The history of the development of juvenile justice. History of juvenile justice. Some examples of negative experiences of juvenile justice abroad
Synergy. 2016. No. 1.
Juvenile justice
UDC 544.183.26
A.A. Anisimov, S.T. Gavrilov
THE HISTORY OF THE FORMATION OF JUVENAL JUSTICE IN
Russian State University of Justice, Voronezh Institute of Economics and Law
Resume: The article examines the history of the formation of juvenile justice in Russia. On the basis of the study, it is concluded that many ideas of juvenile justice have been developed and consolidated in the current criminal procedure legislation of Russia.
Keywords: juvenile justice, juvenile courts,
minors, juvenile commissions,
crime.
A.A. Anisimov, 8 T. Gavrilov
HISTORY OF THE FORMATION OF JUVENILE JUSTICE IN RUSSIA
Russian Academy of Justice, Voronezh Institute of Economics and Law
Abstract: The article discusses the history of the formation of the juvenile justice in Russia. On the basis of the study concluded that many of the ideas of justice for juveniles have been developed and consolidated in the current criminal procedural legislation of Russia.
Keywords: juvenile justice, juvenile courts, juvenile, Commission on juvenile crime.
The history of law in general and Russian law in particular shows that the special legal status of the child has become a legal reality relatively recently. Initially, the care of children and the protection of their rights were carried out as separate charitable actions by individuals or organizations and institutions.
For the first time, special concern for legislation
tel level was manifested during the formation of Christianity. The role of the church was especially great in the implementation of charity and, what is important to emphasize, in relation to children. So, already in the Church Charter of 996, it is mentioned about the duties of the clergy to supervise and care for the charity of the poor, about the allocation of 1/10 of the income of any wealthy person for this.
Electronic scientific and practical journal "Synergy"
Synergy. 2016. No. 1.
Under Ivan the Terrible, by a resolution of the Stoglav Council, the care of the poor, including children, was recognized as the deed of the whole society and on public funds.
Under Peter I, public charity was formed into a certain system: categories of needs were determined
given and measures to help them, punished pretending to be in need, expanded the network of "closed charity", that is, charitable institutions; establishments of a new type began to be created (hospitals for orphans, homes for the disabled, etc.). A system of "open charity" began to form (pensions, "fodder" money, provision of land, crafts).
Great changes and successes of charity in Russia are associated with the reign of Catherine II. During this period, both the state and wealthy individuals created new specialized institutions for the child of children: foundlings, illegitimate, legal, but "abandoned by their parents due to poverty" - hospitals for poor women in labor with an anonymous department (where women in labor were in masks), as well as loan and the widow's box office. By provincial reform In 1775, new for Russia provincial orders of public charity, orphan loan banks, and noble guardianship were formed. It should be noted that along with state charity, private charity continued to develop. So, the famous merchants Eliseevs spent more than 20% of their income on charity, a significant part of which was intended and sent to the needs of children. Despite this, it should be recognized that in pre-revolutionary Russia minors in legally were poorly protected. Russian legal and, above all, criminal policy of that time adhered to a clearly expressed reactionary orientation towards minors.
Thus, the Law of July 2, 1897 "On Juvenile and Juvenile Criminals", which was clearly repressive, was in effect during the period of work in Russia for juvenile courts and was canceled by the decree of the Soviet government of January 17, 1918. It provided for minors between the ages of 17 and 21 (a person who reached 21 years of age was considered an adult in pre-revolutionary Russia) punishment in the form of imprisonment, hard labor and settlement.
According to this law, minors between the ages of 14 and 18, who acted with reason (i.e., giving account of their actions), could be imprisoned for 12 years, and those 10-12 years old - in a special room at a prison for up to 5 years. years. Despite the opportunity given to the court to condemn imprisonment in a colony, the number of minors sentenced to placement in prisons and detention centers almost doubled those sentenced to other punishments.
The first juvenile court in Russia was established in
St. Petersburg in 1910. In 1917 such courts operated in Moscow, Kharkov, Kiev, Odessa, Libava, Riga, Tomsk, Nikolaev, Saratov and other cities.
In areas where the specified educational
correctional institutions for minors or in the event of a lack of free premises in them, minors between the ages of 10 and 18, recognized by the court as having committed crimes without reason, could be given “for correction” for a period determined by the court, but no more than until they reach at the age of 18 years in the monasteries of their religion, if there were such monasteries at the place of proceedings and if, according to the rules established for them, it was not prohibited for outsiders to reside there.
Thus, in the laws of Russia at the end of the XIX century. contained legal provisions to reduce
Electronic scientific and practical journal "Synergy"
Synergy. 2016. No. 1.
the severity of criminal punishment for minors. Both criminal and criminal procedural legislation contained provisions on increased legal protection minors versus adult defendants. At the same time, a significant amount of judicial discretion in these cases (the decision of the issue of actions "with reason", the imposition of sentences without a specified time limit) still put minors in the position of persons not protected by law.
The names of juvenile courts varied greatly: "juvenile courts"
“Children's courts”, “children's courts”, “juvenile courts”, etc., which testifies to the absence of a truly recognized and effectively functioning juvenile justice system.
The functions of a juvenile judge at that time were carried out by a magistrate. The competence of the juvenile judge included:
Cases of crimes committed by minors, as well as adult instigators of adolescents;
Cases where the victims were minors;
Cases related to the failure to fulfill their duties by the parents of a minor.
The judge could decide questions of civil and guardianship proceedings. To the court for minors by law ordered to exercise judicial supervision over the work of children's institutions, taking care of juvenile offenders.
Juvenile courts functioned according to the following rules:
The consideration of cases was carried out by a single judge, who was elected and acted as a justice of the peace;
The judge was required to have a special vocational training(in particular, it is good to know especially
sti of child psychology);
The presence of a summary procedure when considering cases involving a minor;
The principle of confidentiality of litigation;
Lack of formal accusation and defense;
The use of guardianship as the main measure of influence.
The task of juvenile courts included not only the fight against juvenile delinquency, but also the adoption of measures against the homeless, as well as the protection of the interests of children. Thus, a special procedure was established for bringing children to court. They were invited and escorted to the court by a person whose duties included notifying the teenager about the need to appear. The procedure was carried out in such a way as not to compromise the minor in front of others.
There was also a certain procedure and sequence of proceedings. It took place in a special room; parents or guardians were present in a closed meeting. The presence of a lawyer was optional. The functions of the defense stemmed from the main purpose of the "children's" court - not to put a juvenile offender in prison, but to keep him from it.
Autonomous Russian juvenile justice ceased to exist by the decree of the Council of People's Commissars of Russia dated January 17, 1918 and was replaced by another system, which, in the opinion of its creators, was thought to be more humane, more adapted to the treatment of children and adolescents.
The reforms began in January 1918 and were continued two years later. We are talking about two decrees of the Soviet government - on January 17, 1918 "On the commissions for minors" and on March 4, 1920 "On the trial of minors."
Electronic scientific and practical journal "Synergy"
Synergy. 2016. No. 1.
The decree "On commissions for minors" made significant changes in Russian juvenile justice: it canceled the imprisonment of minors (which, as already mentioned, was welcomed by the legal community) and juvenile courts. Article 2 of the decree established that "... cases of minors of both sexes under 17 years old, noticed in acts of socially dangerous, are subject to the jurisdiction of the commission on minors." Moreover, all cases of persons of this age group, who by that time were in the proceedings of any courts, and also ended in conviction, were subject to review by the said commissions (Art. 6 of the Decree). For those years, the departmental affiliation of the created commissions on juvenile affairs was unusual. They were under the jurisdiction of the People's Commissariat of Public Charity. The commissions included representatives from three departments: public charity, education and justice. A doctor was an obligatory member of the commission.
On July 30, 1920, the developed Instruction on the work of juvenile commissions was published. This medical, psychological and pedagogical document defining the directions of the commissions' activities reflected the general orientation of the criminal policy towards minors. However, in contrast to the decree of January 17, 1918, the Instruction nevertheless provided for the transfer of the minor "along with the case" to the people's judge, albeit in a very peculiar form. This happened in the following cases:
If the application of medical and psychological educational measures to a minor is considered insufficient;
With persistent relapses;
With systematic escapes from orphanages;
With a clear danger to others, leaving a minor at large.
The content of Art. 10 Instructions, according to which cases of grave crimes of minors over the age of 14 were received within 24 hours from the moment of their arrest to the people's judge, who is a member of the juvenile commission. The judge had to carry out the necessary investigative actions regarding the factual side of the case, the role of the minor in the crime (if committed in complicity with adults) and submit to the commission a report on the results of the investigation. Thus, according to the Instruction, the final decision belonged not to the judge, but to the commission on minors.
