Agricultural prisons and colonies in the Russian Empire at the beginning of the twentieth Century: on the question of the expediency of creation and the problems of implementation

Elchaninov Andrey Petrovich PhD in Law Head of the SIC-1 Department, FKU Research Institute of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia 125130, Russia, g. Moscow, ul. Narvskaya, 15a, of. str.1 petrovich2102@rambler.ru

Elchaninova Ol'ga Yurevna PhD in History Senior Researcher, FKU Research Institute of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia 125130, Russia, g. Moscow, ul. Narvskaya, d.15a petrovich2102@rambler.ru

As numerous studies of the state of the world economy conducted in the XXI century show, one of the global problems of mankind at present is the availability of food. In this regard, one of the most important goals of the economic policy of most states is to ensure food security. In the Russian Federation, its main goals and objectives are defined in the Food Security Doctrine approved by Presidential Decree No. 20 of 21.01.2020 ^[1]. This normative act defines the direct dependence of the food security of our state on the success of the Russian Federation in achieving food independence, which means self-sufficiency of the country with the main types of agricultural products, raw materials and food.

In modern conditions, the domestic agrarian policy is aimed at transforming agriculture into a highly productive and competitive branch of the economy, designed not only to provide the country's population with food, but also to increase Russia's export potential. As the statistics of recent years show, the Russian Federation has achieved great success in this direction^[1].

It should be noted that the production of agricultural products in modern Russia is carried out by economic entities of various forms of ownership. Among them, a special place is occupied by specialized agricultural enterprises and subsidiary farms under the jurisdiction of the Federal Penitentiary Service, which represent a specific form of organization of economic activity. Such enterprises are created, as a rule, to achieve certain goals, which, on the one hand, have economic prerequisites aimed at:

to reduce the costs of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia, and, accordingly, federal budget funds, for the purchase of food from organizations of other forms of ownership;

to implement the requirements for ensuring food security and independence of the penal system from fluctuations in the food market by constantly increasing the level of self-sufficiency of the institutions of the penal system with basic types of food ^[2].

 On the other hand, the importance of agricultural enterprises of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia is determined by the creation of conditions for the re-socialization of convicts on the basis of their employment.

Unfortunately, the main indicators of agricultural activity of enterprises of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia are significantly inferior to agricultural enterprises of other forms of ownership ^{[3, pp. 150-155]}. The reasons for this are obvious and are determined, as a rule, by a shortage of qualified personnel, a low level of mechanization of agricultural work, limited financing for the relevant expenditure items, insufficient use of advanced farming technologies ^{[4, pp. 43-47]}.

Meanwhile, the potential of the Russian penal system in the production of agricultural products is great. This potential is determined both by the availability of agricultural lands assigned to the right of operational management for the institutions of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia, and by the availability of labor resources. However, the use of these resources currently cannot be called effective. As noted back in 2016 at a meeting with the Director of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia, the chief researcher of the Research Institute of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia, V.A. Sedykh, "in the institutions of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia, there is now actually a private farm, a farm on its scale. It is necessary to go into industrial agriculture"^[2].

It should be noted that the topic of expanding agricultural production involving the labor of persons serving sentences in the form of imprisonment is not being updated in Russia for the first time. This topic was widely discussed at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. in the context of reforming the prison system of the Russian Empire. It is obvious that in the conditions of modern reforms of the penal system, the experience gained during that period is of particular importance, including for improving the efficiency of agricultural production of the penal system.

Considering the above, we can state the relevance of the study of theoretical concepts of the early twentieth century. about the possibility of using convicts' labor in agriculture. Within the framework of the study, the dialectical approach, the formal legal method, the method of interpretation of legal norms, the method of retrospective analysis, the method of systematization, etc. were used. The theoretical development of this problem is being carried out by penitentiary scientists, among whom we can name Kuzmin S.I., Smykalin A.S., Rasskazov L.P. and others.

The objectives of this article are:

to reveal the arguments of lawyers of the early twentieth century, determining the permissibility and necessity of creating agricultural prisons and colonies in the Russian Empire;

to establish the possibility of using individual conclusions of lawyers to ensure the agricultural independence of the penal system of the Russian Federation.

Before considering the main approaches to the organization of agricultural prisons and colonies in the Russian Empire at the beginning of the twentieth century, it should be noted that the discussion of this topic was dictated by the search for directions for the development of the domestic prison system, in particular, the adoption of the law of June 10, 1900, which abolished as punishment the link to the settlement in Siberia ^[5]. If, before the adoption of this law, unreliable subjects who committed crimes were sent from the European part of Russia to settle in distant Russian regions, located, as a rule, beyond the Urals, then with the adoption of this law, the question arose: where to place convicts? Various options were offered to solve this issue. For example, it was proposed to increase the number of prisons. However, this, according to the majority of scientists and practitioners, significantly expanded the state expenses for the maintenance of the prison system. Firstly, large expenditures were needed for the construction of the prisons themselves. Thus, Count K.K. Palen designated the amount of 40 million rubles, which was an unbearable burden for the state treasury at the beginning of the twentieth century ^{[6, p. 230]}. And, secondly, the presence in prison cells of convicts who are not engaged in any kind of work, who do not bring income to the penitentiary system, doomed the treasury to spend large sums annually on the maintenance of convicts, the maintenance of prison infrastructure, etc.

