Trinity of the God, or on Prechistuju the Empress our Virgin and prisno-maiden Maria, or to a fair cross of the Lord of the God and Spasa our Jesus Christ, or on unbodied forces heavenly, or on saints Divine and their images.» (Item 176 [125 [126]).

The text of given article, with some changes and additions, has been borrowed from Cathedral ulozhenija 1649: «there Will be who inovertsy, kakija awake beliefs, or and Rusky the person, will assign an abuse to the Lord of the God and Spasa our Jesus Christ, or on rozhdshuju It prechistuju the Empress our Virgin and prisnodevu Maria, or on a fair Cross, or on Its Sacred flatterers: and about that syskivati everyones investigations firmly.

Yes will be it will be found about that doprjama; and that blasphemer having convicted kazniti to burn» [127].

Ulozhenie protected the criminal sanction only Christian confessions, mainly Orthodoxy and Catholicism 1885. Blasphemy as the crime, was made only in that case when the abuse has been directed on
The god in Christian understanding (item 176 1). Abuse putting on on the Allah the Moslem, and the Jew - on Iegovu in a prayful building was considered not as a crime, and police offence. Responsibility for its fulfilment was provided by the Charter about the punishments imposed by world judges (order infringement in a prayful building) (item 35 [128 [129]).

Obshchehristiansky character of item 176 Ulozhenija of 1885 proved to be true that blasphemy in it was defined as putting on of an abuse not only for the Sacred Trinity, but also on the Virgin. During too time, such objects of blasphemy as a "fair" cross, Saints and their images concerned exclusively Orthodoxy. For example, «a fair cross» in Russia named an orthodox cross, and Catholic - Latin "kryzhem"; raskolnichy the cross, its image and a sign also did not fall under value of "fair". On the other hand, Saints admitted not only Orthodox church, but also in Catholic, Armenian-Gregorian and Armenian-Catholic churches. The saints were and in not Christian confessions - at Moslems and Buddhists. However, recognising that the legislator was Russian and the Christian, there are all bases to believe, that in corresponding article Ulozhenija of 1885 The Saints recognised as Orthodox church were meant only. Therefore the abuse to a number Catholic sacred was nonpunishable, some of which were persecutors of orthodox belief. For example, archbishop Iosafata Kuntsevicha, the persecutor of Orthodoxy, the Catholic church recognised as the martyr and as sacred, however the certificate of blasphemy connected with his name, it is improbable could be considered by the legislator as a heavy criminal offence. One more object of blasphemy - icons, also were only a Christian doctrine, from - for which the Orthodox church led long struggle against sectarians - ikonobortsami [130].

Along with blasphemy, the legislator provided punishment for: 1) censure of belief Christian; 2) censure of Orthodox church (which on the value was wider, than blasphemy); 3) pronouncing of curses over the Scriptus or Sacred Sacraments (item 178 1).

Blasphemy and belief censure were considered penal at observance of following conditions: 1) if are made publicly; 2) if are made osoznanno and-or it is deliberate; 3) if are made by the way defined in the legislation. We will consider the given positions in more details.

Made alone, without presence at least two witnesses, the above-stated acts could not be considered as the criminal. Moreover, even in the presence of witnesses the given acts admitted criminal only in case of intention to shake belief or to make temptation of witnesses for an exit from Orthodoxy (item 177, ch. 2 items 178) [131 [132]. That, for example, had been recognised actions of the shtabs-captain by 3rd roty 36 infantry reserve battalions, located in JAnove [133], A.Kufta who in 1886 inspired to subordinates «not to go to church, not to read the St. gospel and in general divine books, not to trust in any relic, approving, that the confession and a St. participle are thought up by priests on purpose to collect money, that no relics exist». To a bottom rank of A.Kufta looking after a company icon spoke: «Throw an icon to dogs», and to another - «to thrust the St. gospel in any indecent place» [134].

Example of blasphemy and censure of the belief, made publicly, the statement of petty bourgeois H.Bytenskogo concerning doctrines and politicians of Russian Orthodox church can serve. Being at his place in November, 1885, peasant P.J.Cheshko told about Jew Gise Porohovnik who has left to accept in Minsk a christening. On what H.Bytensky has noticed: «that yours for belief if at you accept such dishonest girls from Jews to Orthodoxy», and
Also has expressed concerning a doctrine of orthodox belief birth Presvjatoj the Maiden of Savior Jesus Christ «in the most indecent kind and foul language». Bytensky also has told, that «if gisja will be in Orthodoxy and will have illegitimate you orthodox name its God» 1.

Fulfilment of the given actions at presence inovernyh citizens, even not orthodox Christians, did not attract the corpus delicti. Besides, as object of blasphemy the God »- in orthodox understanding of the God in it triedinstve should act« nice in Edinosushchnoj to the Trinity. The blasphemy made under specified conditions, was punished by attainder and a Siberian exile on settlement in «otdalyonnejshie places».

Blasphemy in the places which have been taken away for fulfilment of divine services, was considered more immoral and having considerable negative influence on present witnesses. For its fulfilment «publicly in church» a hard labour for the term of 12-15 years (ch was provided. 1 items 176) [135 [136]. The word "church" unequivocally was understood as an orthodox temple as it was accepted to name Lutheran temples kirhami, and Catholic - churches. Chapels, prayful houses, kaplitsy though were usually a part of a church complex, under concept «a divine service place» did not fall [137].

For blasphemy fulfilment, censure of Christian belief and Orthodox church «not in church, but in a public place or meeting more or less populous» a hard labour for the term of 6-8 years (accordingly, ch was provided. 2 items 176; item 178) [138].

Circumstances of fulfilment of blasphemy - «a public place» and «populous meeting» - were specified as alternative. According to A.V.Lohvitsky, theoretically it could lead to occurrence of paradoxical situations. For example, blasphemy fulfilment in empty street, in the empty car (a public place, but without presence of witnesses) would be
It is punishable, and in empty church - is not present, as for punishability of blasphemy in church presence публики1 was compulsory condition. In our opinion, only presence of both conditions could be the basis for qualification of blasphemy as in the absence of witnesses blasphemous statements had no character socially dangerous and, hence, could not be punishable.

