1
0
The modern self-designations of ‘thieves’ such as ‘law-abiding’, ‘lawful thieves’, and ‘thieves-in-law’ also originate from the pre-Revolutionary subculture of the ‘vagrants’.
The category of a ‘vagrant-lawyer’ was popular among prisoners back in the 19th century. A ‘vagrant-lawyer’ was well versed not only in the laws of the Russian Empire, but also in ways to circumvent them. He was equally skilled in the laws of the prison community, interpreting them and advising other prisoners on them. Sergey Maksimov wrote about ‘thieves-in-law’ as the most experienced prisoners who can tell newcomers about the peculiarities of criminal proceedings in order to evade punishment or delay the investigation: ‘Around ‘thieves-in-law’, the new prisoner quickly becomes what he is supposed to be, i.e. a [real] prisoner’[1].
The thieves’ category completely freed itself from political influence, believing that a thief should only steal and not interfere in the affairs of the State. Those who adhered to the thieves’ rules of conduct were called ‘thieves-in-law’. It is quite difficult to determine with certainty when (in what year) the group emerged and why it came to be called ‘thieves-in-law’.
The modern understanding of ‘thieves-in-law’ has fascinating political and historical roots, connected, oddly enough, with the Russian Imperial Army and its officers, where former White Army officers became the catalyst for the formation of the elite professional criminal class in the Soviet Union.
After the Civil War in Russia, most White officers emigrated, but many remained in the country and tried to continue fighting against Soviet power, albeit mostly in a clandestine form. However, they no longer had the material resources for any ideological struggle in society, and so a significant part of the defeated White Guard regiments turned into ordinary gangs that robbed and killed until the mid-1920s. Former officers of the Russian Imperial Army began to live by the laws of the criminal world and proved themselves to be cruel organisers, but at the same time ‘ideological’ criminals.
Many of former White Guards were not physically destroyed, but were placed in Soviet prisons and concentration camps, where they were usually kept separate from other prisoners. Former White officers differed from most prisoners in their high level of education, discipline and undisguised anti-Soviet ideology. They sought to become leaders in the prison and camp environment, which they naturally treated with contempt for the ‘proletarian origins’ of the latter. The former White Guards considered themselves superior to others and demonstrated their superiority over other prisoners, forming a corresponding hierarchy – both in prisons and in society.
In Russian criminal subculture, the word ‘zhigan’ has ancient origins, where ‘zhigans’ were called representatives of the lowest castes – ‘prison proletariat, pitiful beggars who were regularly humiliated by other prisoners’[2]. The verb ‘zhiganut’ meant ‘to hit someone’[3].
However, it was former White officers who created a new caste and called themselves ‘zhigans’, giving this term a new meaning, not a derogatory one as before, but that of the new ideological anti-Soviet leaders of the criminal world[4].
Their main difference from other bandits was the cruelty with which they committed crimes. For their twisted and already utopian political ideas, the former White officers were ready to kill any opponents, which scared off other representatives of the criminal world.
Former tsarist officers established separate rules of life in Soviet concentration camps and prisons, according to which it was forbidden to: 1) work for the benefit of the Soviet Republic; 2) have an official family; 3) participate in any military actions for the benefit of the Soviet Republic and receive weapons from the Soviet Republic; 4) cooperating with the Soviet authorities as a witness or victim.
In the community, most often, the ‘zhigans’ collected tribute from corrupt Soviet officials and Soviet entrepreneurs as long as entrepreneurial activity was permitted (the period of the so-called ‘New Economic Policy’). Being brilliant organisers and highly educated, the ‘zhigans’ became known for their talent in inciting criminal activity among vagrants, street kids and homeless children, but as a rule, they did not take direct part in the attacks.
However, over time, former vagrants and street children, who were gaining more and more criminal and prison experience, did not like this state of affairs. They grew up, became professional bandits and did not want to be subordinate to their ideological mentors, whose ideas they did not understand and did not accept from the very beginning. As a result, a caste of so-called ‘urki’ was formed, many of whom later joined the group of ‘thieves-in-law’.
