The juvenile justice in England and Russia

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

МИНОБРНАУКИ РОССИИ

Федеральное государственное автономное образовательное учреждение высшего образования

«ЮЖНЫЙ ФЕДЕРАЛЬНЫЙ УНИВЕРСИТЕТ»

КУРСОВАЯ РАБОТА

по курсу «Мир изучаемого языка. История и культура Великобритании»

На тему: The juvenile justice in England and Russia

Студентка Афанасьева М.С.

Руководитель работы: А.А. Яковлев

г. Таганрог 2014 г.



CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I. Juvenile Justice. What is it

1.1 Juvenile System

1.1.1 Three models of Juvenile System

1.2 Juvenile Court

1.2.1 The system of Juvenile Court

1.2.2 Functions of Juvenile Court

1.3 The history of Juvenile System

1.4 The modern system of Juvenile Justice in Britain

1.4.1 Age of criminal responsibility

1.4.2 Arrest

1.4.3 Prosecution, reprimands and final warnings

1.4.4 Bail

1.4.5 Detention in custody

1.4.6 Trial in the Youth Court

1.4.7 Trial in the Crown Court

CHAPTER II. Juvenile System in Russia - the actual of it

2.1 The public authorities

2.2 The legislative framework

2.3 The current situation

2.4 The critics of the Juvenile System in Russia

2.5 The reasons for critics of Juvenile System

CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY



INTRODUCTION

In my course work I'd like to touch the topic of Juvenile Justice. It is an actual problem (and has always been!), because it is connected with the essential institution - Family.

Initially, the idea of "Juvenile Justice" was to create specialized children's courts and has been implemented in the US, where in Chicago there was created the first children's court in 1899.

Then expanded the idea and a few years later it took shape as "juvenile system", which included various agencies concerned with childhood. In the UK, a series of laws on children and young people were adopted in 1908. In France, the juvenile court was initiated in 1914 by an engineer Eduard Zhyule, who after returning from the US in 1906, made the social report on the above topic in the Paris Museum.

In Russia the first juvenile court worked from January 1910 to 1918. The juvenile ideas were somewhat forgotten after the events of the revolution and coup.

Currently, the supporters of the "Juvenile Justice" advocate not only the introduction of "juvenile courts", namely the creation of a "juvenile system."

Since 2001 in the Rostov region there was launched a pilot project "Support to the implementation of juvenile justice", aimed at introducing the courts of general jurisdiction of international legal standards of juvenile justice. As a result, Taganrog was opened Russia's first juvenile court in March 2004.

Essentially, widely advertised experience boiled down until the introduction of special judges for juveniles in a separate building. The most characteristic feature of the court was an active involvement of children in the trials. It is characteristic that the work on the implementation of these projects focuses mainly on UN documents.

This work is not limited to the creation of criminal courts for juveniles, and aims to tackle the broader objective -creation of juvenile civil courts; special penal system for juveniles; social issues related to juveniles deprived of parental care, including in cases of deprivation of parental rights; wide authorities, which are provided to social services (they essentially would control the discharge of parental rights and responsibilities, including appeals made by children themselves). Juvenile justice is intended to cover some other questions like: medical issues, sex education and family planning.



Chapter I. Juvenile Justice. The phenomenon and its idea

1.1 Juvenile System

The juvenile justice system - is a network of institutions and organizations working together with juvenile offenders, whose activity is based on statutes and procedural rules governing the treatment of minor children. These agencies and organizations include the police, courts, public prosecutors, prosecutorial agents, prisons, probation service and management of correctional institutions for minor children.

1.1.1 The models of Juvenile Justice

Today, there are several different models of juvenile justice:

1) Anglo-American;

2) Continental;

3) Scandinavian.

1.2 Juvenile Court

The central element of the juvenile justice system is the juvenile court. Within its competence it deals with criminal, civil and administrative cases, in which one of the parties is a minor child. The main objectives of the juvenile courts are to protect children and their rehabilitation.

1.2.1 Functions of Juvenile Court

Juvenile (child) is called the court which, within its competence considers criminal, civil and administrative cases in which one of the parties is a minor child. The main objectives of the juvenile courts are to protect children and their rehabilitation.

The juvenile court deals with such questions:

1) child neglect;

2) status offenses;

3) criminal offenses.

1.3 The history of Juvenile Justice

The problem of how to deal with juvenile offenders has plagued society since before the establishment of the first juvenile court in 1899. Prior to that development, delinquent juveniles were processed through the adult court and often received harsh punishment. By 1945, separate juvenile courts existed in every state. Like the adult system, throughout most of the 20th century, the juvenile justice system was based upon a medical/rehabilitative model. The original goals of the juvenile court were to investigate, diagnose, and prescribe treatment for offenders, not to adjudicate guilt or fix blame. The court operated under the doctrine of «parens patriae» that meant that the state would step in and act as a parent on behalf of a misbehaving juvenile. Proceedings were informal and a juvenile court judge had an enormous amount of discretion in the disposition of juvenile cases, much like the discretion afforded judges in adult criminal settings until the 1970s.