For the persons who become in the public place by witnesses of blasphemy or censure of belief and have not undertaken measures «for the temptation termination», imprisonment for the term from 4 till 8 months or arrest for the term from 3 weeks till 3 months (item 179) was provided. The given position was similar under the maintenance to item 15 (failure to report about crimes) and item 125 (failure to report about an observable crime without attempt to bar it) Ulozhenija 1885 [139 [140]

At qualification of blasphemy and belief censure essential value had a physical and intellectual condition of the guilty. The circumstances forming the basis for mitigation of punishment were: «without intention to offend the Relic», «on nerazumiju, to ignorance or drunkenness» (item 180). At their presence the guilty was exposed to imprisonment for the term from 8 months till 1 year and 4 months, with deprivation of some rights and advantages; or for the term from 4 months till 1 year and 4 months [141].

All considered cases concerned blasphemies and censures of the belief, made in the oral form. However there was also a different way of their fulfilment - in «printing or though also written, but what or image extended compositions» (item 181). Punishment - attainder and banishment for free settlement to Siberia that was below punishment for public blasphemy and censure of religion (item 176) was provided, but is similar to punishment for fulfilment of the given crimes at witnesses (item 177 [142]).

It is obvious, that blasphemy and belief censure in the printing form had all bases to be considered more dangerous: the information could extend among

Infinite number of persons to remain throughout long term, unlike oral speech which reached the limited circle of persons during the short period of time. However the legislator held that opinion, that the maintenance of printing documents has been addressed only to people competent and "conceiving". Besides, acquaintance with printing or hand-written sources of blasphemy and censure occurred individually, not in a mass order, and could not serve as the reason national волнения1.

For bar of claim by lapse of time of distribution of printing editions with signs of blasphemy and belief censure in Ulozhenie the underground group of subjects which before release in the reference should pass censorship 1885 has been included. The books concerned them, separate printing, litografirovannye or the engraved sheets, prints, notes with words (item 1021). Responsibility in the form of the fine for their intended concealment from censorship (item 1022) was provided. For the press without the permission of product censorship the penalty to 300 roubles and arrest till 3 months (item 1024) was imposed. So, for example, a hereditary nobleman V.Balashov has been brought to court for the edition and brochure distribution «the Icon from Apraksin of the market», not having on that of the appropriate permission of censorship. Owners and workers of printing houses or lithographs were made accountable for the press without the permission of censorship of compositions, images and the other printing materials containing signs of blasphemy (item 1026). The criminal liability was born also by the censor who has deliberately admitted printing materials to the edition or has resolved to statement on a scene of the composition with signs of blasphemy (item 1004 [143 [144]).

Blasphemous ideas and belief censure could be expressed in various images: written, engraved, carved or cast in «a seductive kind» icons and other subjects concerning belief and divine service; for their manufacturing, sale or distribution the criminal liability (item 183) was provided. For a population part
Russia ikonopochitanie had original character: icons were considered not as the image of the god or sacred, and the God. It extremely respectful relation to them spoke: icons ornated, did not buy, and "exchanged" for money, did not hang up on nails. About an icon spoke "has not burnt down", and constant struggle, including by entering of corresponding norms into the criminal legislation "has risen". The similar relation to material object of worship as to the live God was considered as Church idolatry with which was led. Nevertheless forms really practising the people ikonopochitanija was are rather far from officially recognised as Church and obviously contradicted Christian догматике1.

The disrespectful relation to images of the God or sacred was considered as blasphemy and criminally pursued. Criminal protection extended only on Christian relics that followed from article formulation: «not on hatred to belief Christian and churches orthodox». In case of act fulfilment on purpose to shake respect for a relic, on degree of punishment it was equated to blasphemy at witnesses (item 177) and punished by attainder and banishment for free settlement to Siberia. In the presence of attenuating circumstances punishment in the form of arrest from 3 days till 3 weeks, or imprisonment for the term from 2 till 4 months [145 [146] was necessary.

Rules of manufacturing of icons and others, concerning belief, subjects contained also in the Head the Charter heel about the prevention and suppression of crimes. (Items 92) concerned them an interdiction on carved and otlivnye icons; moulding of crosses from copper and tin (item 93), the image of symbols and signs on icons (item 94). It was forbidden to store and make also unskillfully, in
«A strange and seductive kind», icons (item 95); to make and sell things with sacred images (item 99 1).

The blasphemy in the form of the venomous sneer containing «obvious disrespect for rules or ceremonies of church orthodox or in general Christianities», could be expressed both in printing, and in words (item 182 Ulozhenija of 1885). Fulfilment Compulsory condition was publicity of act and presence of witnesses (ch. 2 items 182) [147 [148].

Difference of blasphemy from blasphemy consisted not in object of a crime, and in the form of expression of the relation to religion or dogma: blasphemy meant an abuse, desecration, curses, and blasphemy - obscene jokes, a sneer. As object of blasphemy rules or ceremonies of Orthodox church and Christianity in general acted; the blasphemy concerning doctrines and beliefs was nonpunishable. In practice of article Ulozhenija of 1885 about blasphemy and blasphemy were applied in a close connection and supplemented each other [149].

For understanding of essence of blasphemy and blasphemy we will consider materials of following archival affairs. In February, 1882 in the Minsk spiritual consistory the official report of the investigator has arrived. The official report said, that the pupil of the Slutsky grammar school Yakubovsky on January, 6th, 1882 after water consecration on the river Sluch and procession withdrawal, together with other pupils, has urinated in an ice-hole with the consecrated water. The inspector interested, whether necessary the given act qualify as blasphemy or to consider its simply immoral. The spiritual consistory has presented the conclusion that water in an ice-hole, the St. Epiphany consecrated in day, «remains sacred and on procession leaving... As the ice-hole arranged in the form of a cross, consists of the water which have addressed in ice, and on it the good fortune of consecration informed and again was called
pritekajushchej to water and consequently Yakubovsky's act is blasphemy which cannot remain without criminal prosecution »1.

In 1882 to the prior of Holujsky church of Christmas of the Virgin the group of the peasants who have arrived on service to Jew Haimu Judytsky, which has addressed with the statement forced them to work both in celebratory and Sundays, and in Organic Vysokopreosvjashchennye. Peasants have been forced to work on February, 19th - in day of clearing of peasants from a serfdom as emperor Alexander II, on February, 26th and on March, 2nd - in birthdays and accessions to the throne of reigning emperor Alexander III. Having warned the owner that in holidays they «nadalshe will not execute its orders», and otherwise will declare to the local Holujsky parish priest, the specified peasants have heard from H.Judytskogo, that «he the priest and our church in its pocket» [150 [151]. The actions Judytsky interfered with visiting by orthodox peasants of church divine services working for it, thereby expressing disrespect for rules of Orthodox church. The venomous sneer was obviously seen in its words. Thus, there were all bases for attraction Judytsky to the criminal liability for blasphemy fulfilment.