For the sake of fairness, it must be said that the juvenile commissions nevertheless adopted the experience of juvenile courts in pre-revolutionary Russia in terms of organizing social services to study the personality and living conditions of juvenile offenders. As for the procedure for hearing cases in commissions, it was even less regulated by legal norms than such a procedure in juvenile courts.
However, life very soon made me remember about the courts. After all, teenagers committed not only minor offenses, but also quite serious and dangerous crimes... In February 1920, a draft decree "On the trial of minors" was developed and submitted to the government for consideration. It was approved by a decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR on March 4, 1920.
Unlike the decree of January 17, 1918, the decree of March 4, 1920 allowed the transfer of cases of minors between the ages of 14 and 18 to people's court if the commission on minors has established the impossibility of applying medical and pedagogical measures to them. In the note to clause 4 of the People's Decree
Electronic scientific and practical journal "Synergy"
Synergy. 2016. No. 1.
the Commissariat of Justice was ordered to place minors separately from adult criminals and to organize such institutions for juveniles. As an educational measure, minors could be placed in a reformatory.
Preliminary and judicial investigation conducted by the judge. This indicated a return to some of the rules of juvenile justice adopted in the Russian pre-revolutionary juvenile court. However, the decree of March 4, 1920 did not mean the restoration of autonomous juvenile justice. On the contrary, it retained the jurisdiction of the juvenile commissions, which existed until 1935. Judicial intervention was carried out only in cases of serious juvenile crimes. These cases were referred to the competence of the general people's courts, where special panels of judges were organized, which existed until 1935.
In spite of decision on the liquidation of juvenile courts, their activity in those years was preserved in a special form. If a minor over the age of 14 committed a serious crime, he or she could be handed over to the people's judge “together with the file” within 24 hours from the moment of arrest. Judge general court within three days had to carry out the necessary investigative actions on the factual side of the case and submit to the commission a report on the results of the investigation. However, the final decision on the case belonged to the juvenile commission.
If the offenses, which did not pose a great public danger, were committed by minors under the age of 14, their cases were not submitted to the commission at all. The latter only approved the relevant decisions of the administration of receptions and distribution points on the extent of the impact on the minor, after which the decisions entered into
In the "Guidelines on Criminal Law of the RSFSR" dated December 12, 1919, it was established that minors under 14 years of age are not subject to trial and punishment; educational measures.
By 1920, 245 commissions on juvenile affairs were created on the territory of the RSFSR. In February 1920, a draft decree "On the trial of minors" was developed and submitted to the government, which was approved by a resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR on March 4, 1920.
The Criminal Code of the RSFSR (1922) in Art. 18 established a general rule: the same types of criminal punishments could be applied to minors between the ages of 16 and 17 as to adults, up to death penalty... True, in a note published soon in Art. 33 of the Criminal Code said: "The capital punishment - execution - cannot be applied to persons who have not reached the age of 18 at the time of the crime." The basic principles of the criminal legislation of the USSR and the union republics in Art. 32 prescribed the application of milder measures of social protection (a term that replaced punishment) to persons who have not reached the age of majority. The 1926 Criminal Code of the RSFSR also excluded minors under the age of 18 from among those who could be subject to capital punishment. This rule has not been canceled in two subsequent Criminal Code of Russia: in Art. 23 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR in 1960 and in the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in 1996 (clause 2 of article 59). At a certain point in our history, it came into conflict with the legislation of 1934-1935, which can be called extraordinary.
In the period from 1925 to 1931. most cases of offenders under the age of 18 were dealt with by juvenile commissions. Only 10% of cases were transferred to the courts.
In 1931, the Regulation was adopted
Electronic scientific and practical journal "Synergy"
Synergy. 2016. No. 1.
on commissions for juvenile affairs, but it did not contain a clear list of educational measures, which weakened the work of the commissions.
In the legislation of those times relating to minors, two tendencies fought: the weakening and toughening of repression. In the Criminal Code of the RSFSR in 1926, the first tendency won out. In addition to prohibiting the application of the death penalty to minors, the 1926 Criminal Code (Article 14-a) provided for mandatory mitigation of punishment: at the age of 14 to 16 years - by half, and at the age of 16 to 18 years - by a third. This was the very same direct protectionism of minors (only in one age group), which was mentioned above when it came to juvenile justice in Western countries. V further development Russian criminal law abandoned this principle, the Criminal Code of 1960 and 1996. he was not accepted.
However, at that time, the priority of the Commission on Juvenile Affairs in considering cases of this category was still very strong. This was evidenced by the following rule of Art. 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1922: "If there are several accused in the case, of which one or more are minors (less than 16 years old), the case against the latter should be separated and transferred to the commission on minors." The Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended in 1923, made its own "contribution" in this regard: it ordered to consider cases of minors between the ages of 14 and 16 in court only by order of the commission on minors.
In the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR (as revised in 1923), a post-revolutionary model of Russian juvenile justice was formulated, which included the rules for the jurisdiction of juvenile cases, requirements for the professional selection of lay assessors, and the time frame for considering cases in this category. For the first time, a rule was formulated on the inadmissibility of considering juvenile cases without the participation of the defense.
The formal border of the punitive reorientation of criminal policy towards minors has become legislative acts that time. First of all, we are talking about the decree of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of April 7, 1935 "On measures to combat juvenile delinquency." This decision determined for many years a by no means democratic prosecutor's and judicial practice in relation to minors. It was in effect for 24 years and only in 1959 was it canceled together with other normative acts that became invalid due to the introduction of new criminal and criminal procedure legislation.
By order of April 7, 1935, the age of criminal liability for a large part of the corpus delicti was reduced to 12 years. The principle of applying all types of punishments to minors was restored.
The 1922 Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR provided for a number of rules of legal proceedings, thereby approving the judicial procedure for considering cases of minors. However, such norms were few. Among them - the duty of the court to establish the age of the defendant, the prohibition of the presence of minors in the courtroom. V edition of the Criminal Procedure Code The RSFSR in 1923 provided for the separation of cases against minors under 14 years of age into separate proceedings and their transfer to the commission on juvenile affairs.
All the legislative and law enforcement acts discussed above determined the punitive orientation of juvenile justice for a long period - from 1935 to the end of the 50s. As already noted, they became invalid due to the adoption of new criminal and criminal procedure legislation of the USSR and the Union republics in 1958-1961. Gone are the numerous orders, instructions, directive letters of various departments that commented on them.
Electronic scientific and practical journal "Synergy"
Synergy. 2016. No. 1.
Joined in legal force The 1960 Criminal Code of the RSFSR established the maximum punishment for minors in the form of 10 years' imprisonment, providing for the serving of this type of punishment in educational labor colonies of general and enhanced regimes (Article 24).
In addition, he regulated in detail the types coercive measures educational nature applied to minors:
Imposition of the obligation, publicly or in another form determined by the court, to apologize to the victim;
Announcing a reprimand or severe reprimand;
Warning;
Imposing on a minor who has reached the age of fifteen, the obligation to compensate for the damage caused (if the minor had independent earnings and the amount of damage does not exceed fifty rubles, or the imposition of the obligation to eliminate the damage caused by his own labor material damage not exceeding fifty rubles; in the event of damage in the amount of more than fifty rubles, compensation for damage was made in accordance with the procedure civil proceedings);
Transfer of a minor under strict supervision to parents or persons replacing them;
Transfer of a minor to the supervision of a labor collective, a public organization, with their consent, as well as individual citizens (at their request). The court could also find it necessary to appoint a public educator in accordance with the Regulation on Public Educators of Minors;
Placement of a minor in a special educational and educational or medical and educational institution.
At the same time, the term, procedure and conditions
the presence of minors in special educational and medical and educational institutions was determined by the Regulations on the commissions for juvenile affairs.
The 1960 Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR also provided for certain features, which concerned, first of all, the circumstances to be established in cases of minors, among which one could note:
The age of the minor (day, month, year of birth);
Living and upbringing conditions;
The reasons and conditions that contributed to the commission of the crime by minors;
The presence of adult instigators and other accomplices.
In addition, in the presence of data on the mental retardation of a minor, not related to mental illness, it should also be revealed whether he could fully understand the significance of his actions. In Art. 393 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stated that arrest and detention as a preventive measure could be applied to a minor only in exceptional cases when it was caused by the severity committed crime; envisaged mandatory participation defender. There was also a special procedure for summoning a minor to court, special preventive measures (for example, surrender under the supervision of parents, guardians or trustees); indicated the obligatory participation of a teacher in the interrogation of a minor accused who has not reached the age of 16.
