Which countries do not have juvenile justice. Juvenile justice: what is it? Juvenile justice in the Russian Federation: state and prospects. N.S.W

Juvenile justice systems

SCOTLAND

The Scottish juvenile hearing system represents an initial model for moving away from the criminal process and seeking rehabilitative rather than punitive measures. It was established by the Social Activities Act (Scotland) in 1968 and entered into force in 1971, removing almost all cases involving minors from the jurisdiction of the court; this system aims to involve the child and his family in the process of reaching an agreed solution that ensures the interests of the child in the best way.

The Kilbrandon Report, on whose recommendations the bill was based, rejected the judiciary for four main reasons: the inability to combine the establishment of guilt with social measures; the futility of punishment for most children; the unacceptability of social decisions made by those who are called to establish the facts, but are not experts in the field of the needs and needs of the child; the lack of open discussion and the impossibility of a thorough examination of the child's problems in court, as well as the potential stigma that litigation entails.

The main goal was to provide children with the opportunity to be heard and involved in the decision-making process about their future life; a system geared solely to the well-being of the child must ensure decent and respectful attitude to his personality. At the same time, a holistic approach was recommended: a system was required that would analyze, in the process of mutual cooperation, not individual aspects of behavior, but the child as a person as a whole, and in the context of his family. The investigation was to be separated from the consideration of the case (this idea later found international approval). Since hearings can only appoint home or out-of-home supervision, they are often devoted to discussing the more effective type of supervision. Hearings provide an opportunity to identify the specific needs of a given child and decide where they can best be addressed.

Litigation involving minors.

Officers called "Decision Makers (Keroes)" deal with those who have been handed over to them by the police, social services, and the Department of Education and Health. If there are sufficient grounds for this, the Responsible have the opportunity to make one of three decisions; take no further action; refer the child to local authorities for assistance, guardianship or advice that they think would be helpful; or schedule a hearing if they believe that enforcement measures may be necessary that are justified in terms of the well-being of the child.

A significant number of such cases do not receive further development. If, however, a hearing is convened, then it is carried out by three members of the commission - representatives of the local community, who have the appropriate education. Hearings should be informal and constructive and should be attended by the child, their parents or guardians (“interested parties”), and a social worker. Sometimes an educator or other professional may be involved in the hearing. There is no legal representative of the law, and the idea is to find a constructive solution to the problem under discussion. Since hearings can only appoint home or out-of-home supervision, they are often devoted to discussing the more effective type of supervision. Hearings provide an opportunity to identify the specific needs of a given child and decide where they can best be addressed.

The UK Government has ratified the 1CRC with a caveat regarding the lack of a legal representative on the juvenile commission. This situation has been criticized from a human rights perspective; and it was held in session of the Court that the Scottish Government had the right to decide whether representation should be secured even if it was never used. This means that if a child is unable to express their interests on their own, a legal representative can be appointed for them.

The hearing system applies to children aged 8-16 and those 16-18 who are already under supervision. However, a number of pilot schemes now exist to explore the applicability of such hearings to older young people. The trial takes place behind closed doors, its public coverage is prohibited, and no criminal record arises as a result of it.

Sheriff's Court.

The Sheriff's Court hears cases in which grounds for referral are not found, and also hears appeals against decisions made by the commission. Commissions are required to state the reasons for their decision in writing; and if legal aid is not normally available up to that point, it is available at the sheriff's court. However, sheriffs are not specifically trained in juvenile matters; although appeals against commission decisions are extremely rare.

Comments and rating.

The strength of hearings lies in their flexibility, in their comprehensive approach to the personality of the child, they provide an opportunity to communicate directly with the child and his parents. The hearings enjoy exceptional support among Scottish professionals; a non-punitive, decriminalizing approach for young people, as opposed to adult offenders, is widely endorsed. A significant disadvantage is the non-participation of the injured party in the hearing, as well as the fact that the hearings are not sufficiently informal. Sometimes there are too many adults involved, and the parents or guardians cannot be removed from the hearing even when they are overwhelming the child. A recent study showed that good enough preparation can greatly improve the quality of listening. The public understanding of hearings is rather limited, and often people have to be informed of what is required of them, as well as of all the possible consequences of their actions. The second main difficulty is resources. As good as the hearing process itself is, its effectiveness depends to a large extent on the quality of support and oversight that can be guaranteed. Unfortunately, social welfare departments often experience financial difficulties and are unable to provide the necessary assistance.

NEW ZEALAND

The Children, Youth and Families Act 1989 was intended to transfer the majority of young people accused of crimes from the criminal justice system to an alternative system based on a social approach. The law was the result of intensive consultations and projects, and to a large extent came about due to the increased political power the Maiori peoples, whose youth were punished and imprisoned on a discriminatory scale.

The purpose of the law was to ensure the well-being of young people and their families by providing accessible and culturally appropriate care. Families were supposed to receive help in cases where they destroyed the mutual understanding and relationship between adults and children, when children had to be protected from cruelty, abuse and neglect. In any conflict situation, the well-being and interests of children were to be the determining factor.

The key principles of the bill are as follows: an alternative to the criminal process should be used whenever possible; measures against delinquency are aimed at strengthening the family and kinship ties, stimulating their ability to cope with juvenile delinquency; youth is seen as a mitigating circumstance; sanctions should be minimally restrictive; while the interests of the victim must be observed. This last requirement was new and an important factor reflecting the growing interest in restorative justice and the needs of the victim.

The vast majority of institutions that held young people were closed; most of the powers were transferred from the state to the family and public associations. The law was supposed to make it easier to find solutions to family problems in the context of family and cultural-national ties.

Distraction of minors from the criminal environment and meetings of family groups.

A new approach to solving the problem was to distract teenagers from the criminal environment in all possible ways. New Zealand already had a Youth Assistance Police Unit, staffed by the required number of women and members of various ethnic minorities. Under the law of 1989, the police had to, in most cases, try to divert young people from the criminal path by informal methods, acting according to an established plan. Such plans included attempts to inculcate guilt, visits to adolescents in their community, consultations with schools and/or survivors. In the event of a recurrence of serious offenses, the police could require a family group to be assembled to develop a plan for further action.

About 10% of the most serious cases are referred to family meetings by the court; a small number of cases are heard by the juvenile court. Most of the cases in which the charges were dismissed are heard in court, but in all cases, intentional and unintentional murder are tried in court. Here, too, investigation is separated from hearing. Deviations can only be in the case when the young man admits guilt and realizes what he has done.

Family group meetings provide an opportunity for offenders, their families and loved ones, and the injured party to come to an agreement that would provide an opportunity for redemption and help the offender rediscover himself. The Youth Coordinator is responsible for these meetings. If the meeting is requested by the court, the juvenile's lawyer will be present, although he will not play the normal role of a lawyer. His task is to provide advice, to clarify, to discuss, if necessary, the accusations, that is, to facilitate the process, and not to represent the legitimate interests of any party.