In 1884 the Minsk district court listened to business of peasant A.Kurilovicha which during quarrel with the peasant O.Pavlovichem has told: «it is better to bring sakrament (sacred gifts) to an ass of my daughter, than to your lips». The court has found A.Kurilovicha guilty in pronouncing at witnesses of the words proving obvious disrespect for rules and ceremonies of Christian religion, without intention to make temptation, «on nerazumiju, being in a state of intoxication» (ch. 2 items 182 Ulozhenija of 1885) [152].

In November, 1885 noblem O.G.Reut, having come into the house to noblem G.I.Vankevichu, has demanded delivery of the hunting dog who has run for week before together with other dogs to it in a court yard. When last
Has demanded a payment for a proforage of a dog, Reut, in the presence of witnesses, «began to say different curses and thus blamed orthodox belief, naming it sobachej», for what has been involved in a consequence as convicted of a crime provided by item 182 Ulozhenija of 1885, i.e. by the investigator of word Reuta have been qualified as a sneer containing disrespect to православию1.

In 1887 in Minsk district court case about petty bourgeois A.Jatskeviche who publicly, before the people which have gathered to divine service, has said was considered: «what for to bow to the God; the God is not present; it is better to bow to maids; who will create the God, to spit on an icon, the icon will not give health». To A.Jatskevichu it has been accused in pronouncing of the venomous sneer having direct reference to ceremonies of orthodox belief, in the presence of witnesses, though and without intention to make temptation (ch. 1 items 182 Ulozhenija of 1885). For pronouncing of venomous sneers at rules and ceremonies of orthodox belief JAtskevich has been sentenced to arrest for 2 months [153 [154].

The criminal liability for blasphemy was provided also by articles of other sections Ulozhenija of 1885 So, in the Chapter of the third «About the insult of a relic and infringement church blagochinija» violation of sacred subjects, words or action which inherently was one of versions of blasphemy (item 210) was mentioned. As "Sacred subjects» were considered potiry, diskosy, darohranitelnitsy, etc. (item 221). There were also the subjects consecrated through the use in divine service: fonts, the big bowls for water consecration, ladles, sprayed, attires and so forth (item 222). In Ulozhenii the exhaustive list of subjects which admitted sacred or consecrated not only in Orthodox, but also Catholic, Armenian-Gregorian and Evangelichesko-Protestant churches (item 230 [155]) 1885 was resulted

For the insult words of subjects from the specified list the guilty was punished by a hard labour for the term of 12-15 years. If the crime was accompanied by offensive actions concerning Sacred Sacraments or other sacred subjects (hallows, gifts from a bowl), guilty was sentenced to termless penal servitude. For both cases a necessary condition of qualification of criminal action was fulfilment of the specified actions in most церкви1. From this follows, that Ulozhenie did not provide responsibility for violation or the excess made over sacred subjects (hallows, icons, gifts) outside of church 1885. However occurrence of similar situations has been quite admissible: for example, in a chapel during burial service deceased; during carrying out of a ceremony of a christening or divine service in-home; during religious processions - because at their fulfilment the sacred or consecrated subjects were used. In this case police bodies could qualify the given acts as curses over the Scriptus and Sacred Sacraments (item 178), with the subsequent punishment guilty banishment for free settlement (instead of a hard labour under item 210 which were not providing attenuating circumstances).

New tendencies in a science of criminal law of second half XIX century and change in public consciousness have led to that the sight at essence of blasphemy also has changed. Became obvious, that the criminal encroached not on the Deity, and on religion; its actions did not destroy any blessings, and only served as the proof of absence of respect for them. Accordingly, the Russian jurists offered to change the system of penalties for blasphemy and blasphemy aside less severe measures. Long-term judiciary practice showed, that unduly strict punishments quite often led to verdicts of "not guilty" or attempts of vessels to establish in cases in point attenuating circumstances [156 [157].

Ulozhenie provided responsibility for one kind of encroachments on Christian relics - destruction or damage of the crosses established in public places, images of the Savior, the Virgin and Saints, or Angels (item 217) 1885. The given crime was made to express disrespect for Christian belief on purpose deliberately, as a rule. It was punished by imprisonment for the term from 4 till 8 months, and guilty-Christians the church repentance in addition was necessary. Attenuating circumstances - nerazumie or drunkenness - reduced degree of punishment to arrest for the term from 3 weeks till 3 months. It is remarkable, that ignorance of the criminal (unlike item 182) to its fault not смягчало1. It is necessary to notice, that the given kind of criminal actions has been especially extended in districts where compactly lived the mixed population: orthodox and Catholic, orthodox and old believe, Christian and Jewish. As effective way of bar of claim by lapse of time of damage of Christian relics the interdiction for public placing of sacred images could serve in the places of residence of followers of various creeds.

Further we will consider the crimes against religion carried by the legislator to infringements church blagochinija. They possessed similarity with encroachments on the person, however have always been interfaced to blasphemy or the relic insult. Punishment degree depended on a way of committing a crime. So, the intended and considered interruption of divine service accompanied by a beating or other violent actions concerning the cleric, both in church, and behind its limits, was punished by attainder and a Siberian exile on settlement (item 211). Act fulfilment in «inadvertent drunkenness» and without the premeditated intention was punished by deprivation of all rights and banishment for free settlement in places not so kept away (ch. 2 items 211). Criminals-Christians came under also to a church repentance [158 [159].

Let's result the concrete facts of infringement of church divine service. The clerk of Vseljubsky volost of Novogrudsky district of the Minsk province M.Kulak, being in church drunk, in the divine service beginning has taken a place about a choir and, having addressed faced to the people, different indecent grimaces and gestures of hands «initiated laughter in the environment of praying». The «not consent singing to a disgrace, or is more correct -» it has interrupted with howling singing of choristers standing on a choir. Then the Fist has ascended to an altar, took zaprestolnyj a cross and has carelessly taken out it, having thrown on a shoulder, on the church middle. Later the Fist took art wasps and bore it round church «extremely carelessly, one hand, swinging extensively and having any conversation with the associates, initiating loud laughter». On representation of the Minsk spiritual consistory, for fulfilment of the blasphemous acts which have led to interruption of divine service, the Fist has been dismissed from a post of the clerk, and materials of preliminary inquiry have been transferred judicial следователю1.