A positive aspect was the possibility of participation in the case (in addition to legal representatives) of representatives of enterprises, institutions and organizations in which the minor worked or studied (Article 400 of the Criminal Procedure Code).
Summarizing the above, we can conclude that many ideas of justice in relation to non-
Electronic scientific and practical journal "Synergy"
Synergy. 2016. No. 1.
adults received their time- criminal procedure legislation-
twist and consolidation in action.
Bibliographic list
1. Galimov O. Kh. Minors in criminal proceedings. - SPb., 2001.
2. Melnikova E.B. Juvenile justice. - M., 1999.
3. Gavrilov S.T. Organization of prevention of deviant behavior of minors: domestic experience // Territory of science. 2015. No. 6. S. 146-152.
4. Gavrilov S.T., Borodkina T.A. Factors affecting juvenile delinquency in Russia // Territory of Science. 2015. No. 5. P. 156-158
5. Galkin A. Return of juvenile justice to Russia // Russian justice. 2002. No. 7.P. 28.
6. Bykin V.I., Cherchaga S.V. The return of juvenile justice to Russia // Issues of juvenile justice. 2006. No. 1.P. 31.
7. Kosheleva E.V., Lelekov V.A. Criminological characteristics juvenile drug crime // Territory of Science. 2015. No. 2. S. 184-188.
8. Lelekov V.A., Kosheleva E.V. Causes and conditions of the penitentiary recidivism of minors // Territory of science. 2014. T 2. No. 2. S. 180-187.
9. Vasintseva L.M. The historical path of juvenile justice // Vestnik MGTU. 2006. T. 9.No. 4.P. 541.
10. Larin A.M. The criminal process of Russia. Lectures - essays / Ed. V.M.Savitsky. M., 1997.
Information about
Anisimov Artur Anatolievich,
PhD in Law, Associate Professor, Russian State University of Justice, Voronezh, Russia
Anisimov Artur Anatolievich,
Candidate of Legal Sciences, Associate Professor, Russian Academy of Justice, Voronezh, Russia
Gavrilov Sergey Tikhonovich,
Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences, Associate Professor, Voronezh Institute of Economics and Law, Voronezh, Russia
Gavrilov Sergey Tihonovich,
Candidate of pedagogical sciences, associate professor, Voronezh Economics and Law Institute, Voronezh, Russia
The history of juvenile delinquents can be described as cruel and unfair. This assessment concerns several eras of human life - from the ancient world and the Middle Ages to the middle of the 19th century.
The sword of justice was punitive towards minors, this can be judged by the content of some historical and legal sources and the following general points:
- - in the jurisprudence of those times, there was no legal concept of childhood as a specially protected period of a person's life;
- - as a consequence of this, the legal acts do not reveal the legal rules for the special protection of children and adolescents in court, after their release from them. It can even be assumed that the lawyers of antiquity, the Middle Ages and early "capitalism" were not interested in child criminals as an independent demographic group.
Accordingly, the cruelty of the court towards minors was manifested in the fact that if they committed illegal acts, in their legal status were equated with adult criminals. We all understand that the same punishment for a 9-year-old child and an adult hits harder than a child.
And yet it cannot be stated categorically and unequivocally that Roman law, later legal acts the Middle Ages and even more so the legislation of the 18-19 centuries. in general, did not leave us any legal evidence that there were attempts to protect minors from severe punishment for the act committed. To be convinced of the opposite, it is necessary to recall some of the provisions of Roman law. Let's start with the norms civil law... This is due to the fact that judicial protection of minors historically arose in civil, and not in criminal law.
In the 1920s, there was again a reorientation of legislation and practice towards judicial forms fight against juvenile delinquency. In the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR (revised in 1923), a post-revolutionary model of Russian juvenile justice was formulated, which included the rules for the jurisdiction of juvenile cases, the requirements for the professional selection of lay assessors and the time frame for the consideration of cases.
At present, the problems associated with the growth of juvenile delinquency are becoming extremely acute. 80% of offenses committed by adolescents are grave and especially grave crimes.
The current judicial system was not ready to guarantee the child's right to a timely, high-quality and impartial consideration of a criminal case against his competent judicial authority, which is enshrined in Art. 40 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by Russia. Without a radical improvement in juvenile justice, it is impossible to talk about the fairness of justice in our country. This situation can be changed only by creating independent juvenile courts, juvenile courts and the all-round development of juvenile justice in the system of courts of general jurisdiction.
Until 1909 in Russia there were no special courts for imperfect summer. In 1909, the St. Petersburg patronage society established the institution of a sole judge for children. in Russia, the institution of a sole judge had many defects. It was a summary jurisdiction that had no legal basis in Russian legislation. Apparently, therefore, she did not bring the expected increased legal protection of minors in court. It held out with difficulty until 1910, when an autonomous juvenile court was created.
The first juvenile court in Russia was opened in St. Petersburg on January 22, 1910. In Russia, the functions of a juvenile judge were carried out by a special magistrate. When creating the courts in question in Russia, their competence included the implementation of the tasks of criminal prosecution not only of juvenile criminals, but also of adult instigators. They also carried out, as already noted, judicial supervision over child welfare institutions.
Judge
- consideration of juvenile cases by a single judge;
-election of a juvenile judge, like any magistrate, among the population living in the territory of the judicial district;
-requiring the judge's knowledge of child psychology; therefore, doctors and teachers were preferred for this position;
- a fairly wide range of cases referred to the competence of the court in question;
- lack of publicity of the trial;
- lack of a formal trial, formal accusation of a crime;
-simplified judicial procedure, which basically boiled down to a conversation between a judge and a teenager with the participation of a trustee;
- the predominant use, as a measure of influence, guardianship (according to statistics - in 70% of cases).
Part 2 of Art. 137 of the Code of Criminal and Correctional Punishments provided for a preferential regime for the implementation of criminal liability for minors between the ages of 10 and 17 who had committed crimes "without understanding." For them, it was envisaged to return to responsible supervision, at the discretion of the court, either to their parents, or to persons in whose care the adolescents are (and who have expressed their consent to this). If imprisonment is stipulated for a crime, “minors may be taken to juvenile correctional institutions where these institutions are set up.” According to this article, in localities where there are no juvenile correctional institutions or in the event of a shortage of places in them, minors between the ages of 10 and 18, recognized by the court as having committed crimes “without understanding”, could be sent “for correction” for a period determined by the court, but no more than until they reach 18 years of age, to the monasteries of their religion. Obviously, this happened in cases of consent of the abbots of monasteries.
In 1918, due to the current situation in the country, the "children's courts" were liquidated and their cases were transferred to a non-judicial body - the commission on minors (1918-1920), as well as the judicial opinion for minors was also canceled. the competence of the commissions included the release of minors from criminal liability and sending them to one of the "shelters" of the People's Commissariat of Public Charity. foreseen the transfer of the minor "along with the case" to the people's judge, and in a very peculiar form and in certain cases: in case of persistent relapses, systematic escapes from orphanages, a clear danger for others to leave the minor at large, if the application of medical and educational measures to him is deemed insufficient ... And, nevertheless, already in 1920, the legislation was changed and the prosecution of minors for dangerous crimes was restored. These crimes could not disappear on their own, and the commissions on juvenile affairs did not have a sufficiently effective legal basis or appropriate legal means... All this gave rise to the Decree of March 4, 1920, which restored "in rights" the judicial jurisdiction in cases of minors. The decree also provided for, as general rule, the transfer of cases of minors aged 14 to 18 years to the people's court, if the commission on juvenile affairs has concluded that it is impossible to apply medical and educational measures to them. A footnote to the Decree provided for the separation of these minors from adults.
Children's justice was restored, but the court was not autonomous and the sentence was less. There are no social workers in children's courts
Modern model juvenile justice in Russia
The turning point in the formation of the juvenile justice system in Russia was the decision of the Plenum The Supreme Court RF dated February 14, 2000 No. 7 "O jurisprudence in cases of juvenile offenses ", in which the courts are recommended to apply to minors the provisions of Article 76 of the Criminal Code Russian Federation, which provides for "exemption from criminal liability in connection with reconciliation with the victim."
Chapter 22, adopted in 2008. Family Code RF, provides for the removal from families of children "in a difficult life situation", recognizing them as left without parental care, with their subsequent placement in special institutions for placement in new families.
Article 156 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Failure to fulfill the duties of raising a minor" brings citizens to criminal responsibility (up to three years imprisonment) for failure to fulfill the duties of raising a minor, associated with cruel treatment with him, in fact, prohibiting the practice of domestic punishment.