First, the victim sets out the essence of the offense and its consequences. The juvenile delinquent then talks about what led to the delinquency. There is then a broader discussion of what happened with families and stakeholders on both sides. The adolescent and his family must formulate a plan that is consistent with the purposes of the Law. In serious cases, the plan may include oversight, but in most cases it is about restitution activities, as well as forced education, work, training. Plans are necessary for the adolescent to be held accountable accordingly; they meet the needs of the victim; help the juvenile avoid similar offenses in the future. Plans are usually designed for no more than 3 months.

When the plan is complete, the family group communicates it to the congregation. Both the police and the victim have the right to veto, in which case negotiations are resumed. However, in 95% of cases it is possible to reach an agreement. If no consensus is reached, the case is either referred back to the police or to the court. If the case was referred to the meeting by the court, the court must approve the decision of the meeting as soon as possible.

Meetings aim to find not so much a very consistent way out as an acceptable one. Judges of the Juvenile Court intervene as little as possible, and only issue a protest if they find the assembly's decision humiliating human dignity or completely unacceptable for other reasons. Gatherings called at the initiative of the police are not monitored by the court.

Advantages and disadvantages.

This system, in principle, enjoys almost unanimous approval, and in any case the alternative to the court is considered to be preferable. The role of the court, which consists solely in approving the developed draft, and not in passing sentence on the teenager, has thus undergone very significant qualitative changes, characterized by a fundamentally different meaning. It is also generally accepted that meetings, in comparison with a court session, also give advantages to the victims.

However, there are also difficulties. Many believe that too many juvenile institutions have been closed, resulting in some teenagers being sent to adult prisons, where some of them have committed suicide. Judge of the Court juvenile mr Carruthers considers this the biggest mistake. Problems have also arisen due to the fact that juvenile justice and child protection are carried out on the basis of the same law and according to the same procedures. The result of this was a phenomenon called “resource hunger” by experts. The need to protect children's rights is ever-increasing and requires far more resources than anticipated. This means that projects envisaged by juvenile meetings may suffer from a lack of funds. For example, drug rehab facilities are few and far between, and a Wellington teenager in need of treatment can wait a very long time before being sent to Auckland. Experts understand that in such a situation, often families do not justify expectations themselves, but are forced to fail; it is clear that the system cannot operate in the spirit of legitimacy without adequate funding.

Funding can also affect the level of training; Experience has shown that the presence of a casualty greatly enhances effectiveness with careful and thoughtful preparation on the part of coordinators.

And finally, there is the issue of the lack of judicial review of the vast majority of cases that did not go through the courts, and hence the lack of legal assistance in relation to these cases.

N.S.W

The Juvenile Offenders Act 1997 emerged as a result of dissatisfaction with police-led meetings in early stage experiment, as well as on the basis of careful study of the experience of New Zealand. The purpose of the law is to force juvenile offenders to accept responsibility for their actions; recognize the rights of victims; compensate for the damage caused by the crime; the law was also aimed at changing the way the police work with teenagers.

The principles of this law are the same as those of the New Zealand bill, and it is similarly based on the philosophy of the alternative approach. The law establishes a system of warnings, notices and meetings to discuss the behavior of minors. Serious crimes are not within the competence of the law, therefore, where more cases than in New Zealand.

There is an advisory committee on juvenile affairs whose responsibilities include data collection, supervision and control. This is an attempt to make up for the lack of research and evaluation that exists in New Zealand law. The process of conducting juvenile meetings is slightly different here: there are administrators and members of the meeting who are not appointed to a position, but are employed, which means that they cannot simply be removed from their position in case of unsatisfactory performance. It also pays great attention to the training of specialists.

The aim of the system is to keep the offense at a minimum level. The police must choose the appropriate intervention and measure appropriate to the offense, based on the criteria established by law: warning, notification, subpoena before the juvenile commission, or (as a last resort) detention. The criteria require the decision maker to take into account the seriousness of the offence, the harm suffered by the injured party, the severity of the crime, the number and severity of offenses the juvenile has committed in the past, and how many times and what action has been taken against the juvenile so far.

The meeting is open-ended, but usually the perpetrator must begin by describing the circumstance of the crime, and then the injured party talks about its consequences. Other participants exchange views, but the final plan should be the result of a consensus reached, and not a decision of the offender and his family, as in New Zealand. In any case, an agreement must be reached between the juvenile offender and his victim. The plan must be realistic and acceptable and no more severe than a court sentence would be. Time limits for its implementation should be stipulated; it is recommended to avoid too extensive involvement of community services, and to make the plan traceable where possible.

Provides for the presence of a certain legal support. The law requires that prior to any warning or meeting, a teenager be advised of their right to receive legal assistance and advice. A ten-day “quiet” period is provided for receiving such assistance and considering it. Lawyers may attend meetings as advisers and may only represent a minor with the consent of the official conducting the meeting, in circumstances not limited by law. The role of lawyers, just like in New Zealand, is to simplify the process, but it also includes clarification about the provisions of the law and the protection of the rights of a minor. Obviously, free legal assistance and advice is not available everywhere.

Advantages and disadvantages.

The main problem with this law is the lack of provisions on who is responsible for funding the plans and from what sources it comes from. Public funds are extremely limited, and this greatly limits administrators' access to support services that have been recommended as essential. This point was emphasized in both New Zealand and Scotland. It is well known that adequate funding is the key to the long-term success of any negotiation system.

There is much talk in New North Wales that it is desirable to intervene at an early stage, although this will require additional funds. This implies early identification of risk factors, a shift in emphasis on such cases, especially in relation to the aboriginal population. It is now generally accepted that support services, such as anti-alcohol and anti-drug programs, should be accessible to the public and targeted at those groups of people who are most addicted to a given problem.

However, the protection of children's rights, which absorbs so many resources in New Zealand, is carried out on the basis of separate legislation.

While the new law has been met with great enthusiasm, limited access to legal advice at a critical early stage - the stage of arrest - remains a problem, just as lack of political will to secure the necessary funding does not guarantee the effectiveness of the law. However, the research and evaluation system works well and contributes greatly to providing an objective base for the development of such schemes for the treatment of juvenile offenders that would satisfy the victims and the needs of society as a whole.

AUSTRIA

In Austria, the basis for the reforms laid down in the 1989 Juvenile Justice Act was a form of mediation between the offender and the victim. The same model was used in Germany, but in Austria it found much wider application and public support.

The rationale for the reforms was the fact that juvenile crimes are not usually serious (and most often they are minor offenses), while there was an increased awareness in society of the devastating effects of imprisonment and the high cost of legal fees.

