351 zhenie izobrazheno, tak zhe raskol’niki”) and against the tsar (”protivnye slova pro imperatorskoe velichestvo, i ikh velichestva vysokuiu familiiu, izmena i bunt”). We recognize this latter category of misdeeds fromchapter five of the Ukaz o forme suda. In the present context, however, it is the third category of crimes that is especially interesting. This category ineluded “murderers {smertno ubiitsy), robbers {razboiniki), and thieves {tati) who are caught (in the act) or who are caught together with the stolen property {polichnoe). rubric zlodeistvo, were considered to be threats against the existing social order and were therefore to be treated with the greatest severity to set a deterrent example. It was for this reason that the inquisitorial procedure was to be applied in these instances. It is clear from this passage that the rozysk procedure was to be used if a suspect had been caught in the act or if he had been caught with the stolen goods {polichnoe).In the opposite case, that is, if there was no conclusive evidence, then the court was “to proceed according to the form of the trial {protsess o forme siida), since even if such thefts are considered zlodeistvo it is not possible to consider (the suspects) zlodei before they have been questioned about it and really proven guilty. This procedure, which, as mentioned above,*®- was enacted into law in May 1725, was entirely compatible with the procedural rules of the Ulozhenie of 1649; chapter 21, article 49 of that code stipulated that indictments for theft in cases where there was no clear evidence {polichnoe) against the suspects were to be investigated in accordance with the adversary, or sud, procedure. Only when sufficient evidence had been accumulated could cases be transferred to the inquisitorial, or rozysk, procedure.*®^ Thus we see that the differentiation between sud and rozysk, so peculiar to the Ulozhenie of 1649, continued to be observed during the eighteenth century, as well. Against this background, the Ukaz o forme suda of 1723 did not constitute a break with the previous development of legal procedure in Russia.*®"* Instead, the Ukaz o forme suda should be viewed as a further refinement of the trial regulations prescribed by the Ulozhenie of 1649. Further evidence in support of this interpretation is provided by the proposal for a criminal code for the Russian Empire of 1754, which Concerning this terminology, see Glötzner, 32—33, 56—57. Sobornoe Ulozhenie 1649 g., 384, defines polichnoe as “a stolen article, which has been found in the possession of the thief and convicts him of the theft.” TsGADA, f. 342 delo 31 chast’ 2 1. 82. See above, p. 350 note 188. 19.1 pjip^ VI, 421. See N. N. Pchelin, Ekaterininskaia komissiia “O sochinenii novogo ulozheniia" i sovrernennoe ei russkoe z.ikonodateVstvo (Moscow, 1915), 97. These crimes, which were given the common 189 ” 191 189 100 101 192
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=