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/
The history of the development of juvenile justice in Russia
Dyachenko Mikhail Alexandrovich
Juvenile justice appeared in Russia before the revolution. Of course, no specific term was used to refer to this activity, but on January 22, 1910, the first juvenile court was created in St. Petersburg. The functions of a juvenile judge were carried out by a special justice of the peace, whose competence included cases of crimes of minors and adult instigators of adolescents. It should be noted that the issues of civil and guardianship proceedings to the jurisdiction this court did not apply. Judges supervised the work of institutions that take care of juvenile delinquents, and later (1913) cases of street minors under the age of 17 were included in their jurisdiction. By 1912, juvenile courts operated in Kharkov, Odessa and a number of other large cities.
Proceedings in such courts were characterized by the following features:
Consideration of juvenile cases by the sole judge of the peace;
Election of him, like any magistrate, among the population living in the judicial district;
Professional training of a judge, including knowledge of child psychology;
Sufficiently broad subject matter jurisdiction of this court;
Confidentiality of litigation;
Lack of formal judicial act;
Lack of formal judicial procedure;
Simplified legal proceedings, which basically boiled down to a conversation between a judge and a teenager with the participation of his trustee;
The use of guardianship as the main measure of influence;
Appealing the decision of the juvenile courts to the special department of the congresses of justices of the peace ( appellate instance on the decision of the justices of the peace).
The criminal legislation of those times contained protective norms concerning minors, according to which minors from the age of 10 were subjected to prosecution (Article 137 of the Code of Criminal and Correctional Punishments). Part 2 of this article provided for a preferential treatment of criminal liability for minors and between the ages of 10 and 17 who have committed a crime “without understanding”.
Also, the law provided for special clarifications regarding minors who committed a crime “with reason”. Most of them were sent to juvenile correctional facilities. If it was impossible to place them in these institutions, they were confined in special premises arranged for them in prisons or houses under those arrested on the basis of sentences of justices of the peace for a period not exceeding 18 years of age.
Speaking about the legal basis of juvenile justice of this period, we must not forget about the law of July 2, 1897 "On juvenile and juvenile criminals" from 17 to 21 years old.
The law was assessed Russian lawyers of that time, as clearly reactionary, and its abolition by the decree of the Soviet government of January 17, 1918 was welcomed by both adherents of liberal views and supporters Soviet power... juvenile justice russia minor
Autonomous Russian justice was replaced by another system by the decree of the Council of People's Commissars of Russia dated January 17, 1918, which seemed to its creators more humane and adapted to the treatment of children and adolescents.
The transformations began in January 1918 and were continued two years later, in March 1920.
The Decree of January 17, 1918 "On the Commissions for Minors" abolished imprisonment and juvenile courts.
The created commissions for juvenile affairs were under the jurisdiction of the People's Commissariat of Public Charity and included representatives of three departments: public charity, education and justice. A doctor was an obligatory member of the commission.
The competence of the commissions included releasing minors from responsibility or sending them, in accordance with the nature of the act, to the institutions of the People's Commissariat of Public Charity.
The meetings of the commissions on minors were public, open to the press, which, however, was prohibited from publishing the names of minors.
It should be noted that the commissions on minors adopted the experience of the courts of pre-revolutionary Russia regarding the organization of social services for the study of the personality and living conditions of minors.
The predominant participation of persons without professional legal skills in commission meetings reduced legal literacy their activities, and, accordingly, the protection of minors. It will not be superfluous to note that this flaw, despite serious changes, has survived to this day.
Committing by adolescents not only minor offenses, but quite serious crimes gave rise to the need to restore the institution of juvenile trials.
In February 1920, a draft decree "On the trial of minors" was developed and submitted to the government for consideration. It was approved by a decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR on March 4, 1920.
In contrast to the decree of January 17, 1918, this decree allowed the transfer of cases of minors between the ages of 14 and 18 to the people's court, provided that the commission on minors established the impossibility of applying medical and pedagogical measures.
In the 20s. marked a new reorientation of legislation and practice towards judicial forms of combating juvenile delinquency.
The Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR (revised in 1923) included a post-revolutionary model of Russian juvenile justice, defining the rules for the jurisdiction of juvenile cases, requirements for the professional selection of people's assessors, and the time frame for considering cases.
For the first time, a rule was formulated on the obligatory presence of a defense lawyer when considering cases of crimes committed by minors. However, this model was not fixed in Soviet legislation, and regulations 30-40s reveal a clear trend towards a punitive reorientation of juvenile justice.
The formal borderline of redirecting the criminal policy towards minors can be considered the decree of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR dated April 7, 1935 "On measures to combat juvenile delinquency." It was in effect for 24 years and was canceled only in 1959 in connection with the introduction of new criminal and criminal procedure legislation. By the decree of April 7, 1935, the age of criminal responsibility for a significant part of the offenses was reduced to 12 years. The principle of applying all types of punishment to minors was restored in in full, the article on the mandatory application of medical and pedagogical measures to juvenile offenders and on the preferential application of these measures to minors was canceled. Article 38 on the separation of juvenile cases into separate proceedings and their referral to commissions for minors was excluded from the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure. By the decree of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of June 20, 1935, these commissions themselves were liquidated. In the period 1938-1941, law enforcement acts concerning minors began to be issued much less often, and the content of those published became more and more punitive. In 1941, the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR "On the application by the courts of the resolution of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of April 7, 1935" On measures to combat juvenile delinquency "was adopted. The decree prescribed to apply the resolution of April 7, 1935, not only for deliberate crimes of minors, but also for crimes committed through negligence.
All the legislative and law enforcement acts discussed above revealed the punitive orientation of juvenile justice over a long period - from 1935 to the end of the 50s. They became invalid due to the adoption of new criminal and criminal procedure legislation of the USSR and the Union republics in 1958-1961.
Bibliography
2. Code of laws Russian Empire... T. XV. 1909 g.
3. Resolution of the CEC and the Council of People's Commissars No. 3/598 "On measures to combat juvenile delinquency" of April 7, 1935
Posted on Allbest.ru
...Similar documents
Juvenile justice: concept and origin. Today is the day of juvenile justice in the Russian Federation. The main problems of formation and development. Rostov regional model of juvenile justice. Prospects for juvenile justice in Russia.
term paper added on 05.24.2005
The main stages of the formation of the institution of juvenile justice in Russia. The practice of implementing a restorative approach in juvenile justice. Institute for reconciliation of parties in criminal law. Objectives of a restorative approach to juvenile justice.
test, added 01/13/2017
The concept and history of juvenile justice. Prevention of juvenile delinquency. Special training juvenile judges. Features of the juvenile justice system in Sweden. Prohibiting corporal punishment of children. State patronage services.
test, added 12/08/2013
Models and approaches to juvenile justice in the United States that have been applied in different periods time. A History of Juvenile Justice in Canada. Modern juvenile justice in countries Romano-Germanic system law (on the example of the countries of Latin America and Germany).
test, added 01/13/2017
Special system juvenile justice in conflict with criminal law. Minority in juvenile justice. The main approaches to the definition of the concept of delinquency of minors. Paradigms of juvenile justice.
test, added 01/13/2017
Stages of formation of juvenile justice in the West and the United States - the birthplace of juvenile justice, analysis of the development of juvenile justice. Juvenile justice of pre-revolutionary Russia. Prevention of juvenile delinquency in Russia.
thesis, added 01/06/2010
The essence, characteristics and procedure for administering juvenile justice in accordance with international legal standards. Purpose, functions, possible model of juvenile justice in Russia, main problems and prospects for its development.
term paper added 01/08/2016
The history of the formation of juvenile justice in Russia, its basic principles, functions and international standards... Identification of the problems of juvenile justice and bodies that ensure the protection of their rights and interests on the example of the Rostov region.
thesis, added 10/13/2010
Prospects for the development of juvenile justice in Russia. Recovery social relations violated as a result of the crime. Resocialization of minors, limitation of the field of action of punitive technologies due to the participation of citizens in social control.
abstract, added 10/20/2009
Juvenile justice - juvenile justice in conflict with criminal law: history, concept, principles and objectives. Features and disadvantages of specialized judicial legal system protection of the rights of minors in Sweden.
Small Academy of Sciences MBOU
"South-Russian Lyceum of the Cossacks and Peoples of the Caucasus"
Section social sciences
Researcher : student of grade 11 B MBOU "YURLK and NK"
the city - resort of Zheleznovodsk
Belyaeva Maria
supervisor : Albert Oksana Ivanovna
the resort town of Zheleznovodsk
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………… ... 3
Chapter 1 Juvenile justice ……………………………………………………………… .4
1.1. The history of the emergence of juvenile justice ………………………………………… ..4
1.2. The modern model of juvenile justice in Russia …………………………………… 7
1.3. Problems of the formation of juvenile justice in the Russian Federation …………………………………… ..8
Chapter 2: Society's View of the Problem of Juvenile Justice ............................................. 10
2.1. Arguments “for” and “against” the introduction of juvenile justice ………………………… .10
2.2. Representatives of traditional confessions on juvenile justice ..................... 12
2.3. Revealing the level of knowledge of adolescents, their parents and teachers about the system
juvenile justice ……………………………………………………………………… 13
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………… ..14
References …………………………………………………………………………… 15
Appendix 1 ……………………………………………………………………………… 16
Appendix 2 ……………………………………………………………………………… 17
Appendix 3 ……………………………………………………………………………… 18
Appendix 4 ……………………………………………………………………………… 19
Introduction.