All this led to the creation of several pilot projects, which were to be organized with the help of the Supervision Service and the Institute for the Sociology of Law and Deviation. They were called upon to find a difficult solution to remove the court from the proceedings involving minors. The prosecutor was given the right to decide, on the basis of the police report, to dismiss the case or to allow the parties to resolve the conflict among themselves. Mediation provides an opportunity to explore the root causes of the conflict, thereby already reducing the likelihood of its reoccurrence. In the event that fault is admitted, damages agreed, no further intervention is required. There is no public interest in further legal proceedings, and the case may be dismissed.

Pilot projects have shown that mediation can indeed lead to satisfactory outcomes that justify not going to trial. If an agreement is reached, then the charges can be dropped; this is the main change in mindset and procedure. When the projects were completed in 1987, the scientific study showed that the participants were generally satisfied with the experience and the participation of the affected party was encouraging.

The Juvenile Justice Act extended the pilot system to the entire country. Its purpose is to prevent delinquency, and it applies to young people up to 18-19 years of age. The law provides for ways to dismiss a case, emphasizing the need to be extremely careful and careful in sentencing juvenile offenders, commending the absence of a criminal record in cases involving mediation as a contribution to the overall cause of crime prevention.

In this system, prosecutors are a kind of guardians. They have the right to dismiss cases, refer them to the supervisory/mediation system or to judicial proceedings. If the case is submitted for mediation, a member of the prosecutor's office is appointed, who has a special education and works only as a mediator. First, he talks with the offender in order to find out whether the latter admits his guilt. This, however, does not amount to a legal admission of guilt, and if the case subsequently goes to court, the court will still have to prove the guilt of the defendant. If the offender acknowledged his responsibility for the deed, then his personal and social circumstances are discussed, the offender is invited to consider what possible solution he can offer regarding the moral and material damage caused to the victim. If the offender has not only admitted his guilt, but is also ready to compensate or repair the damage, the mediator contacts the victim. He is asked whether he wants to participate in the settlement of the case in court or out of court, whether he wants to make any suggestions for a positive resolution of the issue.

The conciliatory meeting that follows is the central moment of the process; the facilitators help the participants to go through it and come up with a realistic plan that focuses more on the quality of the solution than on its speed. Even if the injured party has not expressed an intention to attend, the court may still be informed that the mediation was successful and the case may be dismissed. In other words, the decision of the victim cannot influence the outcome of the case.

It is very often necessary to call several meetings, which may be attended by family members from both sides and their lawyers. Most often, lawyers are present when discussing financial compensation.

The vast majority of victims in Austria prefer to meet the perpetrator face to face. This may be partly because the opportunity to settle a case is much less oppressive than going to court. In Austria, the court is in charge of the investigation, so victims usually have to be present to answer questions from the judge. The fact that the new system requires confidentiality also encourages collaboration.

An attempt was made to introduce mediation in cases of more serious offenses as confidence in the new system grew, and the success of these methods led to the extension of the system in 1992 to criminal justice for adult offenders.

Vocational training and scientific research have greatly improved. The idea is to establish a continuous dialogue between theory and practice, where scientists and practitioners can learn from each other. In fact, the law relies primarily on the work of many institutions. Prosecutors and social workers meet regularly to exchange views and discuss decisions in various cases. It is on the basis of the reports of social workers that prosecutors decide to terminate or proceed with the case; specific guidelines have been developed to set firm standards. There is an understanding of the fact that deviation from them leads, perhaps, to a quick but erroneous solution, while voluntarily following the agreed methods helps to solve the problem.

Effects

Immediately before the adoption of the law, juvenile delinquency decreased significantly, but in 1991. growth was recorded. Krista Pelikan, one of the main commentators on the system, attributed this increase, if it was real, to factors outside the judiciary; she pointed to the same trend in other countries. In her opinion, it is impossible to look for immediate and immediate results from any juvenile system. One of the main points of the reforms is that they will show themselves only in the next generation: and therefore, their effect will have to wait.

It seems that faith in the system has remained. It is interesting to note that there is no pressure on statistics about what one thinks of a system (obviously better for public attitudes towards juvenile delinquency) as part of a conflict resolution strategy.

Kate Akester

In fact, juvenile justice was conceived as a positive system, in which the work of its bodies should be aimed at rescuing and protecting children in dysfunctional families, as well as combating those actions of parents that threaten the real life of the child. In fact, everything is not so. Juvenile justice - what is it? Evil or good? In fact, this system does not fulfill its original purpose at all, nor in developed countries, where it has been operating for a long time, and even more so where it is just emerging. Trusting the statistics, it can be argued that the number of suicides, crimes, ruins of families only increases in those cases where this very juvenile justice intervened. Therefore, in society, it causes more negative reviews than positive ones.

Juvenile justice - what is it?

In Russia, juvenile justice is an emerging special judicial and legal system aimed at protecting the rights of minors. In terms of this system, both state bodies that administer justice in cases involving minors, and non-state institutions that should monitor the rehabilitation and correction of young criminals should work. Their task should include the prevention of juvenile delinquency, as well as social measures to protect the rights of minors in the family.

In Russia, juvenile justice is formed based on the framework of the European Social Charter, which enshrines a number of human rights in society. The Convention on the Rights of the Child is also taken as a basis, in particular, its provisions that relate to juvenile justice.

In our country, juvenile justice is imperfect and causes different opinions, both positive and negative. Some suggest that it is quite capable of destroying the established institution of the family, and also provokes an increase in corruption in official circles. Even President Putin expressed such fears. According to his press secretary, Vladimir Vladimirovich's attitude to juvenile justice is rather skeptical.

Actions of juvenile justice

Juvenile justice - what is it, first of all? By definition, there should be an authoritative judicial structure, the main task of which would be to protect the family and the child as a whole. In fact, such a system has been operating both abroad and in Russia for a long time. The question is different now. Previously, it acted much more adequately, really reacted to such problems as the crimes of young offenders, the infliction of serious physical injuries on children, and the like. However, every year, step by step, this system has been transformed, now the concept of the juvenile system is interpreted in a different meaning.

The problem of juvenile justice in Russia, with all the efforts, is acute. Thus, the law, which has already been adopted “On the Fundamentals of Social Services for Citizens of the Russian Federation”, has become a strengthening factor in the positions of those individuals who uncontrollably and sovereignly seek to dispose of “our” children throughout the country. It may sound unexpected, but that's the way it is. If before the adoption of this law, each trial involving minors was carried out carefully and thoroughly, now it is enough for the authorities to receive an anonymous denunciation (they will not be monitored), and even a child can be removed from any prosperous family. The reason for the denunciation can be any reason, even scattered toys or unwashed dishes in your sink, depending on how to present this situation on paper, it all depends on the author's imagination.