Murder of the priest during divine service or execution treb was punished by termless penal servitude, and drawing to it uvechy and wounds, depending on their weight - penal servitude for the term from 4 till 10 years (item 212). Unintentional wounding and uvechy involved the reference for the term from 4 till 6 years with attainder [160 [161]. The given encroachments against the person concerned the legislation grave crimes. The fact of their fulfilment concerning the cleric during divine service served as the aggravating circumstance.

Interruption or the stop of divine service caused by oral insults of the cleric, attracted imprisonment for the term from 2 till 8 months (item 214). In the presence of attenuating circumstances the infringer was threatened with arrest by term from 3 weeks till 3 months (item 215 [162]). Use by the legislator in the text of articles of concepts "cleric" and «service Divine» specified that was a question of protection only Christian creeds.
The place of fulfilment of act for qualification of a crime of value had no: it could be made both in church, and behind its limits, for example, during fulfilment treby.

In separate criminally-legal structure acts, offensive inherently, but not passed in desecration «relics Dominical» (item 213) have been allocated. By the nature they were similar to the insult of sacred subjects a curse (item 210), with the blasphemous relation and an indecent sneer at sacred subjects. Consecrated with the use at divine service subjects under action of given article did not fall, since did not concern to «to a relic Dominical» (for example, church candles). Discriminating line of blasphemous actions from blasphemy (item 182) was compulsory condition of fulfilment of act during divine service in церкви1. For blasphemy on purpose to cause temptation committing to prison for the term from 4 months till 2 years was provided. At awarding punishment presence of attenuating circumstances (item 215 [163 [164]) was considered.

The insult of the orthodox cleric persons of foreign confessions, a word or action, with intention to render disrespect for Church (as to creed) was punished by imprisonment: from 4 till 8 months (if it was made for the first time), or from 8 months till 1 year and 4 months (for repeated fulfilment) (item 216). However similar actions from the person of orthodox confession could be qualified as the insult of the person in "office" (item 287). For example, the priest of Olnitsky church of the Bobruisk district S.Semyonov asked to make accountable peasant T.Manko. According to Semyonova, Manko has caused it «insult words on purpose to degrade its honour», having told, that that «as if on Passionate Thursday because of drunkenness did not make Divine service». The priest has counted itself «as the extremely offended such
Affront »also has demanded to punish the originator under item 287 of the Penal code criminal and исправительных1.

Punishment for infringement church blagochinija clerics as white, and monashestvujushchego clergy, and also clergymen [165 [166] (which together formed parish pricht [167]), it was defined by the spiritual heads on the basis of existing intrachurch decisions (item 218). Prichetniki besides it were excluded from the arrival. Thus, guilty were punished exclusively by spiritual court definition.

Let's consider also articles about infringement blagochinija in other codes of Russian empire. In the Charter about the punishments imposed by world judges, arrest for the term up to 1 month or the fine to 100 roubles for infringement blagochinija in church, a chapel or the prayful house by obscene shout, noise or unseemly acts, but without the insult of a relic (item 35) was provided. For example, in materials of one of affairs of the Riga spiritual consistory it was informed on obscene behaviour of peasants which during divine service at singing «My God pardon» in Latvian said «a dog pardon», and instead of «to you My God» - «the mare has fallen down with the bridge», for what has been sentenced to 14-day arrest [168].

Infringement blagochinija out of church public entertainments, amusements or the different excesses interfering divine service, was punished by arrest for the term up to 15 days or the fine at the rate to 50 roubles (Charter item 36 about the punishments imposed by world judges). Similar
Punishment was provided for the persons breaking an order during solemn processions or празднеств1.

Despite similarity of the maintenance of articles Ulozhenija of 1885 (item 214 item, 215) and the Charter about the punishments imposed by world judges (item 35), between them there was an essential distinction. Action of norm of the Charter extended on infringers blagochinija in church, and Ulozhenie protected clerics from the insult during divine service 1885. The importance of last act assumed disposal of legal proceeding under specified articles in district vessels [169 [170].

The chapter the fourth «About sacrilege, razrytii tombs and a robbery of dead bodies» Ulozhenija has been devoted the crimes directed against Christian creeds, their doctrines and subjects of a religious cult - to sacrilege in the broad sense of the word 1885. In narrow sense sacrilege was defined by the law as «any abduction of church things and money both from churches, and from chasoven, vestries and other constant and time church storehouses, at least they were and out of a church structure» (item 219 [171]).

For qualification of sacrilege presence of two conditions was required: 1) an accessory of the stolen money or prophetic church; 2) plunder fulfilment in church, a chapel or church storehouse. For example, sacrilege had been recognised plunder by means of breaking of church doors «diskosa (bowls» copper, in the middle of gilt, outside of silvered with 4мя images on finifte... 12 wax candles and two big scarfs, one of them red, at width and length of two arshins, all for the sum 40 rivers », made from Kunosky parish church of Slutsky district of the Minsk province [172]. Hence, plunder in church of money and the things belonging to the private person, and, on the contrary, sacred things from the private house was not considered and considered by sacrilege as simple larceny or a robbery. From the criminal
Actions by the legislation religious subjects orthodox and other Christian creeds recognised in Russian empire were protected: Catholic, Armenian-Gregorian, evangelichesko-Lutheran (item 230 1). Plunder sacred prophetic Muslim, Judaic and pagan religions was qualified as usual theft.

Since 60th of XIX century sacrilege became a subject of detailed studying of the Russian scientists-criminalists. So, P.D.Kalmykov the maintenance of the given crime saw disrespect for the church property. He recognised, that «the subjects devoted to divine service, a place of their storage should inspire all awe and use especial protection of the state». At the same time, P.D.Kalmykov urged to avoid extreme measures and not to see in sacrilege the insult of the Divine greatness. Sacrilege, in its opinion, followed consider as a crime directed against a society and Church, to be exact - against the church property [173 [174].

H.p. Belogrits-Kotljarevsky believed, that «classification of the given crime does not maintain criticism» because sacrileges as the separate concept did not exist. It was derivative of larceny and a robbery, «complicated by especial qualities of object and a scene of crime», and possessed with them similar structures [175].