In recent years, due to the crisis in the socio-economic situation in our country, the level of morality and culture is inevitably falling, and this affects the young generation most of all. The overwhelming majority of children in the Russian Federation have a legal culture extremely low. This leads to a large number of crimes committed by children, and the number of serious crimes is growing dynamically. The existing principle states that not knowledge of the law does not exempt one from responsibility, but the majority of offenses committed by children and adolescents is precisely because of ignorance of the law. Children do not think about the subsequent responsibility, because they don't know anything about her. Another side of the problem is that children do not know their rights and how to protect them. This leads to the fact that they protect them by any known means other than legal.
Society, the adult part, is faced with the objective task of forming legal awareness in children from an early age. To solve this, a system must be created state support and prevention, which explained to the child his rights and responsibilities at an accessible level.
Respect for human rights begins with respect for the rights of the child. The lack of due attention from the state to the problem of children can well be qualified as non-compliance by Russia individual provisions The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The problem of creating juvenile justice in Russia is becoming more and more urgent, although the term "justice that protects the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of minors" is more understandable and accurate.
Unfortunately, even among the most qualified scientists and specialists in the field of developing legislation on adults, there is still no consensus on what juvenile justice is and how necessary it is in Russia. Most ordinary citizens have not even heard of this branch of law. Those who get to know it through the mass media (including the Internet) most often form a negative opinion about juvenile justice. Based on this, our work today is quite new and very relevant.
Starting the study, we assumed the following hypothesis: adolescents are poorly informed about the juvenile justice system, have not formed their attitude towards it.
Subject of study in this work - the juvenile justice system in the Russian Federation.
Object of study- the level of knowledge of adolescents, their parents and teachers about the juvenile justice system.
The purpose of our work- identification of the level of knowledge of adolescents, their parents and teachers about the juvenile justice system. To achieve this goal, we had to decide the following tasks:
1. to get acquainted with the legal framework of juvenile justice in the Russian Federation;
2. to conduct a survey of adolescents, their parents and teachers;
3. analyze the questionnaires;
4. make a conclusion about the level of knowledge about juvenile justice.
In our work, we used following methods:
* study of literature and legislation;
* questioning;
* analysis of questionnaires.
Chapter 1. Juvenile justice
1.1 History of the emergence of juvenile justice
It is known that knowledge of the history of the subject of research gives you the key to understanding its essence and the prospects for its development. This applies especially to juvenile justice. Without knowing its history, it is very difficult to understand all its specifics: why it was not there, and why it arose; why it "deviates" from the general procedural canons and, precisely for this reason, is considered effective; why, finally, it is she who considers the prototype of the justice of the future.
The history of juvenile delinquents can be described as cruel and unfair. In the jurisprudence of those times, there was no legal concept of childhood as a specially protected period of a person's life. As a consequence of this, in legal acts we do not find legal rules for the special protection of children and adolescents in court, in prisons, after their release from them. It can even be assumed that the lawyers of antiquity, the Middle Ages, and even “early” capitalism, were not interested in child criminals as an independent demographic group. They presented themselves to them as adults or did not introduce themselves to anyone. Accordingly, the cruelty of the law and the court towards minors was manifested in the fact that, if they committed unlawful misconduct, in their legal status they were equated with adult criminals.
Only the second half of the 19th century. marked a gradual but steady change in traditional attitudes towards juvenile delinquents. In the United States, attempts have been made to alleviate the fate of children and adolescents who find themselves in the orbit of justice.
But these were only isolated attempts that did not radically change the overall punitive direction of the criminal policy towards minors. A radical change came only at the very end of the 19th century. And it ended with the creation of a special juvenile court. The court was established on July 2, 1899 in Chicago (Illinois). And July 2 was immediately proclaimed a historic day, when the progressive forces of the US legal community won their victory. Of course, this turn in the history of justice was not unexpected. They fought for it, they tried to prove the need to create juvenile justice. But some external impetus, an impulse, was needed to make it clear that without special juvenile justice, the fight against child and youth crime
doomed to failure. And this impulse appeared in the form of an unprecedented increase in juvenile delinquency at the very end of the 19th century. Europe of the late XIX - early XX centuries. was literally flooded with hordes of young vagabonds and delinquents. The then existing means of combating crime, even in those days, were assessed as ineffective. The rise in juvenile delinquency turned out to be a serious argument in favor of the creation of juvenile justice, which was already discussed not only in America, but also in Europe. The US example of creating its first juvenile court was followed by other countries and after a short period of time national juvenile courts emerged in different countries.
The creation of juvenile courts immediately revealed a different approach in different countries to the type of this jurisdiction. At the very beginning, many options began to appear. Autonomous juvenile justice did not appear in all countries where juvenile courts were established. Two options have become quite clear: an autonomous court, not associated with the general court, and the composition of the general court, which has received the functions of considering cases of minors. Further, the system developed, undergoing various changes under the influence of both a general nature and difficulties within individual countries.
USA.
The legal situation in this country has put forward two basic requirements at once for juvenile justice: the specialization of legal proceedings and simplification of the judicial process. The creators of American juvenile justice conceived of their specialization in the following forms: hearing cases of minors in special premises, separately from cases of adult defendants; isolation of minors from adults in places preliminary detention; the allocation of a specialized juvenile judge to hear such cases. The simplification of the judicial process in juvenile cases was justified by the need to reduce the harmful effect on children and adolescents of the very procedure for considering cases in court.
An important feature of the American juvenile court was that it was entrusted with managing institutions for the supervision of minors. Before the creation of "children's" courts, these functions were performed by volunteers in the United States. The difficulties of the first steps of juvenile courts in the United States were primarily due to the fact that, according to opponents of the nascent juvenile justice, they came into conflict with the Bill of Rights (1-10 amendments to the US Constitution).
Also, the rule of considering juvenile cases in closed court hearings was also criticized for "unconstitutionality". The educational orientation of the judicial activity itself in the courts in question was quite unusual for those times. It must be said that it was at the beginning of their journey that the juvenile courts followed this orientation rigorously and received, according to contemporaries, quick positive results.
England.
With all the similarities between the models of juvenile justice in the United States and England and Wales, as in countries belonging to the same system of law, they (models) have historically developed certain features that have increased over the years, creating a significant distance between the American and English courts for minors. ... In England, the proliferation of juvenile courts went on very quickly.
Weak centralization judiciary in England, it contributed to a large extent. The first juvenile courts were established in England in 1909.
Also in 1909 a law was issued, which was called the "Children's Charter".
France.
This country occupies a special place in the continental system of law. It is characterized by clear legislative regulation of the judicial process. The construction of its judicial system is distinguished by a significantly more rigid structure compared to the systems of the countries of Anglo-Saxon (common) law and even other countries belonging to continental law.This is due to the significant contribution to French law of the Constitution of France and the classical codes of Napoleon, primarily criminal, criminal procedure and civil (180 and 1810). Naturally, on such a legal basis, a model of the American juvenile court could not be formed, more social than legal.
In France, a jury has always occupied too much of a place at all times to simply cede its possession to a "children's" court. And therefore, only in France, from the very beginning, was it envisaged to create, in addition to a sole judge, also a jury in cases of
minors.
Juvenile justice in France appeared later than in other European countries, and it took considerable efforts of the lawyers of this country to enforce this new system justice.
The historical episode of the appearance of a "children's" court in France was also unusual. Strange as it may seem, but the first who started "propaganda" of this court was not a lawyer at all, but an engineer Edouard Juilier, who visited the United States and, upon returning to his homeland, made a report on this topic in February 1906 in the Parisian social museum. Courts for minors in France were created by the Law of July 22, 1912, which entered into force only in March 1914. So France was one of the last among the European countries to create their own juvenile justice.
Germany.