Story. Russian empire

Juvenile juvenile justice has its roots deep in history. As for the Russian Empire, juvenile delinquents have always had a special status. In 1845, the "Code of Criminal Punishments" limited liability to the age of 7 years.

Alexander II in 1866 on December 5 approved the Law "On the establishment of colonies and shelters for juvenile delinquents and their moral correction." The law contained special rules for the maintenance of young criminals. A division into female and male sex was established.

This is how juvenile justice began to develop in Russia. What did it give the state? First of all, order and responsibility among the population of the country.

The next stage of development is 1897. Nicholas II changed the already existing "Code of Criminal Punishments", in particular, in the paragraphs where it was about the responsibility of minors. In 1903, the Code determined the age of criminal responsibility from 10 years. They also introduced a basis for exemption from criminal liability - this is the inability of a minor "to understand the meaning of his act." The order of serving punishment by minors was regulated, juvenile delinquents were given the opportunity to serve their sentence as a novice at the monastery.

The first children's court in Russia lasted eight years (from 1910 to 1918). With the advent of the October Revolution, it was abolished by the authorities and no longer received its further development.

The Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR adopted a Decree in January 1918. It said that all prison sentences and juvenile trials would be abolished. All cases of offenses committed by persons under 17 years of age were transferred to special Commissions for juveniles.

Rampant crime, especially among juvenile homeless children, has led to the fact that the problem of juvenile justice in the country has become very acute. In 1922 they stepped up the punitive criminal liability. It was stipulated in the Criminal Code that criminal penalties, the same as for adults, can already be applied to minors from the age of 16. However, capital punishment was prohibited for use by persons under 18 years of age. In general, the criminal law in article 32 recommended that minors should be treated with more lenient measures.

In the cruel year of 1935, the CEC decreed major changes to the law. The age of offenders-criminals was reduced to 12 years, it was allowed to apply all types of punishments, up to the highest measure (except for Article 58). In order to increase parents' responsibility for their children, all commissions for minors, who at that time somehow stood up for the protection of the rights of the child, were abolished.

The problem of juvenile justice in the Russian Federation and other republics of the Union led to the fact that in 1941 the Presidium adopted a Decree that extended liability for criminal acts among minors not only for intentional acts, but also caused by negligence. Until the end of the 1950s, the punitive orientation of juvenile justice was defined. These Decrees lost their force only in 1959, when the new Criminal Code was put into operation. There are two reliable facts of the execution of minors. 1940 - Vladimir Vinnichevsky (maniac), 15 years old. On his conscience - eight murders, ten attempts. 1964 - Arkady Neiland, 15 years old. Guilt - the murder of a woman and her three-year-old child, desecration of a corpse, arson.

In 1964, the Supreme Court of the USSR pointed out to the courts the need for specialized consideration of cases involving minors. But at that time, specialized courts did not appear. Since 1960, the Supreme Measure was allowed to be used only for persons 18-60 years old. However, in 1964, this punishment was nevertheless applied to the 15-year-old Arkady Neiland.

Juvenile justice in the Russian Federation: state and prospects

For the first time, the legislative consolidation of the principles of juvenile justice in Russia took place in 1995, when Boris Yeltsin signed the Decree, which approved the Action Plan in the interests of minors. In accordance with this plan, it was envisaged to create a juvenile justice system in the country.

In 1998, a law on basic guarantees and the rights of the child was adopted. It was the first to introduce the concept of “children in a difficult life situation”, this category includes children from low-income families who have behavioral deviations, as well as those who cannot overcome some difficult circumstances with the help of their family or on their own.

The juvenile justice system underwent a turning point in its formation with the adoption of Decree No. 7 of February 14, 2000. It makes recommendations to apply Article 76 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to minors, which provides exemption from liability if reconciliation with the injured party has occurred.

In 2008, chapter 22 of the Family Code. It provides for the removal from the family of a child who is recognized as left without parental care (that is, abandoned to the mercy of fate). This will be followed by placement in a special institution for the placement of a minor in a new family. This is how juvenile justice operates in Russia now. Was such an amendment to the Family Code accepted or not by society? There are a lot of opponents, since this law can be interpreted and interpreted in different ways.

According to article 156 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, citizens who do not fulfill the obligation to raise their children or their educational methods are associated with cruel physical treatment can be held criminally liable. The punishment under this article is up to three years in prison.

In 2009, new positions appeared in Russia under the President and governors of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation - the commissioner for children's rights.

In 2010, the State Duma rejected the law regarding the creation of juvenile courts.

In 2011, the plenum of the Supreme Court approved the Decree regulating the specifics of the criminal liability of minors. In accordance with it, educational processes in juvenile cases should be strengthened in the courts, special attention should be paid to the prevention of criminal acts. Do not leave the work of commissions on juvenile affairs, public organizations and educational institutions to make private rulings, which would indicate all the specific circumstances of the case.

Juvenile justice should not be limited to criminal courts for minors, it should solve broader problems:

Social issues related to minors who do not have parental care. Questions about termination of parental rights.
Creation of a special system of punishment for minors (civil courts).
Separate projects - medical issues: family planning, sexual education of young people.

Slap law

In July 2016, the “spanking” law, which was long and controversial, was finally passed. This event caused a huge resonance in society. This law was being prepared at the request of the President, who in 2015 asked for support from the Supreme Court on the issue of decriminalization in criminal law. In the first reading, the law, indeed, contained clauses "saving criminal reprisals." But in the second reading, “incredible” changes took place with the law.

Article 116 suddenly took on a completely opposite meaning. It contained illogical, absurd statements. Introduced the concept of "close person". They set the punishment for the smallest too severe, and for the largest - as mitigated as possible. Crimes against family members, relatives, in-laws were stipulated.

Now, for any action that entailed physical pain (even a slap, and even more so punishment with a belt), parents are expected to be punished up to imprisonment for up to two years. In fact, anyone can "rivet" anything on your family, and the guardianship authorities will have the right to take your child.

The law caused a storm of indignation among the society. It is directly repressive in relation to social group called "parents". Mass protests swept across the country, a petition against juvenile justice was sent straight to the President of the country.

In February 2017, Vladimir Putin signed the Law on the decriminalization of family beatings. He excluded Article 116 (“On beatings against relatives and family members”). These actions will be considered administrative offense. According to the new law, which excluded criminal liability, a fine, arrest for up to 15 days, and correctional labor for a period of 120 hours will be imposed for an offense. All these innovations relate to the first registered case, if the beatings are repeated, then criminal liability will already come.

Pros and cons

Juvenile justice in Russia is far from perfect. Is it accepted or not by society? Most likely the answer is no! The advantages of this system are only theoretical, in practice the "juvenile" does not bring anything good. From the point of view of officials, the juvenile system can improve the intra-family situation, it will reduce juvenile delinquency and the like. If specific provisions are written in the theory - in which case they can take the child from the family, under what circumstances, then the situation may improve.