The barrister and the researcher of legal science K.F.Hartulari urged to exclude sacrilege from section of religious offences since it was made by not public plunder of subjects of a cult and did not offend feeling of believers by desecration of a relic [176]. Scientists-jurists V.D.Spasovich, N.S.Tagantsev and N.A.nekljudov adhered to similar opinion. They fairly believed, that «communication between this crime and religion purely mechanical», and the religious element had only supplementing value. Subsequently, in the Criminal code of 1903, church property capture, not
Connected to relic desecration, has been carried to number of crimes against property as motive of its fulfilment was thirst наживы1.

Despite existence of the various points of view on essence of sacrilege, legislators in last quarter of XIX century have been forced not only to consider modern legal ideas in the activity, but also to follow reasons of political expediency. A.V.Lohvitsky, arguing on essence of sacrilege, directly specified in a duty of the law defending interests of Orthodoxy and Christianity in general, to protect as well subjects of a religious cult [177 [178].

Ulozhenie resulted the list of the things which had sacred character for various Christian creeds 1885. Gravity of punishment depended on degree of their sanctity for sacrilege. Church subjects were divided into 3 categories: 1) the sacred subjects were subjects of a cult or used at fulfilment of sacraments: an image, power, darohranitelnitsa, crosses, the gospel etc. (item 221); 2) the consecrated things used at fulfilment of divine service: fonts, censers, ladles, sprayed, church chandeliers with the candles put in them, icon lamps, prayer books, except the gospel (item 222); 3) the church things which have been not consecrated with the use at divine service: monetary donations, the candles which have been not put by images or in church chandeliers, etc. Thus razbojnoe abduction of the specified things from cult constructions was considered not as sacrilege, and the qualified robbery (item 1628 Ulozhenija of 1885) [179].

The place of its fulfilment was the second condition influencing gravity of punishment for sacrilege: it could be churches, vestries, chapels or other church storehouses (for example, columns with images or crosses). Chapels on
The importance (items 222), and to other places (item 224 item, 226) 1 have been carried Ulozheniem 1885 and to churches.

Punishment degree for sacrilege fulfilment depended also on a way of its fulfilment. The most serious punishment was involved by the theft combined with a robbery. Stolen from church were awarded to a hard labour for the term from 12 till 15 years, from a chapel - term from 10 till 12 years (item 220 [180 [181]).

Burglary from church or a vestry of monetary donations, candles and other subjects which yet have been not consecrated with the use at divine service, was punished by attainder and the reference to a hard labour for the term from 4 till 6 years. For the similar crime made without breaking, but with the intention considered in advance or the intention, guilty after attainder referred to Siberia to settlement. So, at night with 23 for June, 24th, 1884 peasant A.E.Grishenkovym had been made attempt at burglary of a window from church of manor Upirevichi of Borisovsky district of the Minsk province. It has pulled out a frame attached by nails from a window of an altar, and has bent an iron lattice in other window, but thefts to make was not in time, since has been detained. The Minsk district court has passed on January, 10th, 1885 the decision to deprive peasant Grishenkova of all rights of a condition and to banish to Siberia [182].

Absence of intention considerably reduced responsibility degree: the guilty was given to corrective prisoner branches (ch. 3 items 225). On the contrary, the accessory guilty to a circle of persons, the stolen subjects responsible for storage or money, raised punishment degree for sacrilege on one degree (item 228 [183]). It is necessary to notice, that the given kind of a crime has received a wide circulation among representatives of clergy. For example, in 1840th the percent of the priests banished to Siberia which have made sacrilege, exceeded an average index of criminals-church robbers from other estates
More than in 22 раза1. The given phenomenon speaks absence of the regular maintenance for parish priests and their disastrous financial position. Last third XVIII century the average revenue of city priests constituted from 30 to 80 roubles, and rural - from 25 to 40 roubles. At clergymen incomes were even more low - 10-20 roubles a year [184 [185]. Transfer of parish clergy into the state maintenance has begun with the Western provinces in 1842 Clergy of other parts of the Empire, not receiving the salary, also has been deprived «direct economic relations with parishioners» because instead of the cancelled payment for treby the state gathering from the population on the maintenance of parishes [186] have been entered. In this occasion the rural priest of the Saratov province (later - the Mariinsky colony of the Moscow educational house) A.I.rose tree wrote: « It is necessary to be the rural priest, it is necessary to test to understand that inexpressibly heavy the killing I smother a condition, that melancholy, that bitterness, humiliation, freezing blood and burning down heart despair, that odurjajushchuju rage what are tested by the priest collecting by bread! »[187].

Abduction of the money, offered to church or a monastery, but not arrived yet in the church property, was considered as theft and involved corresponding punishment (item 229). Plunder of money from sacrificial columns and mugs was considered as theft at churches and chapels, on which have not been put an image and crosses (i.e. the thief could not judge appointment of the collected means), and also plunder of other subjects of the church property, not from church or church storehouse (item 232-233 item) [188].

The Russian jurists critically estimated positions Ulozhenija of 1885 about sacrilege. A.K.Vulfert paid attention to unsystematic use of the concepts designating actions of church robbers: a robbery, "pokrazha" and похищение1. K.F.Hartulari marked inconsistent classification of subjects of sacrilege by their property - to presence of divine force. Having defined punishment of various degree for the sacrilege made in different places (church, a chapel etc.), the legislator involuntarily recognised, that sacred subjects after their moving lost a part of the divine force [189 [190]. N.S.Tagantsev specified in disproportion of established punishment of weight of perfect act: even theft of a candle end of the candle found somewhere in church (on a floor, a window), was punished by a hard labour for the term from 1 till 6 years [191].

One of doctrines of Christian church - belief in afterlife, paid special attention deceased and to places of their burial. Cemeteries were under protection of Church and admitted it the consecrated places (campo santo, or «the divine field»). Infringement of esteemed atmosphere «rest and a pacification» was considered as grave crime, in particular, if it was accompanied by violation of a body deceased and its tomb which constituted a subject of a cult not only at Christians, but also other people - pagans, Moslems, Jews. However at Christians this honouring has been expressed especially strongly as after death and during a burial place, following a Christian doctrine about revival dead, over bodies of the died sacred ceremonies were made.

The in itself body deceased was represented to the Russian legislator as ashes in which relation, as well as any other inanimate object, it was impossible to commit a crime. To recognise similar it was impossible deceased for victims as the live person could become a victim of a crime only. Therefore in this case the law rose on protection of religious feelings of live relatives deceased with which it was insulted by violation of a body died and-or its tomb. It is necessary to notice, that
In legislations of the West European states, unlike Russian, the relation to a dead body was other - it recognised as an inheritance subject. Even concerning bodies of executed criminals the court made the decision on the one to whom from relatives followed give out a body for burial and whom to define a burial place place. The tomb, as well as any real estate, was got by families in a private property. Legislative protection of inviolability of places of a burial place supported respect for them and promoted strengthening of religious feelings of the population. Absolutely the situation in Russia where the dead body did not admit object of inheritance differently was. Tombs could not be got in a private property: cemeteries belonged to Church though settled down on taken away by a city земле1.

