Despite the development of civilization and culture, the custom of blood feud still exists in some ethnic groups. Murder for such reasons is especially serious, since as a result of blood feud, in addition to the offender, other people may suffer only because of the fact of kinship with him, including women, old people and children. This custom can cause a chain reaction of murders, including the slaughter of entire clans. The motive of blood feud works within the framework of a custom common among the Caucasian peoples. The criminal does not always want to kill, but is afraid of condemnation from his community.
Classification
There are a number of conditions that must be met in order to qualify a crime under this clause:
- Blood feud extends to all relatives of the offender, including those who were not involved in the conflict.
- The culprit belongs to a national group that adheres to the custom of blood feud.
- The criminal is aware of the consequences of his actions and commits them precisely for reasons of blood feud.
- The killer and his victim are never related.
Usually blood feud is directed at the male half of the kinship group, but in the absence of men, women and girls can become targets of the crime.
The concept and composition of murder
According to the legislation of the Russian Federation, murder is understood as causing the death of another person. The composition of the crime under consideration consists of an object, a subject, objective and subjective sides.
Object and objective side of murder
The direct object of murder is human life. For this reason, it is necessary to correctly establish the moment of the beginning of life and its end.
Life begins at the moment when the fetus is completely expelled from the pregnant woman’s body, and the uncut umbilical cord does not affect this fact. The fetus must have independent breathing, heartbeat, and muscle movements. Death is declared after complete brain death.
The objective side is expressed in the form of action or inaction; they must be aimed at taking a person’s life. As a result of the act, socially dangerous consequences occur, which are expressed in death. There is a causal connection between the actions taken and the consequences that occur.
The elements of the crime are material, that is, completed at the moment of causing death. The time of death does not matter: it can be immediately after the commission of an unlawful act or after some period of time.
Attention! If the perpetrator has committed all actions aimed at causing death, but the crime is not completed due to reasons beyond his control, the classification will be an attempt.
The subject and the subjective side of murder
The subjective side of the crime is expressed in the form of intent, which can be indirect or direct. It is worth noting that an attempt can only be made with direct intent. Purpose and motive are optional characteristics and are reflected in the qualification of the act.
The subject of murder is a person who, at the time of committing the unlawful act, has reached the age of fourteen.
What is the punishment for blood feud murder?
A crime committed based on blood feud is considered especially serious and is punishable like other murders in this category. The offender will spend from 8 to 20 years in prison followed by a restriction of 1 to 2 years, or receive a life sentence or a death sentence. Murder can be considered as a combination of crimes. If two people were blown up in a car out of blood feud, then the culprit will be punished for a combination of three crimes: murder out of blood feud, murder of two or more people, murder in a generally dangerous manner.
Murder for revenge arising from personal relationships
Murders out of personal enmity are covered by Part 1 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Murders committed out of revenge against an official or according to the custom of blood feud are subject to assessment under paragraphs “b” and “l” of Part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
A revenge crime is essentially lynching. The killer does not ask for help from law enforcement agencies to protect his own interests, but “punishes” his offender on his own. The harm and insult caused are assessed as such solely subjectively. The perpetrator may consider the act offensive and illegal, although in reality this may not be the case.
The reason may be:
- insult by word or action;
- causing harm to the health of the perpetrator, his relatives or friends;
- divorce of spouses;
- refusal to engage in sexual relations;
- non-repayment of loans;
- refusal to perform a contract;
- offensive actions or behavior of family members or neighbors;
- blackmail, etc.
The above examples suggest that revenge is formed on the basis of personal hostility. Thus, revenge takes on a personal character and ultimately becomes a material manifestation of hatred towards the victim.