In fact, everything is far from rosy. A common example: if a child in the family often eats food fast food(this is harmful), and this fact was discovered by a certain “well-wisher”, a commission may come to visit and announce to you that there is a threat to the child’s life in the family. So easily juvenile justice takes away children from their parents, relying on the letter of the law. And this is just one example. And how often it happens that a completely normal family, where parents are not alcoholics, not drug addicts, raise children, but are financially constrained and cannot afford a full refrigerator of food and a separate room for the child, are taken into account by the guardianship authorities and often lose their beloved children. Naturally, the disadvantages of juvenile justice are huge! This system is far from being perfect, and society gives a negative assessment of its work.

Rejection by the Russian public of juvenile justice

The opinion of opponents of the "juvenile": its norms are contrary to the national mentality, traditional culture and spirituality. Juvenile justice in Russia met with great indignation on the part of society, since the equalization of the rights of the child and parents leads to the destruction of the family, to disrespect for elders, to the destabilization of relations in school and society. The juvenile law was criticized by such well-known Russian personalities as political consultant Wasserman, actress Ekaterina Vasilyeva, journalist Mikhail Leontiev, as well as public figures Sergey Kurginyan, Maria Mamikonyan. Juvenile justice meets with great resistance from the Orthodox movement. Lawyer Larisa Pavlova notes the extremely negative results of the work carried out by juvenile justice in Russia:

an increase in juvenile delinquency;
violation of parental rights;
family breakdown;
the spread of vicious habits among young people;
parent protests;
an increase in cases of deprivation of parental rights;
an increase in suicide among minors;
cases of suicide in parents from whom juvenile justice took the child.

Also, the negative consequences of the work of juvenile justice include the following factors:

irresponsible work of the employees of juvenile structures themselves;
too broad powers of juvenile services;
misinterpretation of the principles of operation of the juvenile system;
the presumption of guilt of guardians and parents;
imperfections in juvenile legislation;
abuse of the property of a dysfunctional family;
rejection of juvenile projects (health passport, ombudsmen, etc.).

Foreign negative experience

Juvenile justice in the Russian Federation and abroad has not brought any positive aspects. We examined the situation in our country, but what about the situation abroad?

France

More relaxed, special justice, which is applied by the juvenile police in France in relation to young people, leads to the fact that young murderers, drug dealers, robbers are not at all afraid of responsibility, go unpunished and feel free in any illegal actions. This only leads to an increase in juvenile delinquency.

In the same France, half of the cases of deprivation of parental rights are later recognized as erroneous, although, according to the juvenile police, everything is carried out within the framework of the law.

Ukraine

According to the Ukrainian political scientist Igor Druz, in Ukraine, just like in Russia, attempts were made to create a juvenile justice system. The process was suspended by the intervention of the Orthodox community in Kyiv. Deputy Dmitry Tabachnik noted that the juvenile departments that exist in other countries cause a negative public outcry. This system, on ridiculous charges, deprives parents of rights to their own children. Such a “machine” only leads to destructive actions, human tragedies and corruption in power.

juvenile blow

So, in Russia, a real juvenile law was nevertheless adopted, and it must be admitted that thanks to the public, which drafted a petition against juvenile justice, the president introduced some mitigating amendments.

Ahead of us are mass discrimination of parents, the absence of the presumption of innocence, the nationalization of children. The Russians have entered a new stage of development, where the advantages of juvenile justice are clearly absent.

In the new juvenile era, parents cannot raise their children as they see fit, they will not have the opportunity to choose their educational methods. The state will decide for them what is good and what is bad in relation to their own child.

The institution of the family will lose its educational traditions, there will be a break in emotional, family ties between generations.

Repressive control over the family cell will operate in the country, the institution of orphans will expand. The consequence of all this is the transformation of society into an automated hostile population.

Vladimir Buchelnikov

In the UK alone, more than 6,000 children are removed from families every year, and mostly from migrants.

... Mom left a sleeping two-year-old baby at home for half an hour to run to the next block for groceries, but he woke up earlier and cried ... Parents left for work, and their first grader came from school, did his homework and started playing noisily with cars ... The adults let their ten-year-old go son to take a walk in the yard with the guys: first they kicked the ball, then they decided to launch a rocket at the nearest construction site ... Your child brought a deuce and was punished ...

All these are ordinary pictures from our Soviet childhood, described even in the books of Nosov and Dragunsky. We have grown up like this for several generations. But if you move to live in one of the countries of Western Europe with similar pedagogical habits, then remember: each episode mentioned above can become a reason for transferring your child to another family. Britain is far from alone in the predatory approaches of modern juvenile justice. We hear more and more wild stories about children being taken from quite decent families in Norway, Denmark, Holland.

That is why a website in Russian has recently appeared especially for compatriots living in the EU countries or just planning to move. The Internet resource http://www.saveafamily.eu/ was created by the European Russian Alliance with the participation of the Foundation for the Support and Protection of the Rights of Compatriots Living Abroad. Professional lawyers and psychologists worked on the materials, who conducted a thorough analysis of the legislation of different countries and posted information on the site for the uninitiated. Failure to comply with what norms in any particular country can lead to serious problems with child protection authorities and social services? And what can be the reason for removing a child from his family and placing him in the family of foster parents? The new resource debunks the popular myth that children are taken away only from alcoholics and drug addicts or from families living below the poverty line. Many mistakenly believe that we are not threatened.

Alas. Can it ever occur to our man that a child cannot be forced to do homework or clean his room, that he cannot be punished for a misdemeanor, spanked, after all? In our country, such requirements and rules are included in the concept of "education", while in some Western countries this is considered psychological violence against a person, which means that it risks leading to the destruction of the family.

According to the "Children's Convention", ensuring the rights of the child must be carried out in his interests. However, shocking examples of children being taken away from normal, prosperous families contradict this norm, although they fit perfectly into the legal field of the Old World. States that verbally care about the rights of the child, in fact, show monstrous cynicism, especially when it comes to migrant families. To be convinced of this, it is enough to watch the heartbreaking footage of the seizure of twins from Elena Antonova, a Latvian citizen living in Holland, about which Vesti Segodnya has already written. The reason for the seizure was that at home she spoke with the children in Russian.

There are more and more such stories in modern Europe, - representatives of Latvia in the European Parliament explain. - Moreover, the majority of children are taken from immigrant families. And this is due to the fact that emigrants are less protected - they do not have money for a good lawyer, they do not know the language well and are not guided by local laws and traditions. For example, in some countries it is not allowed to leave your children at home alone. Any neighbor or passer-by can complain to the police if he finds that the child is unattended. There are especially many such cases in the UK, where seized children are placed not in social centers, but in the so-called care family. True, the fact that these families receive a monthly allowance of 2,000 pounds for each adopted child remains outside the brackets. And if the child is not alone, then you can live at the expense of other people's children in a very secure way. How comfortable these families are is a big question.