In the Russian criminal legislation of the end of XIX century protection of dead bodies was provided by the several decisions which action extended only on already buried corpses. Punishment for their desecration during farewell before a burial place or movings on a cemetery the law was not provided. Theft from yet not buried dead body was considered as usual theft, instead of as desecration of the deceased. Razrytie tombs, embankments and damage of tombs constituted a crime only at defined, reserved in the law, conditions: 1) for the purpose of a robbery; 2) for desecration of the buried; 3) for fulfilment of superstitious ceremonies [192 [193].

For allocation of superstitions as special motive for razrytija tombs in XIX century there were serious bases. It is necessary to understand views which are not recognised neither religion, nor a science [194] as superstition. On national poverjam, sorcerers, drunkards, suicides, the people who have died without the Sacred Participle, a confession, «maliciously on heart» or buried not on Christian customs, could not find to themselves rest in a tomb. To imagination of the simple people terrible pictures of a posthumous fate of such people were drawn: they pottered in a coffin and groaned, tore
Teeth a bed-sheet by which have been covered, and at night rose from coffins, wandered on light, came back in those places where lived earlier, and brought with itself mor and illnesses. They tormented cattle and exhausted blood at people. The peasants movable by superstitions and aspiration to get rid of a misfortune, spent special ceremonies: for example, broke off such tomb, turned a corpse the person downwards and drove in to it into a back aspen kol. Separate parts of bodies buried could be used for manufacturing талисманов1.

Razrytie tombs for a robbery or desecration of dead bodies involved attainder and the reference to a hard labour for the term from 10 till 12 years. Made the specified acts «for superstitious actions» lost all rights of a condition and referred to settlement to Siberia. It is important to pay attention to article formulation: «for superstitious actions», instead of «owing to superstition» - crimes from superstition were considered separately by decisions of other section Ulozhenija of 1885 the Attenuating circumstance fulfilment of act without malicious intent, on prank or «on drunkenness» was considered. In this case the guilty was exposed to imprisonment for the term from 4 till 8 months (item 234 [195 [196]).

For example, on March, 20th, 1884 in a chest of serving manor Borovtsy of Novogrudsky district of the Minsk province of a nobleman F. Demuhovsky at the age of 23 years the cut off handle of the child turned in a rag has been found. The consequence has established, that the handle has been cut off from «the dead child of"peasant S.Soroki, buried on the Borovetsky cemetery. Involved in a consequence as the convicted F.Demuhovsky has explained, that razryl a tomb «without any malicious intention, and on prank or in drunkenness», then «cut off at this child the handle and took that to itself». For the given crime it has been imprisoned for 2 months [197].

In January, 1885 in criminal department of the Vilensky appellate court the report on business about peasants R.Pilipchike, K.Sosime, K.Gusakovskom and F.Erosheviche, which razryli a tomb of the juvenile daughter of peasant A.Tsvirko who has died of a bloody diarrhoeia obeyed. The specified peasants «have turned
The body of the dead the person downwards, with superstitious belief, that owing to that will stop death rate of children in their village ». However by a consequence it has been established, that the tomb has been dug out for a burial place in it of a coffin of one more child, and razrytie was not accompanied« by desecration, though and not deliberate over buried in a tomb a dead body ». Owing to absence of signs of the criminal offence provided ch. 2 items 234, preliminary investigation concerning the specified peasants were прекращено1.

Cases did not fall under action of article Ulozhenija of 1885 about damage of gravestones razrytija ancient tombs or barrows for search of the buried values or during earth processing. Ancient tombs were meant as such burial places of people, «memory about which was completely erased among nowadays living»: deceased nobody remembered, their tombs did not look after. Ancient places of a burial place were fenced with fences, but after certain time when the cemetery grew with a grass, it became "ancient" and the earth under it could be ploughed up [198 [199].

The law did not provide responsibility for theft of bodies deceased of church: it quite often became Old Believers who did not wish burial service of the died relative on orthodox customs and secretly took away a body home for fulfilment of ceremonies by old believe rules. Cases of abduction of the dead bodies, accompanied razrytiem tombs, with a mercenary motive (for example, for sale in a dissecting room, carrying out of scientific researches) also were not mentioned by the law. As fairly marked A.V.Lohvitsky, «the law is silent about this case», however «what purpose, the most noble, cannot excuse in infringement of another's right» [200]. Nevertheless, autocratic carrying over of a body by relatives of a deceased burial place on a new place without the permission of administrative authorities was punished by the fine (Charter item 108 about the punishments imposed by world judges) [201].

Ulozhenie provided responsibility for destruction or damage of gravestone monuments and for external damage of tombs under following conditions 1885: 1) if act has been made deliberately because of an aversion for buried or their families - it was punished by imprisonment for the term from 4 till 8 months; 2) if it has been carried out by levity - guilty was fined for the sum to 50 roubles. In both cases the duty was assigned to the guilty to eliminate at own expense put damages (item 235 1).

Damage or destruction of gravestone monuments and nadmogilnyh ornaments, external damage and a robbery of tombs were criminal actions irrespective of motives of their fulfilment. Thus, there were all bases for their allocation from group of crimes against religion and reference to general views of crimes.

To religious offences Ulozhenie of 1885 carried also the false oath which essence consisted in a false testimony summer residence under the judicial oath or to the investigator, in the form defined by the law and with observance of the provided procedures of reduction to the oath. The person who has recited the oath, took up additional responsibility. Guilty of false oath lost all rights of a condition and referred to Siberia to settlement (item 236 [202 [203]). Similar responsibility came after false oath bringing on fidelity to the state, at receipt on military or civil service, in private affairs. However in the listed cases false oath was not considered as religious offence (item 942 [204]).

In litigation reduction to the oath was carried out by the ecclesiastic of the same creed, as the witness (item 97-99 item, 711-715 Charters of the criminal trial). In case of impossibility of presence at a place of carrying out of session of the court of the ecclesiastic, the witness the Chief Justice resulted in the oath, and the oath got civil character. From
Adjurations were released clerics and monashestvujushchie persons of Christian confessions, followers of creeds and sects, whose doctrines did not suppose an oath summer residence. However clearing of the oath did not rent responsibility for a summer residence of false testimonies: the guilty was punished as for лжеприсягу1.