Here, as well as in France, the dissemination of the American experience of organizing juvenile courts began with a report on it. Made it in July 1907 at the Frankfurt Law Society, Professor Freudenthal. Freudenthal's project was the basis for the organization of the first juvenile court in Germany. This court was established on January 1, 1908 in Frankfurt. Unlike the juvenile courts in the United States, England and France, the German - Frankfurt - court was not autonomous. In the Frankfurt court, publicity was not limited, but its sessions were held in a special room, separate from other divisions of the general court. The guardianship functions in the juvenile court were assumed by the members of the child welfare unions. On behalf of the court, they provided him with information about the living conditions of the underage defendants.
By a court decision, they took on the responsibility of taking care of the adolescents left at large.
Russia.
The history of juvenile justice in Russia should be given special attention, and not only because it is the history of our country. What is important here is the extraordinary fate of this branch of justice, which significantly influenced the model of juvenile justice that we have now. The first juvenile court in Russia was opened in St. Petersburg on January 22, 1910. Many Russian cities followed. The spread of the new judicial system was very rapid. At that time, the criminal legislation contained some protective norms concerning minors. According to this legislation, minors aged 10 years and older were prosecuted (Article 137 of the Code of Criminal and Correctional Punishments). Part 2 of this article provided for a preferential treatment of criminal liability for minors and between the ages of 10 and 17 who have committed a crime “without understanding”.
There were special clarifications in the law regarding minors who committed crimes “with reason”. They were sent primarily to juvenile correctional facilities. If it was impossible to place them in these institutions, they were imprisoned for a period determined by the court, but no longer than until they reached the age of eighteen, in special rooms arranged for them in prisons or houses for those arrested by judges of the magistrates.
In the laws of Russia at the end of the XIX century. Contained legal norms providing for the reduction of the severity of criminal punishment for minors. Both criminal and criminal procedural legislation contained provisions on increased legal protection of minors in comparison with adult defendants. At the same time, a significant amount of judicial discretion in these cases (resolving the issue of acting "with reason", passing sentences without a fixed time limit) - nevertheless, put minors in the position of persons not protected by the law.
Speaking about the legal basis of juvenile justice in Russia at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, one should not forget about one Russian law, which played a by no means a positive role in criminal policy towards minors. This is the law of July 2, 1897 "On juvenile and juvenile criminals."
In general, the Russian juvenile justice in the initial period of its development had potential legal opportunities to strengthen the punitive direction of the judicial policy in relation to minors. It is quite possible that this did not give the opportunity to pay more serious attention to young juvenile justice in the implementation of the first Russian decrees on the court.
The autonomous Russian juvenile justice ceased to exist by the decree of the Council of People's Commissars of Russia dated January 17, 1918, and was replaced by another system, which, in the opinion of its creators, was more humane, more adapted to the treatment of children and adolescents.
The hundred-year period of existence in the world of juvenile justice has shown that, in addition to its persistent preservation as a specific model of justice, significant changes took place in it, associated both with the influence of internal factors - the belonging of its various models to different legal systems, and in connection with the influence of external factors - criminal policy in relation to minors and the crimes they commit.
1.2. The modern model of juvenile justice in Russia
The draft Law on Juvenile Justice in the Russian Federation was developed within the framework of the federal presidential program for the implementation of judicial reform in the Russian Federation.
The draft Law is based on the concept of juvenile justice, its principles and basic institutions.
The draft Law on Juvenile Justice in Russia includes the following articles.
In Article 1, the concept of juvenile justice is formulated as follows: “Juvenile justice is a judicial system that administers juvenile justice and has the following tasks: judicial protection the rights and legitimate interests of minors and the trial of juvenile delinquency and crime cases ”.
In the Law, juvenile justice is considered as a part of the general justice system, which implements its tasks on a common legal basis with it. Therefore, general constitutional principles apply to juvenile justice, as well as the provisions of sectoral laws regulating the administration of justice in Russia (Article 2 of the draft Law).
At the same time, the draft Law in Art. 3 defines juvenile justice as a specific subsystem of justice. This specificity in the project is associated with the concept of a minor as special subject legal protection and prosecution.
Article 4 of the draft Law proclaims the priority of judicial protection of the rights and legitimate interests of minors (Article 5 of the draft). This means that all decisions concerning the rights and legitimate interests of minors in the framework of juvenile justice are made only by the juvenile court.
This is a categorical priority requirement. judgment before all the others received the following development in the text of Art. 5: the transfer of such cases by the court to non-judicial administrative bodies is not allowed, as well as the adoption by them of decisions concerning legal protection rights and legitimate interests of minors. Non-judicial administrative bodies may be brought by the court to provide himassistance in carrying out auxiliary, determined by the court itself, actions.
Judicial supervision over the execution of sentences on the punishment of minors to imprisonment and other measures of influence related to the restriction of their freedom can also become a legal novelty. Judicial supervision is attributed to the competence of the juvenile court (Article 5, paragraph 2).
The juvenile court is declared a complex jurisdiction court. In general, the competence of such a court corresponds to that provided for in the current juvenile justice options for the family court. There is also a feature in the project: the juvenile court can act as a court of civil jurisdiction, considering civil cases on claims of minors and their legal representatives for encroachments on property, personal non-property, labor rights minors and other cases of civil jurisdiction concerning minors (Article 7 of the draft Law).
The draft Law provides for a collegial juvenile court (Article 12) and a jury for juvenile cases (Article 13). The draft Law on Juvenile Justice in the Russian Federation also includes chapters on the participants in juvenile proceedings, legal proceedings in these cases, and the imposition by the court of measures of influence (punishment and compulsory measures of educational influence) against juvenile offenders.
1.3 .Problems of becomingjuvenilejustice in the Russian Federation
Currently in legal science more and more often there are proposals to allocate new industry law that would regulate special subject- legal relations with the participation of minors. Due to the complication of life, more and more new previously unregulated ones appear. legal problems.
Indeed, during the formation of domestic legislation, the issue of protecting the interests of children was practically not given a place. The history of domestic family law rather testifies to their cruel infringement.
Obviously, there really is a lack of protection for minors. The new industry proposal stems in part from the lag in industry disciplines such as civil, criminal, family law and procedural disciplines that are struggling to keep pace with dynamic reality. While the problems of young people require prompt intervention, rather than the expected changes in the current legislation, already well-established traditional branches of law.
One of the mechanisms aimed at creating effective mechanisms for the protection of children's rights is juvenile justice. Juvenile justice should be distinguished from juvenile justice. Legal proceedings are a combination of state institutions and legal regulations, while justice, in our understanding, provides for participation and not state structures(advocacy, social workers from non-state structures, other state and non-state institutions) and the obligation to implement certain social and legal procedures.
The main task of juvenile justice is to protect the rights of children, and not just try cases of juvenile delinquency. When a special judge considers all cases related to the problems of children, he begins to better understand the reasons that give rise to juvenile delinquency and begins to take into account the personality traits of the young offender, the circumstances that led him to commit the offender. And it is unlikely that such a judge will send to jail a teenager who committed petty theft because he was hungry.
It should also be noted that in today's Russia there are many government agencies deals with the problems of children in a particular area of their life and activities: courts, prosecutors, departments for the prevention of juvenile delinquency (DPPU), commissions on juvenile affairs (CDN), guardianship and guardianship departments, health authorities, education and many others.
Juvenile justice in Russia is a specialized judicial and legal system for the protection of minors' rights that was created (up to 2010 inclusive) in Russia.
It was planned that this system should be represented both by state bodies administering justice in cases of delinquency committed by minors, and by state and non-state structures carrying out control over the correction and rehabilitation of juvenile offenders and the prevention of child crime, social protection of families and the rights of minors.
In Russia, work on the implementation of juvenile justice is carried out within the framework of the European Social Charter, which enshrines a number of social human rights, as well as on the basis of the ratified Convention on the Rights of the Child and its provisions regarding the administration of juvenile justice.
The principles of juvenile justice in Russia were first legislatively enshrined in 1995 by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation B.N. Yeltsin No. 942 of 09/14/1995, which approved the "National Action Plan for Children," according to which, among the measures to strengthen the legal protection of children, the creation of a juvenile justice system is envisaged.
In 1998, the Federal Law "On Basic Guarantees of the Rights of the Child in the Russian Federation" was adopted, which introduced the concept of "children in difficult life situations", which, in particular, included: children living in poor families; children with behavioral deviations, as well as children whose vital activity is objectively impaired as a result of the current circumstances and who cannot overcome these circumstances on their own or with the help of their families.
A turning point in the formation of the juvenile justice system in Russia was the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of February 14, 2000 No. 7 "On judicial practice in cases of juvenile crimes", in which the courts are recommended to apply to minors the provisions of Article 76 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for "exemption from criminal liability in connection with reconciliation with the victim."
Chapter 22 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, adopted in 2008, provides for the removal from families of children "in difficult life situations", recognizing them as left without parental care, with their subsequent placement in special institutions for placement in new families.
