As you know, crimes are committed by completely different people for a variety of reasons. Of course, in the criminal law system, the most dangerous are attacks on human life. Responsibility for the murder comes under Article 105 of the Criminal Code.
Cannibalism is considered by many to be a form of murder. Accordingly, there is an opinion that a provision has been fixed in the Criminal Code that establishes punishment for it. But is there really an article for cannibalism in the modern Criminal Code? Unfortunately, there is no such norm. There was also no such article in the Criminal Code of the USSR.
Cannibalism or cannibalism - what is it?
In biology, the words "cannibal" and "cannibal" are not identical. The latter term is used to refer to any predator eating a person. Accordingly, for example, a tiger can be called a cannibal.
The concept of cannibalism comes from the French or Spanish word. The scientific name for this phenomenon is anthropophagy. Who is a cannibal ? In a narrow sense, it is a man who is human flesh. If we talk about who such a cannibal is in a broad sense, then they call him an animal that eats individuals belonging to the same species as it is. This formulation is used in zoology.
Legislation gaps
According to many lawyers, anthropophagy should be considered as a social pathology and give it an appropriate legal assessment. The lack of responsibility for cannibalism (an article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation establishing it is not planned to be introduced) is believed by many authors, testifies to the imperfection of standard-setting practice and problems in law enforcement.
Anthropophagy was common in ancient times, especially in the primitive communal period. As a rule, the word "cannibal" is associated with representatives of South African and other tribes that have retained their former ancient way of life. In the modern world, in fact, the facts of cannibalism should not arise.
Meanwhile, the media periodically appears notes about such cruel acts. In this case, the logical question arises: why is there no article for cannibalism ? It seems that the legislator does not consider it appropriate to introduce anthropophagy into the category of individual crimes, since the Criminal Code already contains Art. 105 and 244. The latter establishes liability for abuse of corpses and burial places of the deceased. However, many experts do not agree with this approach.
Specific characteristics of the act
Having analyzed the formulations above, we can conclude that:
- Cannibalism should be considered as a natural phenomenon that is inherent in the animal world. The most striking example of cannibalism is eating a female mantis after mating. Due to the biosocial nature, a person is also subject to this phenomenon.
- Human cannibalism is a relatively isolated phenomenon. It should be distinguished as a separate area of cannibalism. The fact that a person eats a person is covered by the concept of anthropophagy. In scientific journals, this term means the use of human tissues and organs in food after dismemberment and preparation.
Anthropophagy is a prime example of actions that are condemned by both moral and legal norms. In modern conditions, this phenomenon takes on a criminal character.
Society consciously does not accept anthropophagy, does not recognize the behavior of cannibals as normal. This is due to a certain level of social development of the population, collective and individual culture, moral consciousness.
Hunger
The normative regulation of issues related to holding accountable for cannibalism is very vague. This is due, firstly, to the relative rarity of the phenomenon and, secondly, to the variety of reasons for its occurrence.
One of the circumstances that prompt a person to cannibalism is acute hunger. However, as practice shows, situations of "hungry cannibalism" are quite rare. Usually people start eating each other in extreme situations.
According to historical information, such cases were recorded in 1920. At that time, the economic situation was extremely depressing. People were starving, their corpses were dismembered by living people and eaten.
If starvation cannibalism is preceded by murder, then psychiatrists regard this as insanity from an acute shortage of food.
Crime qualification
Despite the fact that there is no article on cannibalism in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in practice there are cases of holding individuals accountable for this act. In general cases, a crime is qualified according to 2 parts of paragraph "m" 105 of the Criminal Code. Moreover, the term "cannibalism" is absent in the wording of sentences.
According to a number of lawyers, the killing of a person for the further consumption of his tissues and organs in food must be qualified in the aggregate of part 2 of paragraph "m" 105 and part 1 of 244 articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Cannibalism is a complex act. Investigators need to prove the intent not only of causing death to a person, but also of the subsequent use of parts of the corpse for food. If the latter is not confirmed, the charge should be brought only in 1 part 105 of the article. In addition, courts often do not know how to correctly interpret the “purpose of using parts of a corpse”.
Some authors believe that subsection "m" of part 2 of article 105 should be interpreted broadly, that is, not limited to the goals of transplantation, but providing for eating as a goal.
Federal law
As established in Federal Law No. 4180-1, the object of transplantation can be the heart, liver, kidney, lung, bone marrow, other tissues and organs that are on the list approved by the Ministry of Health and Social Development. The norms of this law do not apply to organs, their parts and tissues involved in the process of human reproduction, on blood and its components.
Therefore, not all tissues and organs can be used for transplantation. If this approach is followed, then the case of Chikatilo, for example, can qualify under paragraph "m" 2 of part 105 of the article of the Criminal Code, if interpreted broadly.
The direct act of anthropophagy
Some experts believe that the most appropriate article for cannibalism is Art. 244 of the Criminal Code. The act of eating parts of the corpse, in their opinion, is nothing but an abuse of the body of the deceased.