If you are suspected of blood feud murder
Not every alleged blood feud murder needs to be classified as such. If you are involved in a case under this article, you can get advice by calling us or leaving a request. We have many years of criminal practice and can help you: achieve a different qualification, a mitigation of punishment, and in the case of your innocence, we will collect evidence and achieve dismissal of the case or an acquittal.
| Providing defense in criminal cases: | Price |
| Visiting detainees in pre-trial detention centers (places of deprivation of liberty) for the purpose of giving legal advice: | from 20,000 rub. |
| Participation of a defense attorney in a court hearing under Art. 125 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation: | from 30,000 rub. |
| Participation of a defense lawyer in a court hearing when choosing a preventive measure, extension of the period of detention: | from 30,000 rub. |
| Protection of the client during the investigation, preliminary investigation before sending the criminal case to court | from 50,000 rub. |
| Defense of the principal in the court of first instance, if the defense attorney participated in the preliminary investigation: | from 30,000 rub. |
| Defense of the client in the court of first instance, if the defense attorney did not participate in the preliminary investigation: | from 50,000 rub. |
| Appealing the verdict, ruling, decision of the court of first instance to the appellate instance: | from 70,000 rub. |
| Appeal and protest of a court verdict, rulings and decisions in the cassation instance: | from 50,000 rub. |
| Protection of the principal in court by way of supervision | from 30,000 rub. |
| Organization of examinations, consultations with the participation of specialists, experts in various fields of activity | from 15,000 rub. |
Features of the crime
Blood feud is considered as a motive in Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Part 2 (clause 1). Among the features of this offense:
- Lack of expanded interpretation. Criminologists do not accept the reason for the murder if the offender does not belong to a nationality that preserves the relevant traditions.
- It is very difficult to explain the murder of a woman as a crime (according to custom, revenge is taken only on men).
- Absence of indirect intent (intention can only be direct).
The peculiarity of offenses of this type is that the reason for committing murder can be any action that is recognized by local customs as an insult. Often, a murder can become the reason for the start of a series of murders in cases where the relatives of the victim decide to avenge his death. In such cases, events can become widespread and cause the death of several people.
Offenses of this type are characterized by a high level of public danger, since unbalanced citizens often follow the example of criminals. Outwardly, the motivation in such cases remains the same (retribution for the death of a relative or an insult), but, in essence, the attacker in this way asserts himself or compensates for the suffering (mental or physical) once caused to him by other persons.
There is no gender restriction in the current legislation, that is, a murderer motivated by blood feud can be either a man or a woman. It also does not matter whether the victim belongs to a population group for which such actions are the fulfillment of a tradition.
In accordance with paragraph 10 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation “On judicial practice in cases of murder (Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)”, when qualifying a murder under paragraph “g” of Part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to take into account what is contained in Art. 35 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation defines the concept of a crime committed by a group of persons, a group of persons by prior conspiracy and an organized group of persons.
Murder is recognized as committed by a group of persons when two or more persons, acting together with intent aimed at committing murder, directly
participated in the process of taking the life of the victim, using violence against him, and it is not necessary that the injuries leading to death were caused by each of them (for example, one suppressed the resistance of the victim, deprived him of the opportunity to defend himself, and the other inflicted fatal injuries on him).
Murder should be recognized as committed by a group of persons even in the case when, in the process of one person committing actions aimed at intentionally causing death, another person (other persons) joined him for the same purpose [1].
In clause “g”, part 2 of article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, three types of group murder are distinguished:
1) murder by a group of persons (without prior conspiracy);
2) murder by a group of persons by prior conspiracy;
3) murder by an organized group.
All of these types of murder are varieties of complicity. When analyzing the institution of complicity, it should be taken into account that the doctrine of criminal law considers complicity in a broad
and
in a narrow
sense.
Widely _
In the sense,
complicity
is understood
as any joint activity
of persons aimed at committing a crime.
In a narrow
In the sense, complicity involves the commission of a crime with a legal
distribution of roles
(“complex complicity”), when there is
one perpetrator
, and other accomplices perform other roles, for example, instigator, accomplice or organizer.