For qualification of false oath a necessary element was presence of the considered intention or intention. The certificate could appear false owing to the subjective reasons: bad memory of the witness, errors in an identification and others. In this case the witness could not be convicted of false oath. Business when the witness gave false testimonies owing to payoff, aversions otherwise was though to prove it not always it was represented possible. In order to avoid an innuendo in indications (arising as it is deliberate, and owing to subjective qualities of the witness), in the text of the oath of the witness the phrase has been placed: «not to conceal anything to it known». Information guilty of concealment were punished also as for false testimonies at general searches, and were sentenced to arrest from 7 days till 3 weeks (item 945 Ulozhenija of 1885) [205 [206].

The legislation discriminated two severity levels of false oath: 1) false oath in acknowledgement of indications on criminal case was punished by a hard labour for the term of 8-10 years (item 237); 2) other kinds of false oath involved a Siberian exile on settlement (item 236). Punishment decrease was provided in the event that false oath has been given «without the considered intention, and on confusion in difficult circumstances and weakness of understanding about sanctity of the oath». Guilty referred to residing at Siberia or it was given to corrective prisoner branches (item 238 [207]).

As marked A.A.Levenstim, processes about false witness were initiated seldom, even less often they came to an end with charge. In interests of examination during trial the legislator has been forced to address to religious views of the people: naming a name Supreme for acknowledgement of the indications, the witness
Like consciousness of that in case of lie it will be comprehended by penalty gospodnja in afterlife even then when it will be possible to avoid punishment on the earth. Thus, the oath has been calculated on religious feeling of the person, and «from belief to superstition only one step». Practice found out variety of dodges to which the swearing resorted. For example, at a summer residence of false testimonies not to draw upon itself anger Divine, orthodox during oath reading spoke: «My God, do not accept» and were not put by lips to a cross and the Gospel, kissing air - the oath in this case had no силы1.

A number of crimes, before carried by the Russian legislation to religious, - sorcery, a hysterics, superstitions - in Ulozhenii has been moved to the head «About infringement of public peace, an order and protecting these decisions» 1885. Despite obvious advantage of similar classification, it is far not all outstanding lawyers of last third XIX century have supported it. So, A.V.Lohvitsky, specifying on containing in the listed crimes «the antireligious element», saw them on - former in the category of religious offences. In its opinion, messages on false miracles and religious imposture «have in themselves an element of the insult of a Christian relic a deceit» [208 [209].

Superstition and charodejstvo, by A.Lemanna's definition, were «the first steps of human thought in a religious and scientific life» [210]. The magic (sorcery) is «the most ancient religion, the most wild and its rough form», there is «a first form which, as a matter of fact, cannot be named by religion» yet, - G.Gegel [211] wrote. Sorcery in ancient superstitious representations constituted the magic mysterious receptions, having the purpose to influence forces of the nature and people for healing or, on the contrary, prompting of damage [212]. The theoretical basis of magical magic was given by superstitions.

Magic as activity, grew out of this theory. The magic occurred from superstition the same as from religious representations there was a certain cult. Thus, each act made from superstition, was magic or чародейством1.

Ulozhenie pursued guilty of distribution, «for the sake of self-interest, vain glory or other personal benefit» 1885, messages on ostensibly happened miracle as which witness they acted, and also persons, which by forgery, using legkovernostju people, gave out the actions for "miracle". False healings concerned "miracles" incurably sick, including - on public therefore guilty got reputation of the miracle man, compensation and national glory (item 933 [213 [214]).

It is necessary to notice, that the Orthodox church recognised the miracles made by means of Sacred hallows and icons. The fact of their sanctity after long check proved to be true the Most holy Synod and the emperor. Therefore distributors of hearings about «false miracles», engaged in it for extraction of personal benefit and realising illegality of the actions were exposed to criminal prosecution only. Imaginary "miracle men" offended religious feelings of believers, giving out for sacred that was not that, and entered into a deceit with a mercenary motive for benefit extraction, differently - were swindlers and (items 933) were punished by the conclusion in smiritelnyj the house for the term from 4 till 8 months. For repeated committing a crime the imprisonment term increased till 1 year, and guilty lost some especial rights and advantages (item 50). The persons using in the magic actions subjects of Christian divine service, were exposed to similar punishments (item 934 [215]).

The case from business of the Minsk spiritual orthodox consistory about distribution of superstitious hearings is indicative. The orthodox peasant
J.Konon told to fellows villager, that, collecting mushrooms, saw in wood the unknown person, richly dressed woman with an umbrella in hands. The woman, having called up it to itself, began to ask, with whom it is in wood and that they there do. Then the woman has told, that mushrooms to use in food harmfully, and has predicted death of 60 persons, advised to pray to the God and to serve masses. The woman has disappeared, and Konon in a fright has come back home. After conversation with the parish priest it was found out, that it «has set a rumour afloat about vidannoj ostensibly it to the woman., that nastrashchat other peasants not to go to natural boundary Hohlovo where has much arisen mushrooms that most only them to take advantage». To peasant Konon it has been given dressing down that it did not extend similar false rumours and did not confuse крестьян1.

Sorcery by the Russian legislation of XIX century were understood as roguish actions for the purpose of extraction of material benefit. Them concerned: sale of talismans, drinks and the structures which had supernatural force, representation of images, a guessing on the future, search of the stolen things, treatment by whispering. Magicians or magicians did not fall under responsibility for sorcery »inovernyh the people of Siberia which made ceremonies by superstitious traditions concerning the coreligionists (for example, pagans lamajskogo and other dogmas at which shamanism and sorcery were a constituting part of religion)«. Sorcery was punished by arrest for the term up to 3 months, and repeated fulfilment - committing to prison for the term from 4 till 8 months. In case the use of "magic" drinks and structures has entailed frustration of health one or the groups of persons, guilty lost some especial rights and advantages and was exposed to imprisonment for the term from 8 months till 1 year and 4 months. Guilty - Christians in addition came under to a church repentance (item 935 [216 [217]).

