Prison School Lesson Cancelled

"Rossiyskaya Gazeta" – Federal Issue No. 5369 (290) dated 23 December 2010

Juvenile delinquency is rising. Most of those sent to colonies are teenagers aged 16 to 17. The Plenum of the Supreme Court examined one of the most acute and pressing problems of today: how to try minors.

The opinion of the highest court is now particularly relevant. After all, the overwhelming majority of those who took part in the riots on Manezhnaya Square are teenagers, pupils of schools and vocational colleges – in short, those under 18 years of age.

According to police statistics in Moscow last week, over 1,700 people were brought into police stations.

Based on the results of the plenum, the country's supreme court addressed its colleagues with a direct recommendation – to send minors to places of detention only in the most exceptional circumstances and not to place children in remand centres at all.

There were several other important conclusions from the Supreme Court: judges on the ground must study pedagogy and adolescent psychology and must absolutely overturn sentences if a child was interrogated without teachers or parents present.

On the basis of the conclusions reached by the Supreme Court, a resolution is being prepared "On Judicial Practice in the Application of Legislation Regulating the Peculiarities of Criminal Responsibility and Punishment of Minors".

The draft of this document contains 48 articles with concrete recommendations for judges. It sets out everything – how to hear cases involving minors and how to punish them.

It should be noted that the Supreme Court examined cases involving minors so thoroughly for the first time in the last ten years. Yet juvenile delinquency, according to experts, has grown in recent years seven times faster than the overall population of this age group has changed. Specialists maintain that minors are one of the most criminally affected categories of the population. According to their estimates, Russian teenage delinquency is characterised by intensive growth rates – averaging 14 to 17 per cent every five years. Moreover, juvenile delinquency is latent – largely hidden from statistical records. Therefore, its actual figures, in the opinion of law enforcement bodies, are three to four times higher than known criminal statistics.

Which path should a judge take in such a situation? Impose the maximum sentence, toughen the punishment or still attempt to educate? The plenum of the highest court took a clear position – minors should be regarded not as objects for criminal repression, but as subjects for rehabilitation. Prison has never made anyone better. Therefore, in order not to transform minors into hardened criminals, the country's supreme court urges the use of imprisonment only as a last resort. And if a remand centre cannot be avoided, minors should be sent there for the shortest possible period. The resolution clearly states that minors can only be arrested when accused of serious or particularly serious crimes.

The Supreme Court made several other important points. In determining punishment for a minor, it is necessary to take into account how strongly adult accomplices influenced him. And to reduce the sentence if older people pushed him towards the crime. If the defendant has psychological disorders that preserve criminal responsibility, he can still be assigned compulsory treatment instead of imprisonment.

An important conclusion of the plenum: in certain cases, if doctors have established that the defendant has delayed mental development, even 20-year-olds can be tried as 14-year-olds. And in this age category, punishment sentences are considerably lower.

Incidentally, the Supreme Court said that cases involving minors can only be conducted by the most experienced judges, and those who do not fit this description must complete courses in psychology and pedagogy. The failure of parents or guardians to participate in the process means the verdict will be overturned.

Judges are generally encouraged to more frequently impose non-custodial sentences on juvenile defendants. If the court assigns corrective labour, it must be arranged so that it does not interfere with schooling.

In general, if correction can be achieved without prison beds, then imprisonment should not be imposed. But this applies only to non-serious crimes. For crimes of minor or medium gravity, punishment may consist of placing the offender under parental supervision or banning attendance at certain establishments, or simply imposing a curfew.

With such "home" punishment, it is mandatory to make good the harm caused. But any violation of the lenient regime will return the teenager to court. The judges of the Supreme Court made a very important remark. They specifically emphasised that minors have the right to confidentiality. And it should be respected at all stages of the trial.

This is necessary in order to avoid causing harm to the teenager because of excessive publicity. The Supreme Court particularly stressed that under no circumstances should information about the identity of the minor who committed the offence be made public. And responsibility for non-disclosure of information about the minor should rest with the court as well.

Reference Note from "RG"

The maximum punishment for teenagers aged 14 to 16 is 6 years in a colony; for those aged 16 to 18 it is 10 years.

Over the past five years, the number of teenagers under 18 brought to justice has fallen by almost half: from 152 to 82 thousand. At the same time, 45 per cent of teenage crimes constitute serious offences: robbery, burglary with breaking and entering, theft. Particularly serious crimes – murders – were committed by approximately 5 per cent of convicted teenagers. Among convicted minors, 72 per cent are aged 16 to 17. Girls make up only 8 per cent of them.