If a crime is committed only by persons directly carrying out the objective side of the crime, then there is co-execution
(“simple complicity”).
In order not to use the same concept of “complicity” in a broad and narrow sense, we propose to designate its types by different terms. If "simple complicity"
- this is
co-execution
, then
“complex complicity”
can be conditionally designated by the term “
co-assistance
”.
Indeed, the instigator, the accomplice, and the organizer, in general, one way or another, all help
(provide assistance) to the perpetrator to carry out the objective side of the crime, acting as
“co-assistants.”
The criminal legal assessment of a crime committed by a group of persons depends on who is involved in taking the life of another person.
In criminal law theory and in judicial practice, the issue of qualifying the death of a victim by several persons, when only one is the subject of the murder, and the remaining participants are not subject to criminal liability due to age or insanity, remains controversial and is resolved ambiguously.
The overwhelming majority of scientists believe that the qualification of murder under paragraph “g” of Part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is possible only if there are at least two subjects (co-perpetrators) of the crime. If, of all the persons directly involved in the commission of a socially dangerous act, only one is the subject of murder, then the act cannot be qualified as committed by a group of persons[2].
Other scientists believe that to qualify a murder by a group of persons, it is not necessary that all participants be subjects of the crime. It is sufficient for the joint actions of several people to commit a specific socially dangerous act, regardless of the fact that only one of them, who is the subject of the murder, is subject to criminal liability[3].
The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation recognizes complicity in a crime as intentional joint
participation
of two or more persons
in the commission of an intentional
crime
.
The insane and minors cannot participate in the commission of a crime
,
because are not recognized as subjects of a crime by virtue of Articles 20 and 21 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The behavior of these persons (due to their inability to realize
is indifferent
to the criminal law regarding prosecution , just as the behavior of animals and the work of special automated structures (robots, etc.) are indifferent.
It is obvious that the use by the guilty person of trained animals (dogs, monkeys, etc.) or cyborg robots when killing, despite the increased danger of such an act, will not be qualified as committed in complicity.
In addition, Part 1 of Article 35 of the Criminal Code defines the concept of a crime committed by a group of persons. This is considered a crime
(and not a socially dangerous act! - O.B.), if
two or more perpetrators
jointly participated its ... And in accordance with Part 2 of Article 33 of the Criminal Code, a perpetrator is recognized as a person... directly involved in the commission of
a crime
together with other persons (co-executors).
Therefore, co-execution
presupposes the presence of at least two subjects of the crime (sane and have reached the age of 14 or 16), each of whom performs at least part of the objective side of the murder.
The insane and minors cannot be perpetrators of a crime
, since they commit
socially dangerous acts
, not crimes.
However, when killing using animals (mechanisms, etc.), the subject is aware of this fact, realizing that he is committing the crime alone
. In cases with minors and insane persons, the subject of the murder may be mistaken and not aware of the fact of committing a crime with non-subjects of the murder. It seems that depending on this, qualification should be carried out differently.
If the culprit realizes
, which attracts non-subjects of the crime (minor or insane) to commit murder, then his actions should be qualified under Part 1 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the absence of other qualifying signs, since there are no subjective or objective signs of complicity.
If the person does not realize
the fact that he commits murder together with non-subjects of the crime, and wants to cause the death of the victim precisely with their participation, then the qualification should be carried out according to the
direction of the intent
of the perpetrator as
an attempted
murder
by a group of persons
under clause “g”, part 2 of article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since there is a subjective (direction of intent) and no objective criterion (the presence of a group of persons in the criminal legal sense) of complicity.
In accordance with paragraph 10 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation “On judicial practice in murder cases (Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)”, preliminary conspiracy
murder presupposes an agreement expressed in any form between two or more persons, which took place
before
the commencement of actions directly aimed at taking the life of the victim. At the same time, along with co-perpetrators of the crime, other members of the criminal group can act as organizers, instigators or accomplices of murder, and their actions should be qualified under the relevant part of Article 33 and paragraph “g”, Part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation[4] .
