Šiame straipsnyje pristatomi Rusijos imperijos visuomenės modernizaciją XIX a. pab. – XX a. pr. reflektuojantys bruožai, atskleisti išnagrinėjus Rusijos imperijos Teisingumo ministerijos parengtų sąvadų medžiagą apie nuteistų asmenų imtį. Pasitelkus istorikų tyrimams naudojamus klasikinius analizės ir sintezės, statistikos bei lyginamąjį metodus, apžvelgiamas ir palyginamas trijuose apygardos teismuose, veikusiuose Rusijos imperijos europinės dalies skirtinguose geografiniuose paribiuose, nuteistųjų vyraujantis socialinis profilis ir jo kismas. Tyrimo metu buvo sudarytos statistines lentelės apie 1884, 1897 ir 1912 metais užfiksuotus nuteistų asmenų socialinius rodiklius.

The article analyses a specific kind of crime committed by the nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, i. e. the raids on estates, in Vilnius District (administrative district in Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine). The article covers the period of the mid-18th century when the country was ruled by Augustus III (1734–1763). Attacks were well organized, armed, and violent seizures of other people’s possessions; they were organized on a large scale. According to the legal norms of that period, these raids could have been legal, having the approval of the law court, and illegal. The latter, however, were the most frequent ones; we did not come across any legal attacks. Raids were one of the most widely spread crimes in rural territories and the most frequent crime against a person and his/her property in the period under analysis. All in all, 288 cases dealing with this crime during the above-mentioned period were found. Frequency tendencies of these attacks are directly related to the general tendencies of crime rate. The boom of this kind of crime could be dated by the 5th decade of the 18th century when, on average, more than 13 attacks occurred every year; later, their number decreased. The raids usually took place in summer, at day-time; however, there were some other cases as well. The group of raiders, as a rule, consisted of a landlord, his family members, and land administrators with their subjects – household servants and peasants. Peasants and other unprivileged subjects participated in almost all attacks. Though acts of violence were abundant, homicide cases were not numerous. For example, we discovered only seven murder cases; some deaths occurred after attacks, and some women miscarried because of the acts of violence. Violence was committed against people of all social layers, and imprisonment or rapes could be defined as concrete cases of the expression of this violence.[...]

Robbery was one of the most widely spread crimes in the past and it is one of the most commonplace crimes in the contemporary epoch. It is mentioned in the majority of works on the history of crime; it is often categorised as a separate type of crime. Robbery is usually attributed to property crimes. Different attribution criteria are determined by the legal framework of the country under analysis and different approaches to investigation. Road (sometimes the great road) and street robbery in the urban space are often singled out in the western historiography. The crime of robbery was a usual, though hardly very common, crime in the nobility cases of Vilnius district. The Statute of Lithuania mentions the crime of robbery as a crime of higher degree of violence, a pre-plotted crime rendering more severe consequences as well as plundering as a crime of deprivation of property of lesser scope. It is hardly possible to separate between the two crimes during the research because the criteria specifying the differences are not explicitly singled out in the Legal Code of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In the law of the 18th century robbery belonged to the group of the most important crimes; according to the Statute of Lithuania, they carried capital punishment. The judgements passed in the courts of Vilnius district occasionally treated criminal offences during which property was seized by compulsion or threatening as murder or theft. It is highlighted in the Statute of Lithuania that robbery was a crime committed on the road. However, property was not only seized by compulsion on the road but also in other spaces (forest, meadow, saloon, houses or manors). We can hardly omit the cases of criminal offences of such type in order to know robbery as a social phenomenon.

The future bishop of Samogitia and the canon of Vilnius Jan Dominik Łopaciński left abundant correspondence on the life of the nobility in the capital city of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the mid-18th century (1730–1762). Most of his addressees were lords or the noblemen of the higher-than-average rank. The letters refer to political problems – mostly the news on the dietines (sejmiks) of Vilnius, Smolensk, Starodub taking place in the capital. The Supreme Tribunal of Lithuania is arguably the most common judicial institution mentioned in the letters; courts of other types are less commonly mentioned. The canon’s letters often addressed economic transactions: purchase and sale of estates, debts and payments, matters of real estate and constructions in Vilnius. They contain most information on the economic transactions of other families, primarily the Sapieha family. The issue of temporary accommodation of the nobility in Vilnius was also relevant; according to the letters, the canon tried to be helpful and to assist the arriving noblemen with the rent of housing. It was one of the means to maintain influence on the elite of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as well as to seek the career for oneself and for one’s family and supporters. The panorama-type letters elaborating on the situation in Vilnius often discussed the most varied mundane topics – conversations, feasts, carnivals, fireworks and the daily life of the nobility.

The article sets out to analyze organized home invasions – a rare, yet nearly annually recorded, violent crime in Vilnius. This crime included offences against a person’s health, life and property. The article investigates the content of the legal norms of that time on the crimes of this type; it analyzes the statistics and motives of home invasions and addresses the issue of lawfulness (‘restoration of justice’ by force), objects, the social situation of plaintiffs and defendants, the degree of violence as well as the sentences imposed for the crimes of this type.