The story of a resident of London, a single father, Evgeny L., is indicative. A graduate of the Moscow Conservatory, an excellent musician performing with the best orchestras in the world, he became a hostage to double British standards. One day his 9-year-old son was playing in the yard with other local guys. As a result of experiments with a magnifying glass, the children accidentally set fire to garbage. The fire department and the police arrived. We came to the conclusion that nothing serious happened. However, the son of Eugene was moved to the care family, but the British children were not touched. In the foster family, the child, in his free time from school, was simply imprisoned for computer games. And a year later, when the boy returned home, his father had to treat his gambling addiction and depression.

But the most egregious thing in all these stories is that if a mother or father suddenly decides to save a child and starts looking for help in European human rights structures, they will be punished. Juvenile justice in Britain is arranged in such a way that when children are taken away from their parents, they take a non-disclosure agreement. And if a mother turns, for example, to the EP Petitions Committee, and even speaks at its meeting, according to British law, she can get a prison term for disclosing classified information.

Juvenile justice has been operating in developed countries for several decades and has rather contradictory characteristics. Hundreds of thousands of children have been taken from their families into state care, and their parents have been fined or placed under arrest. In Russia, YuYu has been actively introduced since the early 2000s. At the same time, since 2016, more than a dozen compositions of judges dealing with child crimes have been adopted and exist in many regions of the country.

Juvenile justice in Russia in 2018

Juvenile justice in Russia, the official law of 2018 was adopted and has existed since 2016. Therefore, parents should be extremely careful and attentive to the manifestation of the interest of social services in their family. Today in the Russian Federation such a legislative framework has been adopted and exists mainly in a formal form and is represented by the legislative framework, as well as the positions of the judicial authorities, which in any situation are on the side of the problems and interests of the child.

What is juvenile justice in Russia?

Juvenile justice, which is accepted and exists in Russia, is called the system of state bodies and actions aimed at administering justice in relation to offenders who have not reached the age of majority. Today in the Russian Federation YuYu is in the implementation phase. Thanks to the actions of civil servants, it was created:

administrative commissions dealing with juvenile affairs;
guardianship authorities that control both the family as a whole and each child individually;
social and psychological institutions that exist on state terms, work with families and participate in court proceedings;
projects that allow to work out the process of functioning of juvenile courts;
institutes of YU.

Has the law on juvenile justice been adopted in Russia?

The question of whether there is juvenile justice in Russia is ambiguous. In 2016, on July 3, Russian President V.V. Putin signed the first, and in the opinion of the state apparatus necessary, law No. 323-FZ. This legal act allows you to know and consolidate the basic rights and obligations of parents in relation to their children. Thus, YuYu is accepted, and now also exists in Russia.

Can guardianship authorities legally remove a child from a family?

Juvenile justice in Russia real stories removals of children from their families began to occur more and more often. Each municipality has its own commissions and bodies that can take a minor child from the family without a court decision. In connection with the periodic abuse of social workers of their powers and the negative impact of YUY on society, Svetlana Kopylova held a presentation of a song about the negative consequences of the introduction of such a legal norm. The work is a kind of introduction to consider the need for the adoption and existence of juvenile justice in Russia.

Pros and cons of juvenile justice

The main advantages of YuU, which is accepted and exists in the Russian Federation, include:

increasing the role of parents and society in the implementation of children's education;
consolidation of the rights and wills that every child has.

Such a policy of legal relations between the state and citizens has a number of negative aspects:

the possibility of pressure on parents by officials;
education of irresponsible and uncontrollable personalities;
encouraging denunciations of parents government bodies by children;
the lack of rights of the older generation and teachers in relation to the child;
impunity for crimes committed;
increase in the number of family conflicts.

Thus, as a legal system, YuYu is accepted and exists in the Russian Federation, has its positive and negative sides. Even experienced lawyers cannot agree on the need to introduce such justice in legal system Russian state.

Juvenile justice in which countries operates?

YuU has been operating in Europe for decades. The most developed such justice system is in:

Denmark;
Germany;
Finland;
Sweden;
Norway;
France, etc.

The YYU system, which is accepted and exists in developed countries, makes it possible to massively take away children from quite prosperous families under the pretext of defending their interests. From the experience of these countries, we can conclude that juvenile justice does not always have a positive effect on the children's generation. Sometimes it has an extremely negative effect on the psyche and behavior of a person in adulthood.

About the beginning of the history of juvenile justice.

From ancient times in different countries From time to time, ideas were expressed about the desirability and even the need to judge adults and children differently, some acts included separate provisions providing for slightly different approaches to the criminal punishment of children than adults! , however, until the end of the 19th century, these were only separate episodes, which not only did not add up to any system, but represented rare deviations from the general trend, exceptions to general rule, which are known to confirm the rule. Therefore, it is impossible to talk about juvenile justice until the end of the 19th century. And even the prehistory of juvenile justice began only in the 19th century, which will be discussed below.

As for the measures of an educational nature in relation to minors, for centuries, long before the emergence of juvenile justice in Western Europe, such measures were carried out by the Catholic Church, which was regarded as an institution independent of the states and was in charge, along with religious issues, of education and the establishment of criteria for morality and morality. morality. After the Reformation, educational functions, including in relation to juvenile delinquents, began to be taken over by Protestant communities. And since the 19th century, secular non-governmental organizations have also joined in educational activities (though some of them were inspired by religious ideals).

In view of the indicated position of the Catholic Church regarding the upbringing of children, including those who have committed offenses, it is not surprising that practically the first special penitentiary institution in Europe for juvenile delinquents was created in the theocratic Papal State: Pope Clement XI (1700-1721 of the pontificate) opened in Rome Michael's Correctional House, having determined by its decree the contingent of adolescents placed in this house, as well as the conditions for their detention.

And in other Catholic countries, the church has a special place in the upbringing of children and teenagers who have problems with the law. As noted by many researchers, in particular E. Wijjar-Cybulska, the system of social assistance in Poland, closely connected with the juvenile justice system, was almost entirely in the hands of the church. It was traditional for Poland to create a large number religious patronage communities that patronized children and adolescents who found themselves in adverse living conditions. Some organizations managed to raise quite large material resources, which allowed them to create educational institutions for such children. In particular, the Society that arose in 1871 Agriculture and crafts built in 1876 a correctional home for juvenile delinquents, which, according to its creators, was supposed to become a kind of family for these children.

The Age of Enlightenment made a great contribution to the development of views on the importance and value of education and upbringing. The ideas of the Enlightenment largely contributed to the success of pedagogy at the end XVIII- early XIX centuries, based on which methods of working with minors, including those with deviant behavior, were developed and implemented. In this regard, in the XIX century in different countries began to create places of serving sentences exclusively for juvenile delinquents, in which the emphasis was on re-education. Along with this, non-governmental organizations appeared, aimed at the prevention of child and youth crime and at the resocialization of young people who had served their sentences.