Murder by prior conspiracy by a group of persons
means that there is an agreement (agreement) between the co-perpetrators to join forces in order to take the life of the victim.
Moreover, as a rule, such a murder is committed with direct
intent.
However, the possibility of indirect
intent cannot be ruled out. For example, when co-perpetrators, agreeing to “teach a lesson” to the victim, brutally beat him, while being indifferent to causing death, deliberately allowing it to occur.
Preliminary conspiracy means that an agreement (agreement) to kill is reached before
fulfillment of the objective side of the crime (deprivation of life), i.e. at the cooking stage. At the stage of the attempt, only joining to a murder already being committed is possible, and there will be no sign of a preliminary conspiracy. Such a murder should be classified on the basis of “group of persons”.
A murder conspiracy can take place a long time ago
before the commission of a crime or
immediately
before the deprivation of the life of the victim, which does not affect the qualification of the crime, but can be taken into account by the court when assigning punishment.
Collusion is possible in the form:
1) verbal
(oral verbal agreement);
2) non-verbal
(written agreement in any form, conclusive actions: glances, nod of the head, wave of the hand, etc.).
It is possible to combine these forms to achieve a criminal agreement.
Collusion can be face-to-face
and
in absentia
(through intermediaries).
A conspiracy should be considered preliminary if an agreement is reached to kill in the process of committing another crime (for example, during the beating of a victim, the perpetrators have an intent to take his life, which they implement through joint actions)[5].
A murder committed by prior conspiracy by a group of persons presupposes complicity only in the form of co-execution
and excludes complicity in the form of “
co-assistance
”. To qualify it according to the criteria under consideration, it is necessary that each participant in the crime fulfill at least part of the objective side of the murder, even when distributing roles in the process of depriving the victim of life (one holds, suppresses the resistance of the victim, and the other inflicts a fatal wound)[6].
Thus, to qualify a murder on the basis of a preliminary conspiracy by a group of persons, three conditions are necessary:
1) existence of collusion
(agreements, agreements) in any form to take the life of the victim before the beginning of the objective side of the murder;
2) participation
in the process of depriving the victim of the life
all
the perpetrators (co-execution), regardless of the distribution of roles during the murder;
3) the presence of a single
the intent of all the perpetrators to kill.
In accordance with Part 3 of Article 35 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the crime is recognized as committed by an organized group
if it was committed by a stable group of persons who united in advance to commit one or more crimes.
According to paragraph 10 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation “On judicial practice in cases of murder (Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation),” an organized group is a group of two or more persons united by intent to commit one or more murders. As a rule, such a group carefully plans a crime, prepares murder weapons in advance, and distributes roles between group members. Therefore, when a murder is recognized as committed by an organizational group, the actions of all participants, regardless of their role in the crime, should be qualified as co-perpetrators without reference to Article 33 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation[7].
It is obvious that judicial practice, when interpreting the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in defining an organized group in a murder, on the one hand, “loses” such an important feature as stability
, on the other hand, gives a restrictive interpretation
of the purpose
of an organized group (only committing one or more
murders
)[8].
The legal literature ambiguously addresses the issue of qualifying the actions of participants in a murder committed by an organized group.
There are three main approaches:
1) All
members of an organized group, regardless of their role in committing a murder, must be recognized
as co-perpetrators
of the crime[9];
2) members of an organized group can only
co-perpetrators of murder[10];
3) co-executors
murders, and
“accomplices”
(organizer, instigator, accomplice), but the actions of the latter must be qualified under paragraph “g” of Part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with reference to the corresponding part of Article 33 of the Criminal Code[11].