In Russian empire since XVII century the is social-psychological phenomenon known as a hysterics began to get a wide circulation.
Its display was observed in places of the big congestion of the people: on the areas, in temples and monasteries, also it has always been connected with a female part of the population. Existed povere, that entered the union with a devil the person could send damage on other person, "spoil" it. The "spoilt" person started to rage, could not come nearer to a relic, during divine service in church lost consciousness and fell, shivered, shouted «violently animal voices, vomiting abuse», i.e. «cluck, vyklikival». Klikusha usually specified in someone who has spoilt it, and that person subjected to torture for an establishment of possible communication with a devil. Isolation in a narrow circle of contacts, loss of relatives, poverty, incorrect interpretation of the religious doctrines strengthening numerous fears, oppressed position of the woman in a family and a society, heavy physical work - all it promoted development of pathological character traits and acquisition психопатий1.

Despite severe measures on hysterics eradication, it has continued to exist among the simple people. Convicted klikushej in prompting of damage the person became some kind of the derelict: it started to concern with suspicion, unfriendly, ceased with it any dialogue. For this reason the hysterics was considered Ulozheniem 1885 as malicious and great insult, infringement of calmness and position in a society. Klikushi, convicting someone in causing of harm by it by means of charodejstva, were punished for a malicious deceit in the form of the conclusion in smiritelnyj the house for the term of 4-8 months. Persons really suffering by the mental derangement were not involved in responsibility (item 937 [218 [219]).

Ulozhenie provided responsibility for so-called «religious imposture» on purpose 1885 to cause among the people alarm, excitement, despondency and legitimate authority disobedience. Messages on arrival antihrista, a fast doomsday sowed a panic among the people, and sermons on mortal sins human and punishments for them resulted in despondency. Compulsory condition
Act criminality its fulfilment on behalf of the person "sacred" or possessing supernatural force was. The provided punishment was typical for the acts breaking a public order: a Siberian exile on settlement. In case the ultimate goal put committing a crime against the power or integrity of the state, punishment was similarly established for high treasons (item 938 1).

The Russian legislation of second half XIX century pursued display of the rests of pagan superstitions which after centuries after Christianity acceptance still remained in the people. So, on the eve of Christmas Christ's and in its continuation it was forbidden «to spend igrishcha» by pagan traditions and, dressing up in «kumirskie attires» to arrange in dancing streets, to sing «seductive songs» (item 28). Within Easter week it was forbidden to bathe or pour water of the persons who were not at matins (Charter item 29 about the prevention and suppression of crimes) [220 [221].

****

Thus, in paragraph 1.3 of dissertational research the criminally-legal structures of religious offences placed by the legislator in Section II «About crimes against belief are considered, and about infringement protecting this decisions» Ulozhenija 1885 of Crime against religion represented offences of two kinds: as actually religious (blasphemy, belief and Church censure, the relic insult, seduction), and having the mixed character (sacrilege, the insult or murder of clerics, damage of tombs and false oath). In crimes of the second kind the religious element acted as circumstance aggravating punishment. 5 heads entered into Section II: «About blasphemy and belief censure","About deviation from belief and Church decisions» (including branches «About derivation and deviation from belief","About heresies and splits"and"About evasion from execution of decisions of church»), «About
The insult of a relic and infringement church blagochinija "," About sacrilege, razrytii tombs and the insult of dead bodies "and" About false oath ».

Blasphemy and the censure of belief made publicly, in the oral or printing form, were considered as crimes against a society and concerned to expecially dangerous. The understanding of blasphemy in Ulozhenii has not undergone serious changes in comparison with previous editions of the code 1885. It comprised display of disrespect for the Christian creed, expressed in an offensive response or action in relation to object of religious honouring. On object of an encroachment to blasphemy the blasphemy expressed in censure of rules and ceremonies of Orthodox church and Christianity in the form of an obscene joke or a sneer was close.

The chapter III of Section II Ulozhenija provided responsibility for destruction or damage of the crosses established in public places and cult images 1885. Church blagochinija the legislator has carried interruption of divine service and fulfilment of violent actions to infringements concerning the cleric.

The chapter the fourth Has undressed II Penal codes of criminal and corrective 1885 has been devoted the crimes directed against Christian creeds, their doctrines and the subjects of a religious cult consolidated by concept "sacrilege". Besides sacrilege in narrow sense which was expressed in abduction of church things and money, to this group of religious offences concerned also razrytie tombs and a robbery of dead bodies (corpses). The false oath which sense consisted in a false testimony summer residence under the judicial oath or to the investigator was considered as Religious offence.

At the same time in Ulozhenii 1885 a number of crimes which in former editions concerned to religious, have been transferred to other sections: for example, sorcery, a hysterics, superstitions, religious imposture. The attenuating circumstance was religious offence fulfilment in a condition of alcoholic intoxication, because of ignorance or
Unreasonableness of the guilty. Essence of crimes against religion on Ulozheniju 1885 and features of their fulfilment are considered by the author on the basis of archival materials and illustrated by examples from judicial-police practice.

1.4

<< | >>
A source: Androshchuk Victor Vladimirovich. CRIMES AGAINST RELIGION UNDER the LEGISLATION of Russia of the END XIX - the BEGINNINGS of XX CENTURIES the Dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Moscow - 2015. 2015

More on topic Classification of crimes against religion in the Penal code of criminal and corrective 1885:

  1. Legal grounds and a place of crimes against religion in the Penal code of criminal and corrective 1885
  2. Classification of crimes against religion in the Criminal code of 1903
  3. the Appendix 3 Classification of crimes against religion by the Criminal code of 1903 On the basis of object of an encroachment
  4. the Appendix 2 Classification of crimes against religion by the Criminal code of 1903 On the basis of object of an encroachment
  5. § 2. Classification of punishments in Criminal code JR and in the Criminal code of the Russian Federation
  6. the Appendix of 1 Crime against religion in the Criminal code of 1903
  7. CHAPTER 2. System and classification of punishments in the Criminal code of the Yemen republic and in the Criminal code of the Russian Federation
  8. system and kinds of crimes under the Sinai criminal code.
  9. §2. Concept of road and transport crimes and their place of system of the Special part of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation.
  10. § 1. Concept of the system of penalties of Criminal code JR and of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation
  11. CHAPTER 2. CRIMES In SPHERE of the COMPUTER INFORMATION UNDER the CRIMINAL CODE of the RUSSIAN FEDERATION AS KINDS of CRIMES In SPHERE of the REFERENCE of the DIGITAL INFORMATION
  12. the Appendix 5 Classification (kategorizatsija) penal acts in the legislation of some foreign countries