At the same time, the experience of such activities showed that without involving the court in working with minors, an integrated approach to such work is impossible, and this required reform of the court itself, i.e. it was necessary to introduce such a court, which later received the name juvenile.

The world's first juvenile court appeared in 1895 in South Australia, which was then one of the colonies of Great Britain, and later became one of the states of the Commonwealth of Australia. True, unlike the juvenile court established four years later in the city of Chicago (Illinois, USA), the "children's" court of South Australia did not attract such close attention of the legal and non-legal community, did not serve as a starting point for starting the procession of juvenile justice in the world. After all, the experience of the Chicago court was taken into account in the United States and in other countries, both if they sought to create a juvenile court in its likeness, and when they initially developed a model of a juvenile court that differed in a certain way from the model of the Chicago court. And yet, historically, the first juvenile court is the court established in South Australia.

Historical stages of development of juvenile justice abroad.

V. R. Schmidt suggests, albeit with some reservations, the following periodization of the history of juvenile justice:

The first half of the 20th century - the formation of the foundations of the classical model of juvenile justice, which modern Western researchers define as "humanitarian paternalism";

60-70s of the XX century - the crisis of the classical model of juvenile justice, the flowering of legal realism and the strengthening of the punitive function in relation to minors;

70-90s of the XX century - managerialization of juvenile justice under the influence of the liberalization of the criminal justice system and the management of social problems in general;

From the 90s of the XX century to the present - the development of new forms of juvenile justice: decriminalization, restorative justice, family-centered approaches, etc.

Of course, it is necessary to remember the immediate prehistory of juvenile justice, i.e., the period when the genesis of juvenile justice took place on the basis of an awareness of fundamental differences in approaches to the punishment and re-education of adult offenders and delinquent children.

It should also not be forgotten that the historical stages in a generalized form reflect the main trends in the development of juvenile justice in the world, but in some countries the process of evolution of juvenile justice may have certain specifics.

From the history of juvenile justice in the United States.

In the United States, the prehistory of juvenile justice began with the emergence of special institutions for serving sentences for juvenile offenders separately from adult offenders. Thus, by isolating the use of measures of influence designed specifically for juvenile prisoners, they sought to ensure that after leaving such a penitentiary institution they would not be prone to recidivism. So, in 1824, in New York, the first reformatory for children was created, aimed at protecting them from being held in prisons with adult criminals. Beginning in 1831, Illinois law began to provide for the punishment of juveniles for certain types of crimes, different from the punishment of adults. In addition, in 1869, in Boston (Massachusetts), for the first time, court sessions were organized specifically for the consideration of juvenile cases, and for the first time, the probation regime was applied to minors, which later became one of the most common and, according to Americans, for example, the most effective methods. treatment of juvenile delinquents. The US federal law of 1899 already provided for the treatment of juveniles under the age of 16 separately from the cases of adult offenders.

However, a radical change in the criminal policy towards minors occurred only in the very late XIX century, culminating in the creation of a special juvenile court. Such a court was established in Chicago, Illinois, by the Act of July 2, 1899; and this day was hailed as a historic day as the progressive forces of the US legal community won and the history of juvenile justice began.

A number of experts, in particular E. B. Melnikova, draw attention to the fact that "historically, the juvenile court was created as a court solving a dual task - protecting the rights of children, adolescents and criminal prosecution of juvenile offenders". The law of the American state of Illinois of July 2, 1899, the legal act that established the world's first juvenile court ("Chicago" or "Illinois"), as noted by the researcher, was aimed at saving children who found themselves in a situation that was dangerous for their life and health ( on the street, homeless, without parental protection and care). Juvenile delinquents in this Act were considered mainly as victims of these negative conditions. This position of the Law of July 2, 1899 "gave rise to the development of juvenile justice as a protective judicial mechanism for minors."

So, as mentioned above, the first specialized juvenile court in the United States was formed in 1899 in Chicago (Illinois). And in the very first Law, which defines the features of juvenile proceedings, its protective function has found its legal consolidation. In particular, Article 9 of this Law, titled “Decisions Concerning Juvenile Delinquents”, stated the following: “In cases of juvenile delinquency, the court may complete the judicial review in accordance with the circumstances of the case. He may entrust the child to the care and care of a probation agent; he may allow said child to remain at his home, where he will be under the supervision of a probation agent; in this case, the juvenile delinquent must report to the probation officer as often as necessary and may be taken to court for further information in all cases deemed necessary. The court may also entrust the juvenile to the care and care of a probation agent by placing the juvenile in a decent family under the friendly supervision of said probation agent; to place a teenager in a boarding house with a family, giving her guarantees that the costs of the boarding can be paid by voluntary donations, or without the corresponding expenses for the boarding. The court may place a juvenile delinquent, taking into account his gender, in a school for the re-education of young delinquents, in professional schools for young offenders. If a juvenile is found guilty of a crime, and if the court believes that this is its best decision, it may place the juvenile in a county institution established by state law specifically for such juveniles or organized for the same purpose by the city. The court may also place the juvenile in a supervised educational institution (state reformer) for boys under the age of 10, and for girls of this age, in a state orphanage for delinquent girls. In no case can a teenager be placed in such institutions and stay in them after he reaches the age of majority. A teenager placed in such an institution is under the supervision of the council of his management; this board can release him on probation by ordering the fulfillment of certain conditions. On the recommendation of the council, the court may completely release (release) the teenager if it considers that the correction is completed. Equally, the court may entrust the juvenile to the protection and care of an association dealing with abandoned and unsupported juveniles, if it is credible.”

From the very beginning, the juvenile courts sat separately from the adult courts. In particular, section 3 of the Illinois Juvenile Court Act (1899) provided that "a special courtroom shall be reserved behind the juvenile court, the 'juvenile court (tribunal)' courtroom."

Soon, specialized juvenile courts began to be created in other states, and after the first five years of the 20th century, juvenile courts became very widespread in the United States. At the same time, in many states it was not enough just to pass laws on specialized juvenile courts, but also to comprehensively reform legislation, including procedural law, since, as already noted, juvenile courts from the very beginning sought to use procedures that differed from those used in courts of general jurisdiction. . In particular, in the states of Iowa and Kansas, the legislation governing the implementation of the principle of publicity in courts was changed, since when considering juvenile cases, much more confidentiality was required than the courts of general jurisdiction could afford. In Pennsylvania, the first attempt to introduce a juvenile court under the 1901 Act failed because this law was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court due to the possibility, provided for in this Law, of a court decision in juvenile cases without the participation of a jury (grand jury). It was only on the second attempt that a juvenile court was introduced in Pennsylvania, when in 1903 a new law was passed in that state, providing for the functioning of such a court not in the system of criminal courts, but as part of the chancellor's court, which had jurisdiction mainly in civil cases, which allowed for the adoption of a decision without a jury.