Judicial practice follows the first path. However, such a broad understanding of an organized group in a murder does not correspond to the letter and spirit of the criminal law, in particular, the provisions of Part 2 of Article 33 and Article 35 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 35 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, a crime is recognized as committed by a group of persons,
two
or
more performers
jointly participated in its commission without prior agreement. Part 2 of Article 35 of the Criminal Code reveals the concept of a crime committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy. And although the legislator did not directly indicate that this form of complicity presupposes co-execution, nevertheless, such a point of view has long been established both in criminal law science and in judicial practice.
Indeed, a comparative analysis of parts 1, 2 and 3 of Article 35 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation allows us to conclude that in Part 1 of Article 35 of the Criminal Code the legislator focuses on two points. Firstly, he gives the concept of a group of persons
(joint participation in the commission of a crime by two or more
perpetrators
), and, secondly, indicates a sign that distinguishes forms of complicity (co-perpetrator) according to the degree of coordination of actions between the perpetrators of the crime (in Part 1 - this is co-perpetration
without prior conspiracy
).
In Part 2 of Article 35 of the Criminal Code, the legislator no longer repeats himself when defining the concept of a group of persons (it is already given in the first part), but reveals only the concept of preliminary conspiracy
; in Part 3 of Article 35 of the Criminal Code, the concept of
an organized group
(stable
group of persons)
).
Consequently, according to criminal law, any group of persons
when committing a crime, it involves only
co-execution.
This conclusion arises when interpreting Part 2 of Article 33 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which defines the concept of a performer.
In accordance with Part 2 of Article 33 of the Criminal Code, the performer
is recognized as:
1. Face directly
who committed the crime (who single-handedly carried out the entire objective side of the crime);
2. Face directly
participating in its commission together with other persons (
co-perpetrators
);
3. A person who has committed a crime through the
use
of other persons not subject to criminal liability[12]:
- due to age
;
- due to insanity;
- due to other circumstances
provided for by the Criminal Code.
The law does not provide for other types of performers, including nothing about such performers as members of an organized group
.
Thus, when deciding on the qualification of a murder committed by an organized group, the most preferable is the third point of view, according to which, according to paragraph “g” of Part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the actions of only those members of an organized group who are co-perpetrators
murders. The legal assessment of the actions of “co-assistants” (organizer, instigator, accomplice) must be carried out with reference to the relevant part of Article 33 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Some difficulty is raised by the question of the qualification of the actions of accomplices in the murder of two or more persons. This problem was discussed in detail earlier when describing paragraph “a” of Part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
[1] See: Judicial practice to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. – P.392-393.
[2] See: Belokurov O.V. Limits of interpretation of the criminal law // Five years of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: results and prospects. Materials of the II International Scientific and Practical Conference, held at the Faculty of Law of Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov May 30-31, 2002 – P.175-180; Criminal law course: Textbook for universities / Ed. N.F. Kuznetsova, I.M. Tyazhkova. A common part. T.1: The doctrine of crime. M., 2002. – P. 392.
[3] See: Popov A.N. Decree. slave. – P.574; Rarog A., Esakov A. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation’s understanding of a “group of persons” corresponds to the principle of justice // Russian Justice. – 2002. – No. 3. – P.52; Kondrashova T.V. Decree. slave. – P.95; Galiakbarov R. How to qualify murders and rapes committed in a group // Russian justice. – 2002. – No. 10. – P.40.
[4] See: Judicial practice to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. – P.392-393.
[5] See: Popov A.N. Decree. slave. – P.582.
[6] In the legal literature there is also a point of view of a broad understanding of the attribute in question. See: Arutyunov A. Errors in qualifying what was done by a group by prior conspiracy // Russian Justice. – 2001. – No. 9. – P.66; Ivanov V. Criteria for delimiting criminal groups // Russian justice. – 1999. – No. 5. – P.47-48.
[7] See: Judicial practice to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. – pp. 392-393.
[8] For more details, see: Popov A.N. Decree. slave. – pp. 631-642.
[9] See: Andreeva L.A. Decree. slave. – P. 24; Borodin S.V. Decree. slave. – P. 131; Popov A.N. Decree. slave. – P. 645.