In contrast to the first approach mentioned above, in order to reduce the costs of maintaining the prison department, other authors proposed using convicts' labor in handicraft and factory workshops or in agriculture to produce food both for the needs of the prison system itself and for sale in order to ensure the self-sufficiency of the penitentiary system.

Based on the available foreign experience, as well as the practice of individual Russian prisons on the use of convicts' labor in agriculture to provide food for their institutions, at the beginning of the twentieth century, separate concepts of creating agricultural prisons and colonies appeared, designed to complement the usual practice of convicts' imprisonment for that period. The projects of the reforms proposed in this regard provided, among other things, for changing the existing system of patronage, bookkeeping, the division of prisoners into categories, categories and groups, differentiation of earnings shares, etc. ^{[7, p. 86]}.

Let's consider the main arguments given by the supporters of agricultural prisons and colonies to justify their positions.

Firstly, representatives of penitentiary thought, both in Western European countries and in Russia by the beginning of the twentieth century, were confirmed in the opinion that the idle pastime of convicts in prison has a detrimental effect on persons serving sentences.  The constant presence in a prison cell negatively affects the physical and psychological health of convicts. Evidence of this was the mass diseases of tuberculosis, typhus, cholera, which became almost commonplace in places of detention of the Russian Empire in the late XIX – early XX century. The mental state of the convicts worsened due to being in a confined space, the tension of interpersonal relations, the rupture of social ties with relatives, etc. To eliminate the negative consequences of prison detention, it was proposed to involve convicts in various types of work. By the beginning of the twentieth century, handicraft workshops, equipped with prison locks, received practical implementation. However, supporters of the creation of agricultural prisons and colonies considered agricultural labor preferable to work in craft workshops for several reasons. They believed that for Russia, which is a predominantly agrarian state, where the majority of the population was the peasant population, the conversion of farmers to artisans is hardly justified by considerations of both state and convict benefits.  The handicraft experience gained by a peasant in prison workshops, as a rule, was not necessary for him after his release, since he was going to a rural community. In addition, the heavy, prolonged, intensive work of convicts in handicraft and factory workshops, which, as a rule, were poorly ventilated, undermined the health of convicts in a short time. Illnesses received at work in prison did not allow those released to find work at liberty, which pushed them to commit new crimes and return to prison. According to the supporters of the reform of the Russian penitentiary system, all the above-mentioned problems of the imprisonment of convicts were leveled during the creation of agricultural colonies. Peasants, engaged in agricultural work for the entire period of their stay in a place of imprisonment under the guidance of experienced agronomists, will improve their experience, which will help them get better settled after serving their sentence.

Secondly, supporters of the arrangement of agricultural prisons and colonies noted that the prison, as an institution for the execution of punishments, at the beginning of the twentieth century did not solve most of the tasks of correcting the convict. A long stay in a prison cell with other criminals did not contribute to his re-education. Moreover, communication among themselves increased the criminal experience of each prisoner. From this, it was concluded that it was necessary to change the regime of detention of convicts, to attract them to work. For example, I.Ya. Foynitsky, on this occasion, at a prison congress held in St. Petersburg in 1902, expressed the following judgment: "the more time a convict spends outside prison walls while serving his sentence, the more favorable results can be expected both for himself and for society interested in his moral revival" ^{[7, p. 89]}. At the same time, agricultural labor is preferable to handicraft because it allows you to change types of work more often, redistribute convicts into different groups, breaking the formation of stable criminal ties between individual prisoners.

Thirdly, supporters of the arrangement of agricultural prisons and colonies considered it possible to implement the positive experience of creating such correctional institutions in Western European countries. For example, in Prussia, the use of convict labor for land reclamation work was allowed from 1865, and since 1900 convicts have been involved in all types of agricultural work.

Supporters of the reform of the prison system saw the goals of creating agricultural colonies:

cultivation of lands, large areas of which remained uncultivated at the beginning of the twentieth century, even in the European part of Russia;

the re-education by agricultural labor of several thousand convicts who "languish and corrupt in prisons for absolutely no purpose" ^{[6, p. 237]}.

They proposed the following procedure for creating agricultural colonies. After the verdict of the court, which provided for a sentence of imprisonment, all convicts had to be sent to the prison, which was assigned the task of disciplining the prisoners.  After a certain time in the law, convicts from among the peasants had to be transferred to agricultural colonies, and in prison prisons, only prisoners from among the urban population continued to serve their sentences in the form of imprisonment, who, in turn, could be involved in work in craft workshops.

The land plot for the activities of the agricultural colony was to be allocated by the state. Its size was determined from the number of convicts held in the colony, at the rate of at least 3 tithes per person.