Article 156 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Failure to fulfill the duties of raising a minor" brings citizens to criminal responsibility (up to three years in prison) for failure to fulfill the duties of raising a minor, associated with cruel treatment with him, which actually prohibits the practice of domestic punishment.
In 2009, new positions were introduced for child rights ombudsmen under the President and governors of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.
In February 2011, the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of February 1, 2011 No. 1 "On judicial practice in the application of legislation governing the peculiarities of criminal responsibility and punishment of minors" was approved, which, in particular, explains the specifics of criminal responsibility and punishment of minors, provides a list of international acts that should be taken into account by the courts when considering such cases. From the position of juvenile justice, great importance is attached to paragraph 44 of this Resolution, according to which “courts should increase the educational value litigation in cases of juvenile crimes, paying special attention to their preventive impact: for each case, establish the reasons and conditions that contributed to the commission of juvenile crimes, do not leave unresponsive installed in court session shortcomings and omissions in the work of commissions on minors' affairs and protection of their rights, educational institutions and public organizations, to issue private rulings (resolutions) indicating specific circumstances ”.
Chapter 2.Society's view on the problem of juvenile justice
2.1. Arguments "for" and "against" the introduction of juvenile justice in Russia.
The institution of the family is in a deep crisis. Now, instead of helping the family, it is proposed to remove children from it and provide them with targeted assistance, to save children from their parents, from poverty.
Juvenile justice is not one bill, but a whole system of amendments to current legislature... All over the country there is a wave of protests against the introduction of juvenile law; in addition to a purely emotional assessment, the competent opinion of specialists is extremely important.
Lawyers believe that the Draft Federal Law No. 198484-5 "On Amendments to the Federal Law" On Basic Guarantees of the Rights of the Child in the Russian Federation "and certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation in order to ensure guarantees of children's rights to proper upbringingit is proposed that the principle public policy in the interests of children, the principle of priority of the rights and interests of the child in relation to the constitutional rights and freedoms of other categories of citizens. Meanwhile, The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child does not prioritize children's rights over the constitutional rights and freedoms of others, including parents. The Constitution of the Russian Federation does not allow this either.
According to subparagraph 9 of paragraph 2 of this article, the child's right to proper upbringingincludes the right to safety and protection from abuse or insult, physical or mental abuse, exploitation. And the child's right to be cared for,
includes "providing the child with the standard of living necessary for his physical, mental, social, spiritual and moral development, his material content, including the provision of food, clothing, shoes, housing, as well as caring for a young child."
According to paragraph 5 of Article 8.1 of the new edition of the Federal Law, proposed by this bill, “for improper upbringing of a child, failure to fulfill the obligation to maintain, raise a child, protect him legal rights and interests of the parents, as well as the persons on whom the said duties are entrusted by law or by agreement, are responsible, stipulated by law Russian Federation".
The adoption of this bill will make it possible to deprive parental rights or restrict parental rights, as well as to take the child away from the parents without a court decision, if they improperly raise their child, including failing to provide an appropriate material standard of living.
Juvenile justice will turn family relations into a battle for children between parents and the state. Children will feel too much freedom of action for their age, which will also lead to irreversible negative consequences.
Parents must choose for themselves how to bring up their child, of course, within the limits of the law and moral and ethical standards. And deprivation of parental rights should be carried out in extreme cases, as is done now.
Thus, juvenile justice will prohibit any punishment of children, leads to unjustified removal of children from their parents and is a mechanism for the destruction of the family.
On the other hand, it is necessary to radically improve the legislation governing the activities of bodies and institutions of the prevention system and the very work of these bodies and institutions, to introduce modern juvenile technologies into the practice of these bodies and institutions, to clearly define the mechanism of interaction between social services (bodies of the system of prevention of neglect and juvenile delinquency). ) with the court.
Unfortunately, in the Russian Federation, the protection of the rights of minors, as a branch of social policy and social law, is extremely poorly developed. The status of the commissions for affairs of minors and the protection of their rights, as the main coordinating body of the system for the prevention of neglect and delinquency of minors, has not been sufficiently regulated at the federal level.
Juvenile justice (specializing in criminal and civil affairs, according to which one of the parties is a minor), as an independent subsystem of general justice, is absent.
We need a specialization of the judicial system in the consideration of criminal cases on crimes in which the victims are children. For them, the criminal process is psychologically traumatic.
Not created legal basis to provide the necessary assistance and support directly to children who are victims of crimes, including victims of sexual crimes, such a system that would include measures to provide them with psychological assistance, mitigate post-traumatic stress disorder, accompany and support children in the implementation of criminal justice procedures (with going through the procedures preliminary investigation, judicial trial). The courtrooms in which criminal cases of crimes in which the victims of crimes are children are considered do not provide for the possibility of excluding the psycho-traumatic contact of the victim with the offender.
Specialization of justice is required when considering civil cases with the participation of minors, first of all, cases arising from marriage and family relations, as well as cases on the protection of the rights of minors. The lack of specialization of judges in the consideration of family cases with the participation of minors leads to the fact that such cases are considered formally, the lawsuits of the guardianship and guardianship authorities for deprivation of parental rights are usually satisfied by the courts, while other, milder response measures are practically not used. , such as restriction of parental rights.
To remedy the situation, a normal system of child protection is needed, coordinated actions of all state structures, executive authorities, law enforcement agencies, public organizations are needed, aimed at strengthening prevention, on social rehabilitation and social adaptation of children in difficult life situations - such a system has become juvenile justice.
Juvenile criminal justice provides that the prevention of juvenile delinquency is possible, first of all, through upbringing and education, since without this no measures of coercion, intimidation or punishment will prevent a relapse. Minor groups risks need special attention: a minor suspect, accused, defendant and convict have the right to help and respect for human dignity and human rights, punishment of a minor should not be punishment, revenge, but should contribute to correction.
Thus, we can draw conclusions: to understand the essence of juvenile justice, find out its main features and identify all controversial issues, you need to consider it from different sides.
The main task of juvenile justice is to protect the rights of children.
Juvenile justice must ensure effective prevention of juvenile delinquency.
It is necessary to create a system that will not contradict the judicial and legal. Relying on the western analogue and taking into account the historical peculiarities The Russian state.
Since the founding of the Russian Federation, work has been under way to introduce new principles of juvenile justice into the Russian judicial system. Since 2000, this process has been actively continued and met with significant resistance from the public.
According to opponents of juvenile justice, its norms are in conflict with the national Russian mentality, spirituality and traditional culture, since the equalization of the rights of parents and children, offered by juvenile justice, leads to destabilization (destruction) not only of the family and school, but of the entire system of social relationships.
Some Russian media outlets believe Western-style juvenile technology has split Russians into two camps.
It is believed that as a result of a significant expansion of the powers of workers in juvenile structures (courts and social services), as well as a very broad interpretation of the rights of the child, the likelihood of uncontrolled interference of these structures in the affairs of individual families increases. As a result, the juvenile authorities endowed with broad powers are able to seize, including, according to some media outlets, grossly violating the law, any child from any family for any, the most absurd reason, and also dictate to parents how to bring up children, since the principles juvenile justice presupposes the upbringing of children mainly by the society (psychologists, doctors, teachers), and not by their parents.
There is also an opinion that the rejection of juvenile justice in Russia is associated with the erroneous use of this term by some public, political and religious figures to denote the norms of family law and the protection of children's rights, regulating the actions of state bodies in cases of threats to the life and health of a child. Selected cases deprivation of parental rights and removal of children from families were declared the implementation of the principles of juvenile justice in Russia. We are talking about measures to implement the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which provides for both the creation of a juvenile justice system and other measures to protect and implement children's rights.
We decided to find out if our students, parents and teachers know about juvenile justice and what is their attitude towards this system.
2.2 Representatives of traditional confessions on juvenile justice.
In Russia, the issue of introducing juvenile justice, a special body for the protection of minors' rights, is being actively discussed.
Igor Beloborodov, Director of the Institute for Demographic Research, Vice-President of the Charitable Foundation for the Protection of Family, Motherhood and Childhood, said in this regard: foundations that are unacceptable from a legal or moral point of view. "
What do the representatives of traditional confessions think about this, in which cases the state has the right to interfere in the affairs of the family, and in which not?
"State interference in family affairs will lead to bad consequences," said Ismail Berdiev, chairman of the Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Karachay-Cherkessia and Stavropol Territory.
“A child, first of all, should be afraid, love and respect his parents, obey them implicitly - then everything will be fine. If he is given the opportunity to complain about his parents to some strangers, he will not grow up normal. or drug addicts - here the state must intervene, protect the child. But so far there is nothing of the kind - there is no need to get into the family's affairs, "Berdiev believes, reports Regions.