[10] See: Kruglikov L.L. Decree. slave. – P.25.
[11] See: Kondrashova T.V. Decree. slave. – Since 97.
[12] Unfortunately, judicial practice follows the path of confusing the concepts of “direct” and “indirect” performer, despite the fact that the existence of these two types of performers follows directly from the text of the law. Thus, in paragraph 12 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 29 of December 27, 2002 “On judicial practice in cases of theft, robbery and robbery,” the courts are recommended: “If a person has committed theft through
(emphasis mine. -
O.B.
) of the use of other persons who are not subject to criminal liability due to age, insanity or other circumstances, his actions... should be qualified... as a
direct
(emphasis added. -
O.B.
) perpetrator" // Russian newspaper. — 18 Jan. - 2003. - No. 9.
Complicity in murder
With the complicity of Art. 32 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation understands the intentional joint participation of persons in the commission of an intentional crime. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation identifies the following types of accomplices in a crime:
- perpetrator – a person who directly commits a crime;
- organizer - a person who put forward a proposal to commit a crime or supervised the commission of a crime during its commission;
- instigator - a person who convinced the perpetrator, as well as other persons, of the need to commit a crime;
- accomplice - a person who, through his actions, helped the crime to be carried out, namely, provided information to commit the crime, promised the criminal shelter, etc.;
Note! The responsibility of criminals is determined based on the degree of participation in the commission of the crime.
The greatest punishment, as a rule, is borne by the perpetrator of the crime.
If the perpetrator did not commit the crime for reasons beyond his control or refused to commit the crime, then the remaining accomplices are liable for the attempt.
In order for a person to be recognized as a co-perpetrator, it is necessary that he fulfill the so-called objective side of the crime, that is, inflict damage on the victim, which took his life. Otherwise, such person will be an accomplice.
Note! The guilty person may be recognized as either an accomplice or co-perpetrator of the murder. His actions cannot be qualified in any other way. If a person has committed actions that are characteristic of both a participant and a co-principal, then such a person must be recognized as a co-principal.
Qualification
The primary task of the investigative authorities is to establish the incentive to commit a crime - the motive. In order to correctly qualify a crime, it is necessary to establish that the villain who killed the person was guided precisely by the desire to take revenge on the offender of a person close to him. Sometimes the actions of the perpetrator are qualified under Art. 102 of the Criminal Code, since the reason for committing the crime was not the motive of blood feud, but the threat of committing murder.
A prerequisite for qualifying the actions of the accused under Article 102 (clause “j”) is to establish the nature of the intent. Since indirect intent is excluded in this case, there is a need to confirm the fact of direct intent, that is, the investigative authorities are obliged to find out the relationship between the goal and its motive. During the investigation, the investigative authorities may be faced with the question of whether the legal nature changes depending on the territory of its commission. The place where the crime was committed in this case does not have any influence on either the legal nature or the qualifications.
Often, the deprivation of a person’s life according to atavistic customs is confused with other offenses that have the same basis:
- Feudal-Bai attitude towards women. Murders of female representatives are committed for various reasons (loss of innocence without marriage, violation of adat, etc.). Inexperienced law enforcement and judicial officials may misclassify offenses that have similar motives. The fact that blood feud is not applicable to women has long ceased to be a limitation, since criminals treat traditions no less disdainfully than laws. Situations when a woman kills another, motivating her act with the desire to take revenge for the insult caused to her mother/daughter/sister, happen quite often. But this type of crime is more often defined as “murders for personal revenge.”
- Benefit. In judicial practice, there have been cases when a perpetrator, pursuing personal gain (material, financial), tried to explain his crime by following traditions. If the attacker is smart and resourceful, qualifying the offense and determining the truth can be very difficult. As a rule, investigators in such cases carefully analyze the facts and try to understand the true motivation of the offender.