Punishment was the central criminal law philosophy in English common law. A conclusive presumption that children under seven could not form criminal intent eliminated the youngest from the criminal justice system. Children between the ages of seven and fourteen were presumed incompetent to form the requisite criminal intent; the prosecutor, however, could rebut that presumption by demonstrating that the child knew the difference between right and wrong. Children over age fourteen were presumed to have the capacity to form criminal intent. There were no special courts for children, and they were treated as adult criminals. Minors were arrested, held in custody, and tried and sentenced by a court that had discretion to order the child imprisoned in the same jail as adult criminals. Although children received the same punishment as adults, they were not provided with many of the due process protections accorded adult criminals. For instance, minors did not have a right to "bail, indictment by grand jury, [and] right to a public trial" (CONWARD, CYNTHIA p. 41).

In line with the early juvenile court's philosophy of protecting youth, juvenile offenders' placement was often in reformatories or training schools. In theory, they were designed to keep them away from the bad influences of society and to instill self-control through rigorous structure and harsh discipline. Contrary to the underlying theory, throughout the first part of the century, the institutions that housed juveniles were often dangerous and unhealthy places where the state warehoused delinquent, neglected, and abandoned children for indefinite periods. Common problems included lack of medical care, rehabilitation programs, and even food. Some poor conditions persist even today.

Although institutionalization of many juvenile offenders occurred in the first decades of the 1900s, extensive use of probation for juveniles existed as well. As it does today, probation provided a middle ground disposition for judges between release and placement in an institution. By 1927, probation programs for juvenile offenders existed in almost every state.

In the 1940s and 1950s, reformers attempted to improve the conditions found in most juvenile institutions. Alternatives to institutions emerged, such as forestry and probation camps.

Today in the UK there are new laws that regulate the system of juvenile justice. They dictate new terms of criminal responsibility.

1.4 The modern system of Juvenile Justice in Britain

1.4.1 Age of criminal responsibility

A child who is aged fewer than 10 is irrefutably presumed to be incapable of committing an offence. Prior to 1998, a child aged between 10 and 14 was presumed to be incapable of committing an offence unless the prosecution were able to prove that the child knew the difference between right and wrong, although a range of mitigating factors particular to childhood are normally taken into account in England and Wales. Now, children aged 10 and 17 are capable of committing offences and it is not possible for a child to avoid liability by showing that they do not know the difference between right and wrong. However, a child should not be found guilty if they are unfit to plead.

In exceptional circumstances, most notably the case of the murder of Jamie Bulger in Liverpool in 1993, children can be tried as an adult in an adult court.

From the age of 17 onwards, individuals are then considered an adult in the eyes of the law. Therefore, all punishment given by the courts or other law enforcement agencies will rest solely upon them.

1.4.2 Arrest

After a person aged ten to 17 has been arrested and taken to a police station, Code C to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 requires that the custody officer ascertain the identity of a parent, guardian, Local Authority caregiver or any other person who has assumed responsibility for the juvenile's welfare and must inform them of the arrest. The custody officer should inform the appropriate adult (who may or may not be the same person) of the grounds for the detainee's detention and ask the adult to come to the police station to see the detainee. The juvenile should be told of the duties of the appropriate adult and that the juvenile can consult privately with the appropriate adult at any time, but warned that such conversations are not privileged.

The juvenile may not ordinarily be interviewed, be asked to provide or sign a written statement under caution and be asked to sign a record of interview without an appropriate adult being present. A superintendent may authorize an interview without an appropriate adult if:

· he is satisfied the interview would not significantly harm the person's physical or mental state; and

· delay would be likely to either

· lead to interference with, or harm to, evidence connected with an offence,

· lead to interference with, or physical harm to, other people,

· lead to serious loss of, or damage to, property,

· lead to alerting other people suspected of committing an offence but not yet arrested for it, or hinder the recovery of property obtained in consequence of the commission of the offence.

During an interview where an appropriate adult is present, an appropriate adult should:

· advise the person being interviewed;

· observe whether the interview is being conducted properly and fairly; and facilitate communication with the person being interviewed.

1.4.3 Prosecution, reprimands and final warnings

The Crown Prosecution service has produced detailed guidance on prosecuting juveniles.

A police officer may proceed by way of reprimand or (final) warning, where the following conditions are satisfied:

· a constable has evidence that a child or young person ( "the offender") has committed an offence;

· the constable considers that the evidence is such that, if the offender were prosecuted for the offence, there would be a realistic prospect of his being convicted;

· the offender admits to the constable that he committed the offence;

· the offender has not previously been convicted of an offence; and

· the constable is satisfied that it would not be in the public interest for the offender to be prosecuted.

A police officer can either give the offender a reprimand or a final warning. A final warning is more serious. Once a person has received one reprimand he cannot receive a second. A person may be given a final warning without a reprimand if the seriousness of the offence warrants this course. A person may exceptionally be given a second (but not a third) final warning if "the offence was committed more than two years after the date of the previous warning and the constable considers the offence to be not so serious as to require a charge to be brought".