It was proposed to place the convicts in huts similar to those in which the rural population lives in villages. Based on hygiene considerations, no more than 20 prisoners were supposed to be placed in the hut. In addition, premises for warders were provided. The windows in the huts had to have bars, the doors were closed with a bolt.

The agricultural colony itself was, in fact, a small village consisting of 10 huts, having an external fence, located at a distance from populated areas. The management of the colony was entrusted to an official of the prison department. The agronomist was responsible for the quality of agricultural work.

It should be noted that the concepts of agricultural colonies developed at the beginning of the twentieth century had an incomplete appearance, were poorly consistent with the current legislation, were not supported by economic justifications and, to a greater extent, had the form of reasoning about the ways of development of the penitentiary system of the Russian Empire. First of all, the issue of the implementation of the functions of supervision of convicts during agricultural work was debatable. There were concerns that working in the field would create prerequisites for an increase in the number of escapes of convicts. In addition, the problem was considered to be the low efficiency of agricultural labor of convicts, as well as the level of its payment by the state. The law in force in the Russian Empire on the minimum wage for convicts of at least 30 kopecks could not be executed during agricultural work, since peasant labor was estimated in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century quite low. This led to the third problem, which was voiced by opponents of agricultural colonies. It consisted in the possible competition of cheap products obtained using the low-paid labor of convicts in agriculture, and agricultural products produced in peasant farms, which could lead to the ruin of peasants.

Meanwhile, the publications of supporters of the creation of agricultural colonies and prisons in Russia caused a discussion on the pages of legal periodicals, including the departmental journal of the Main Prison Department – "Prison Bulletin" ^{[8, pp. 363-374]}.

In 1909, the idea of creating correctional institutions for agricultural purposes was nevertheless accepted by the legislator.               On May 22, 1909, a bill "On the establishment of an agricultural prison" was submitted to the III State Duma for consideration ^[9]. Despite the heated discussion, this bill did not gain the necessary number of votes and did not take the form of a law.

In the explanatory note to the bill, the need to create agricultural prisons was determined by the fact that the prison at the beginning of the twentieth century could not cope with correctional functions. After the end of the sentence, people who were physically and morally spoiled from idleness, hardened from the prison regime, unaccustomed to work and lost hope of adapting to ordinary life were released. According to the authors of the bill, the situation would significantly improve if convicts were involved in agricultural labor. Russia, as an agrarian country, needs the use of convict labor in this area. Most of the convicts come from their rural communities and it is important for penitentiary purposes to occupy them with their usual work. In addition, agricultural work has the greatest ability to influence a person, while strengthening his physical strength. The authors of the draft law on agricultural prisons to a lesser extent assumed the receipt of income from the agricultural labor of convicts. The main purpose of such work, in their opinion, was the moral education of prisoners. 

Agricultural prisons were to be located on land allocated by the state.  It was supposed to send all first-time convicts to such prisons for punishment in the form of imprisonment. During the period of being in an agricultural prison, it was assumed that convicts observing the regime of detention would gradually move from one category to another, more preferential, compared to the previous one.

Thus, summarizing the above, it should be noted that at the turn of the XIX – XX centuries, the prison system of the Russian Empire underwent significant changes. Trends in the humanization of criminal punishment have given rise to discussions in the academic environment about the transformation of the existing system of penitentiary institutions, including discussions on the creation of agricultural colonies and prisons. Despite the obvious advantages of such correctional institutions, many scientists have noted the insurmountable disadvantages of completely replacing the prison detention of convicts with the execution of sentences in the form of imprisonment in agricultural colonies and prisons. The main problem was the difficulty in ensuring the proper isolation of convicts during their field work. Meanwhile, the goals of creating agricultural colonies, determined by lawyers of the early twentieth century, have not lost their relevance today. On the one hand, the modern penal enforcement system has a large number of convicts in places of deprivation of liberty. Often they are not provided with work, which negatively affects the operational situation in correctional institutions of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia. On the other hand, in the Russian state there is a large amount of land withdrawn from agricultural circulation due to their systematic non-use. These two factors determine the powerful potential of the development of the penal system. The idea of involving convicts in work to restore the quality of agricultural land, to organize agricultural production in the restored territories, requires further study. We believe that, on the one hand, this will help to increase the number of jobs for convicts, make the process of their re-socialization effective, and, on the other hand, will allow the penal enforcement system to contribute to ensuring the country's food security.

^[1] The main indicators of agriculture of the Russian Federation in 2019. URL: https://meatinfo.ru/news/osnovnie-pokazateli-selskogo-hozyaystva-rf-v-2019-godu-407266 (accessed: 02/27/2021)

^[2] The Federal Penitentiary Service may create agricultural holdings to provide prisoners with food // Independent portal for meat industry specialists "Meat Expert".  URL: https://meat-expert.ru/forums/record/novosti-otrasli/sobytija-otrasli/fsin-mozhet-sozdat-agroholdingi-dlya-obespecheniya-produktami-zaklyuchennyh-r21002 / (accessed: 02/27/2021)