It is necessary to note that in old Russian criminal subculture, an ‘urka’ is a bold thief, unlike an ‘orenburka’ who is a petty and indecisive thief[5].
From the outset, ‘thieves-in-law’ did not call themselves that, and they were given this name by law enforcement officers. The members of the caste called themselves ‘thieves’, ‘brothers’, ‘vagabonds’, and ‘law-abiding people’.
The ‘zhigans’ were ideologically unable to unite with other prisoners, even though they tried: they put forward the idea of equality among all members of the ‘brotherhood’, but ‘urki’ and ‘thieves’ were in no hurry to accept them.
The leadership conflict intensified. The lower circles of the criminal and prison hierarchy wanted to gain the upper hand over the ‘zhigans’. They supported their leaders, the ‘thieves.’ The latter differed from their opponents in their greater restraint; their crimes were not ideologically motivated, and the ‘thieves’ were not as cruel as the ‘zhigans’.
The ‘thieves’ who came out of the ‘urki’ introduced a rule not to admit criminals convicted of serious non-property crimes, such as sabotage, murder, and rape, which were often committed by the ‘zhigans’, into their circles.
In the constant struggle for power, it became necessary to create a single set of rules that all prisoners could live by: the ‘zhigans’, the old pre-Revolutionary ‘thieves’, and the ‘urki’. A new ‘law’ of the criminal world was formed, according to which some of the most respected and authoritative criminals were given the right to call themselves ‘thieves’. Only a man who had passed a probationary period could become a ‘thief’. The applicant had to spend at least three years as a ‘patsan’. Then he had to go through the ‘school’ of the prison or camp and, on the recommendation of other ‘thieves’, could become one himself.
The‘zhigans’ were left without work, their radicalism and ‘ideology’ were not liked by other prisoners. At the same time, the new ‘thief’ world adopted the zhigans’ ‘concept’: the requirement to completely renounce one’s family and the creation of a family, personal property and participation in commercial activities. Most importantly, there was a strict ban on serving in the Red Army and a requirement not to take weapons from the Soviet authorities. Both the ‘urki’ and subsequent generations of the ‘thieves’ considered these rules to be reasonable and tried to adhere to them.
As propaganda against the ‘zhigans’, the ‘thieves’ introduced the slogan ‘Do Not Live at the Expense of Your Brothers’. It compromised former White Army officers, who often lived off the money of ‘bums’ from their circle and did not earn their own living.
The Soviet authorities also contributed to the disappearance of the ‘zhigan’ class. Realizing that former White officers occupied an important position in the criminal hierarchy and could oppose the Soviet regime, the authorities began to create the image of ‘foreign bourgeois criminals’, creating a confrontation between the ‘socially close criminals’ and the ‘socially distant criminals’. Of two evils, they chose the lesser: convicted proletarians and lumpenproletarians were more ‘respected’ by the authorities than former tsarist officers. For this reason, ‘thieves’ and other castes tried to remove the former White officers from the community.
Thus, in the early 1930s, ‘thieves-in-law’ emerged as a result of such complex social processes in the professional criminal environment.
[1] Maksimov, S. (1891). Siberia and Hard Labour. In 3 parts. Part One: ‘The Unfortunate’. Saint Petersburg. 411 p. P.99.
[2] Trakhtenberg, V. (1908). Blatnaya Muzyka (Prison Jargon). Based on materials collected in transit prisons and prisons. Edited and with a preface by Prof. I. Boduen-de-Kurtine. Saint-Petersburg. 116 p. P.24.
[3] Popov, V. (1912). Dictionary of Thieves’ and Prisoners’ Slang. Kiev.
[4] Leonov, A., Akkuzin, Yu., Nazarenko, A., Soldatov, N. (2019) The emergence of the ‘thieves’ law’. Law and Justice. No. 3.
[5] Trakhtenberg, V. (1908). Blatnaya Muzyka (Prison Jargon). Based on materials collected in transit prisons and prisons. Edited and with a preface by Prof. I. Boduen-de-Kurtine. Saint-Petersburg. 116 p. P.42, p. 61.