“The family is the basis of society, a part of the Kingdom of God on Earth. The family should be treated with awe, and there is a wave of attacks against it, it is opposed to a“ free way of life, ”said Priest Alexander Dobrodeyev, head of the sector for interaction with the armed forces and law enforcement... - "This led to the fact that now in Russia there are about 4 million homeless children - more than during the Civil and Great Patriotic Wars." “If we are to introduce juvenile justice, then we need it to achieve a healthy upbringing of children, and not in words, but in deeds. Now we have 20,000 orphanages and 2,000 juvenile colonies. 90% of children from orphanages then end up to prison: this is a system of state education of criminals. And for God, every person is valuable, "he concluded.
"Let's hope that juvenile justice will work well and that our children will thank us for it," said the chairman of the Jewish Congress. religious organizations and associations in Russia (KEROOR) Rabbi Zinovy Lvovich Kogan.
“It seems to me that juvenile justice can help us fix the imperfection of our juvenile laws. This structure will be able to put into practice the numerous laws that have been adopted on paper. hope that the number of orphanages in Russia will be reduced to a minimum, "he expressed hope.
“Children are the same people as adults: they have the same feelings, sufferings, desires, etc. parents considered their children their property. This is wrong: children - they not only belong to their parents, but also to the country in which they were born. Therefore, the state should protect their rights as strictly as possible. Parents who beat their children, leave them alone for a long time, do little to them upbringing - should be punished. At the same time, there should be no excesses - the state should intervene in family affairs only when there really is something wrong, "concluded Zinovy Lvovich.
2.3. Identification of the level of knowledge of adolescents, their parents and teachers about the juvenile justice system.
We have conducted a survey of students in the 8th and 9th grades of our school, their parents and teachers. Everyone was offered the same questionnaire (Appendix 1). After processing the answers of our respondents, we received the following data.
A total of 70 students participated in the survey. (Appendix 2).
12 pupils (17%) believe that children are the most vulnerable social group.
51 students (73% of respondents) believe that children and adolescents are sometimes defenseless.
According to 5 people (7%), minors always have protection in the person of their parents or other adults.
Found it difficult to answer - 2 people (3% of the respondents).
When asked where the rights of children are most often violated, the majority of respondents - 48% - answered “In public places”.
33% of respondents believe that children are often defenseless at school
It is believed that the rights of minors are most often violated in the family, only 6% of students, in court - 10%.
73% of the surveyed pupils answered affirmatively to the question whether it is necessary to better protect the rights of minors, 17% - negatively, 10% of pupils found it difficult to answer.
At the same time, less than half of our students - 41% - know about such a system for protecting their rights as juvenile justice, and 59% have never even heard of such a branch of law. We also found out what is positive about innovations in Russian legislation 62% of adolescents are treated, negatively - only 4%. But 34% have not yet formed their opinion. We assume that these indicators indicate poor awareness and low legal literacy of schoolchildren.
Thus, our hypothesis was confirmed.
The opinions of teachers and parents on the first three issues were generally the same as those of the students. (Appendix 3, Appendix 4). But adults are better informed about the juvenile justice system - 87% of the teachers surveyed and 78% of parents are aware of the state's desire to pay more attention to the problem of protecting the rights of minors. But teachers, by virtue of their professional activity in the majority have formed their attitude to the new branch of law for our country - 74% - positive and 13% negative. 30% of parents do not have an opinion yet.
Thus, our research has shown a low level of knowledge among adolescents about ways to protect their rights, as well as an attitude towards the juvenile justice system that has not been formed among the majority. We believe that the reason for this is the lack of awareness of the majority of the population. This is fraught with the fact that the situation in the field of legal protection of the rights of minors is unlikely to change in the near future, and public opinion will continue to be formed only as a result of the actions of opponents of changes in legislation and cases of arbitrariness of workers in social services.
To raise awareness of both students and their parents and teachers, we suggest:
1. Explain to children their rights and responsibilities.
2. To publish memos, booklets for children and their parents on this topic.
3.Conduct cool watch on the protection of children's rights, invite inspectors for juvenile affairs and other specialists competent in this matter.
Conclusion.
The introduction of juvenile justice in Russia is a very serious step, and this issue should not be resolved behind the backs of its citizens. Before the adoption of the relevant laws, a nationwide referendum is needed, so that everyone who wishes can familiarize themselves with their text and propose their own clarifications. The lack of clear criteria and formulations will lead to the arbitrariness of social services and the tragedies of children and parents. Child protection should not become an interference in the life of the family. The right of parents to determine what the upbringing of their children should be is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and Russian laws... Departure from these legal norms, giving officials the opportunity to roughly interfere in the educational process, will significantly reduce the measure of legal protection. Russian citizens, will make them dependent on bureaucratic arbitrariness ... The currently proposed projects in the field of "juvenile justice" are focused on Western models of the legal system, which have shown serious negative consequences (for example, the juvenile system in France) in educating the younger generation and working with families.
In general, projects of "juvenile justice" are directed against the institution of the family, which contradicts constitutional principle family protection. The independence of the family, its right to independently determine the order of existence, the system of raising children is threatened.
Projects open up a wide opportunity for changing the value system in our society, negatively affect demographic indicators and contradict traditional family and moral values. The introduction of a juvenile justice system in Russia will destroy the entire traditionally established system of upbringing and education of the younger generation, will contribute to the destabilization of the socio-political situation, and the growth of tension in society. The adoption of laws on juvenile justice is extremely untimely and generally poses a threat to the state interests of Russia.
Juvenile society policycannot claim to be some kind of comprehensive "youth law", universal and uniform for all times. It is formed and implemented taking into account the time, as well as the specifics of the subjects of the Federation, Federal districts- regions, representing a system of laws, legal and regulatory acts.
Depending on the characteristics of the object of juvenile policy, one can focus on social protection or create favorable conditions for full-fledged life. This also gives rise to real prerequisites for the formation of multivariance, the creation of various models of juvenile politics, taking into account all the variety of situations in a particular territory at a given time period. Juvenile policy should be based on juvenile legislation. As the data of numerous public opinion polls, in particular, our study, show, the majority of the population of our country, both adolescents and adults, have little understanding of the mechanisms of juvenile justice. It can be concluded that the state should pay more attention to the legal education of adolescents, increase information about the legislation being developed in the field of protecting the rights of minors, more thoroughly work out legal acts in the field of juvenile justice, and also form a positive public opinion. Only in this case we can be sure of tomorrow, in our future.
Bibliography.
1.Albegova, I.F. Child and his rights in modern Russia[Text] / I. F. Albegova, V. A. Myalkin, E. A. Sinyak. - Yaroslavl, 2007 .-- 32 p.
2. Borisova, N. To the question of the concept of Russian juvenile law [Text] // Law and life. - 2011. - No. 19.
3. Borisova, N. Juvenile law: some problems of formation in the conditions of the Russian Federation [Text] // Law and life. - 2008. - No. 17.
4. The Constitution of the Russian Federation [Electronic resource]: official publication/ GU publishing house "Legal Literature" of the Presidential Administration of the Russian Federation, 2009. - 64 p. // Access mode: ... - (Published taking into account the amendments introduced by the laws of the Russian Federation on amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation of December 30, 2008 No. 6-FKZ and of December 30, 2008 No. 7-FKZ).
5.Convention on the Rights of the Child [Electronic resource] / United Nations Organization (UN). - RIOR, 2010. -PDF, 20 Mb // Access mode:
6. Melnikova, E. B. Law on juvenile justice in the Russian Federation [Text]: draft / E. B. Melnikova, G. N. Vetrova // Human Rights Defender, 1996.
7. Melnikova, E. B. Juvenile justice [Text] / E. B. Melnikova. - M.: Delo, 2001 .-- S. 48.
Annex 1
Questionnaire for teenagers, their parents and teachers.
1. Do you think that in modern society the rights of minors are often violated?
A) yes, children and adolescents are the most vulnerable social group
B) sometimes children and adolescents are defenseless
C) no, minors always have protection in the person of their parents or other adults
D) I find it difficult to answer
2. Where are the rights of minors most often violated?
A) in the family
B) at school
D) in public places (transport, shops, any organizations)
D) I find it difficult to answer
3. Do you think there is a need to better protect the rights of minors?
A) yes, this is the future of our country
B) no, it's enough what is already being done
C) I find it difficult to answer
4.Do you know about the juvenile justice system - in a broad sense - it is a set of legal mechanisms (medico-social, psychological, pedagogical and rehabilitation and other procedures and programs) designed to ensure the protection of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of minors, implemented by the system state and non-state bodies, institutions and organizations.