Moreover, for the application of Article 244 there is no need to prove the act of cannibalism, since the previous dismemberment of the corpse and the removal of tissues and organs from it already forms the composition of the act. The act of consuming human flesh as food has neither qualifying nor constructive significance.
Meanwhile, a number of experts believe that the direct eating of parts of the corpse should be regarded as an aggravating circumstance, since this action increases the social danger of the crime, and also causes even greater moral damage to the relatives of the deceased.
At the same time, the lack of proof of the act of cannibalism in relation to a specific subject, although it does not prevent him from being held accountable under article 244, does not allow taking this circumstance into account when imposing punishment.
Known cases of cannibalism
Usually cannibals are single. But in practice, group cases of anthropophagy are also known. In particular, in 2010 in St. Petersburg, a verdict was passed against two persons under paragraph “g” 2 of part 105 and paragraph “a” of part 2 of 158 articles of the Criminal Code. The court found that the perpetrators dismembered the corpse of a woman, consumed some of its parts for food, and the rest was packed and thrown away. At that time, the media actively covered the proceedings. In one of the publications there was even information that parts of the muscles of the deceased were baked in foil with potatoes in the oven and eaten by convicts. Despite the circumstances, the court did not bring the perpetrators under article 244.
One more resonant case of group cannibalism can be given. It's about the maniac cannibal Alexander Spesivtsev. The investigation found that in the apartment where he lived with his mother and older sister, at least 4 teenagers from 10 to 13 years old and 15 women and girls from 11 to 40 years old died. According to the court verdict, Spesivtsev was placed in a specialized medical facility.
Problems of proof
In order to give a proper criminal legal assessment of acts of eating parts of corpses, it is necessary to obtain reliable information that it was the subject who charged with the crime who used them for food. For this, fibrogastroduodenoscopy with histochemical analysis of the contents of the stomach and intestines can be performed as part of the production.
However, it should be said that these methods of collecting evidence-based information are very limited in time, since food is disposed of from the stomach after 1.5-2 hours. Accordingly, after a longer period of time, it will be impossible to detect objective evidence of cannibalism. From this, in turn, it follows that the testimony of the perpetrator that he had committed an act of cannibalism cannot be used by the prosecutor on the basis of Part 2 of Article 77 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Anthropophagy without causing death
When considering criminal cases, it is necessary to distinguish between those who kill for the subsequent eating of human flesh and those who were not involved in the deprivation of victims, but who consciously consumed parts of the corpses.
According to some authors, actions related only to the preparation of human remains or their eating should be considered not only moral, but also criminal complicity in the abuse of the dead. Accordingly, they must fall under paragraph “a” 2 of part 244 of the article of the Criminal Code.
For example, the owner of an apartment while drinking alcohol killed a drinking companion, and then, together with a friend, ate the remains of the deceased for several days. If you use the above approach, then in relation to the homeowner it is necessary to apply subsection “m” 2 of part 105 and subsection “a” of part 2 of 244 articles of the Criminal Code. The actions of the friend of the owner of the apartment fall under subsection "a" of 2 parts 244 of the norm and Art. 316 of the Criminal Code.
Unintentional eating of parts of corpses
The intentional form of anthropophagy must be distinguished from unintentional cannibalism. The latter is manifested when the subject obviously does not know that he consumes human organs and tissues for food, i.e., he is mistaken about the origin of meat. In this case, the actions of persons do not fall under the Criminal Code due to the lack of corpus delicti.
Forensic Expertise
One of the cases of group cannibalism occurred in the Yakut taiga. He received at one time a wide resonance in society.
In the taiga, 4 fishermen got lost, of which only two were found alive. At the same time, during the investigation, the remains of another person were discovered, and the fourth fisherman was not found. This case is considered the most difficult in terms of obtaining reliable information about the events, the guilt of citizens, since they were in an area far from civilization.
During the investigation of the case, more than 15 examinations were appointed. According to the results of studies, it was found that the death of a person whose remains were discovered occurred as a result of violent acts against him. A citizen died three days after being injured by one of the surviving fishermen. These actions were qualified under 4 parts 111 of the article of the Criminal Code in conjunction with paragraph “a” of part 244 of the norm, as one of the surviving persons admitted that they ate their comrade.
In such cases, the only way to obtain objective information about the incident is through an examination. For the correct qualification of the deed, it is necessary to answer the following questions:
- What was the cause of death?
- Was death natural or violent?
- What is the nature of the damage, what is their localization and connection with death?
- Which of the injuries were caused during life, and which after the death of the subject?
- How much time has passed since bodily harm and death?
Urgent need
Returning to the case in the Yakut taiga, it is necessary to say about the circumstances eliminating the criminality of actions. It is, in particular, an act of anthropophagy in case of emergency.
Meanwhile, it should be understood that even in the absence of other ways of survival, saving one’s own life at the expense of the lives of other people is unacceptable. Such actions go beyond the bounds of emergency. They can be considered admissible only in the event of natural death of a person.
An example is the crash in the Andes of 1972. There were 16 survivors at that time. After they heard a message about the termination of the search operation, they began to eat parts of the frozen bodies of dead people. In this case, anthropophagy took place in connection with acute hunger, that is, under conditions of extreme necessity.