It is worth recalling that the law enforcement practice of the first "children's courts" in the United States was formed under the influence of a new ideology created by the first juvenile judges, which was based on the ideology of the Roman doctrine of parens patriae (father state). This doctrine was well known in the countries of the Romano-Germanic legal family as a result of the reception of Roman law, although not always actively used. In the countries of the Anglo-Saxon legal family, the mentioned doctrine needed some adaptation and integration into the legal system. The most profound conceptual developments on the creation of the Anglo-Saxon legal version of the parens patriae doctrine were made at first in the states of Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut (although, as we remember, the first juvenile court in the USA was formed in the state of Illinois, in the city of Chicago) . However, over time, the situation has changed, people have changed, the relationship between them, as well as the relationship between people and the state. In the second half of the 20th century, the old ideology, which was new at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, no longer met the needs of life. And this required both a change in the ideology of juvenile justice and the reform of juvenile courts. However, this did not happen immediately. Therefore, in the United States in the 1980s, juvenile justice was in crisis, and juvenile courts in a number of states, in fact, ceased to operate. But this is not a crisis of juvenile justice as such, but a failure to carry out the necessary changes for the normal development of juvenile justice. Under the pressure of circumstances at the end of the 20th century, reforms began to be carried out, and juvenile justice received a new breath.

From the history of juvenile courts in other countries.

In many countries where juvenile courts were formed already at the beginning of the 20th century, there was a prehistory of juvenile justice that was similar in basic parameters to the prehistory of juvenile justice in the United States. For example, in Portugal, when drafting the Civil Code of 1867, it included provisions providing for the creation of a special jurisdiction of the juvenile court, and although they, unfortunately, did not enter into force, they still cannot but attract attention.

Along the same path as the Chicago "Children's Court", i.e., the path of creating an autonomous specialized court, they went not only in the US states, but also in a number of states: in the Netherlands (1901), in Egypt (1904) , in Hungary (1908), in Canada (1908), in England and Wales (Law on Children of December 21, 1908, but separate juvenile courts began to be created from 1905), in Russia (1910), Belgium ( 1912), Romania (1913), France (Law of July 22, 1912, entered into force on March 4, 1914), Switzerland (1911-1919 - in different cantons in different ways) in Poland (1919, but completely separate courts that considered cases exclusively of minors appeared only in 1928), Japan (1923), Greece (1939, but even before the establishment of an autonomous judicial juvenile system in 1924, specialization of juvenile judges was introduced), etc.

In some states, initially juvenile courts were formed only in certain localities, not covering the territory of the entire country with their jurisdiction. So, in New Zealand, juvenile courts appeared in 1925, but still long time after that, on the periphery, the cases of children were considered by the courts of general jurisdiction. In France initially ok

experiment, a specialized juvenile court was formed only in Paris (at the same time, initially, specialization affected not only judges, but also prosecutors and lawyers).

The first German "children's courts", in particular in Cologne, Frankfurt am Main, Breslau, created in 1908, combined the functions of guardian courts and judges in criminal cases about minors. A similar combination of judicial functions also took place in Austria (1908), Portugal (1911), Spain (1918). The mixing of the functions of criminal jurisdiction and guardianship courts predetermined the priority in the activities of the courts of these states in terms of ensuring judicial protection of the rights of minors; the direct fight against crime faded into the background.

During the creation of juvenile courts in Ireland (1904), Italy (1908), Germany (1908), they took the path of forming specialized juvenile courts in the structure of general courts.

But even in this case, some autonomy is also manifested due to the fact that “the boundaries of the jurisdiction of the“ children ’and “adult” compositions of the court are determined, different time court hearings, etc.” . It is worth paying attention to the fact that already the first juvenile courts began to hold their sessions in special rooms, separate from the cases of adult defendants. For example, the Birmingham Court, the first English juvenile court (1905), held its sessions separately from the sessions of the general courts. It had the following rules:

Holding a meeting an hour before the opening of common courts;

The division of juvenile defendants into categories according to the severity of their crimes;

Separate consideration of the case of each juvenile defendant (even in case of complicity).

It must be said that the last rule for the administration of justice by a juvenile court is also very remarkable: it focuses on an individual approach, on the motives and conditions that prompted the minor to commit an offense.

In many European countries (as well as in the United States), the approaches to juvenile justice established in the first half of the 20th century remained practically unchanged until the end of the same century. For example, in Poland, despite the fact that its political and economic system changed after the Second World War, the provisions of the Criminal Code of 1932 regarding minors remained in force until the adoption of the Criminal Code of 1982, but this new Criminal Code also retained general approaches to crimes of minors, characteristic of the Criminal Code of 1932. Specialized juvenile courts continued to operate, and procedural norms specific to them were preserved. The Polish Code of Criminal Procedure of 1969 reproduced in general terms the norms that previously regulated procedures in juvenile courts. Of course, it cannot be said that juvenile justice has not developed at all. So, in the late 1970s, family courts were created in Poland, and, naturally, a number of cases in which a minor was a party passed into the competence of such courts. And only in the mid-90s of the 20th century did a deep reform of the administration system begin in Poland, which, of course, also affected juvenile justice.

In some countries, when solving problems related to the consideration of cases of juvenile delinquents, with the appointment of educational measures and rehabilitation programs aimed at overcoming deviant behavior of children and their adequate socialization, they took the path of developing not special judicial, but administrative procedures. For example, in Scotland, at the beginning of the 20th century, a model for considering cases regarding children in special commissions (children’s hearings - a literal translation: “hearings on children’s cases”) was born. AT modern form such commissions and the related hearing procedure have existed since 1971. There are no specialized juvenile courts in Scotland today. In general, in some countries (which, however, are a minority among those countries where juvenile justice functions), the main work with juvenile offenders is carried out by extrajudicial structures. New Zealand is an example. Thus, after the adoption in 1989 in New Zealand of the Law "On Children, Youth and Their Families", most of the response to juvenile delinquency is carried out in an extrajudicial collegiate form, through the organization of restorative justice programs - family conferences.

Most states now have special legal provisions for minors in their general criminal legislation, although there are examples of separate legislative regulation of issues related to minors by the juvenile court (separate laws in Germany, Holland, a special Children's Law in England). A number of countries still follow the idea of specialized closed institutions for juveniles who have broken the law, for example, the USA, Canada, France, while other countries, on the contrary, abandon closed institutions and switch to day care centers, probation services, comprehensive assistance to the family of a teenager ( Scandinavian countries, Germany, Holland). It is clear that in the second group of states, alternative punishments for minors are more often used.