In the case of a juvenile under the age of 17, the reprimand or final warning should be given in the presence of an appropriate adult. Where a police officer gives a final warning, he should refer the offender to the local youth offending team who should arrange for him to participate in a rehabilitation programme unless they consider it inappropriate to do so.

The system of reprimand and final warning was replaced in 2013 by youth cautions and youth conditional cautions by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.

1.4.4 Bail

A juvenile has a general right to bail.

As for adults, the main reasons for refusing bail are that the defendant is accused of an imprisonable offence and there are substantial grounds for believing that the defendant:

· will abscond;

· will commit further offences whilst on bail; or

· will interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice whether in relation to himself or any other person.

The court may also refuse bail for the juvenile's own protection or welfare or for a limited number of other reasons.

A juvenile's parent may be asked to act as a surety for up to Ј50 for the juvenile's attendance at court and compliance with any conditions attached to bail.



1.4.5 Detention in custody

Where a juvenile is refused bail, he is normally remanded in local authority accommodation. He may be remanded in secure accommodation only if:

· the juvenile is over 10 years old; and

· either

· he is charged with or has been convicted of a violent or sexual offence, or an offence punishable in the case of an adult with imprisonment for a term of fourteen years or more, or

· taken together, the offences of which he has been convicted and with which he has been charged amount to a recent history of repeatedly committing imprisonable offences while remanded on bail or to local authority accommodation.

1.4.6 Trial in the Youth Court

Balham Youth Court. A Youth Court is a magistrates' court but the Youth Court has jurisdiction to try juveniles where a Magistrates Court does not have a similar power to try adults. The Magistrates and District Judges who sit in the Youth Court will receive specialist training on dealing with young people. A youth court is presided over by either a district judge or a bench of two or three lay magistrates, which must (unless there are unforeseen circumstances), include both a man and a woman. A youth court is not open to the public. The victim(s) of the crime, however, has/have the opportunity to attend the hearings of the court if they want to, but they must make a request to the court if they wish to do so. The needs and wishes of victims will always be considered by the court and, through the youth offending team (YOT), they often have the opportunity to have an input into the sentencing process. The only other persons who may be present are:

· members and officers of the court;

· parties to the case before the court, their solicitors and counsel, and witnesses and other persons directly concerned in that case (e.g. probation officers and social workers);

· parents or guardians;

· bonв fide representatives of newspapers or news agencies;

· such other persons as the court may specially authorize to be present.

The following reporting restrictions apply automatically:

· no report shall be published which reveals the name, address or school of any child or young person concerned in the proceedings or includes any particulars likely to lead to the identification of any child or young person concerned in the proceedings; and

· no picture shall be published in any newspaper as being or including a picture of any child or young person so concerned in the proceedings as aforesaid.

The restrictions may be lifted by the court:

· for the purpose of avoiding injustice to the child or young person or

· as respects a child or young person, who is charged with or has been convicted or a violent offence, a sexual offence, or an offence punishable in the case of a person aged 21 or over with imprisonment for fourteen years or more and is unlawfully at large, it is necessary to dispense with those requirements for the purpose of apprehending him and bringing him before a court or returning him to the place in which he was in custody or

· in respect of a child who has been convicted of an offence, in the public interest.

Where a child is under 16, the court must (unless it would be unreasonable) require a parent or guardian to attend court and where the child is aged 16 to 18, the court may do so.

1.4.7 Trial in the Crown Court

Generally, the same procedures apply in the Crown Court for juveniles as for adults. There is no automatic restriction on reporting proceedings, unlike in the Youth Court, but the court may direct that:

· no newspaper report of the proceedings shall reveal the name, address or school, or include any particulars calculated to lead to the identification, of any child or young person concerned in the proceedings, either as being the person by or against or in respect of whom the proceedings are taken, or as being a witness therein; and/or

· no picture shall be published in any newspaper as being or including a picture of any child or young person so concerned in the proceedings as aforesaid.

Where a child is under 14, the court must (unless it would be unreasonable) require a parent or guardian to attend court and where the child is aged 14 to 18, the court may do so.

Paragraph II.30 of the Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction makes provision for the adapting the procedures in the Crown Court where a juvenile is tried, to assist in their taking part in the trial.

A defendant under the age of 18 may give evidence by live link if:

· it would be in the interests of justice to do so

· the defendant's ability to participate effectively as a witness is compromised by his level of intelligence or social functioning and that his ability to participate effectively would be improved by giving evidence via a live link.



Chapter II. Juvenile System in Russia - the actual of it

2.1 The public authorities

Juvenile Justice in Russia (from Lat. Juvenalis - young and Justice) - a system of state organs exercising the justice in cases of crimes and offenses committed by minors, as well as governmental and nongovernmental organizations, conducting control over the correction and rehabilitation of juvenile offenders and the prevention of juvenile delinquency , social protection of family and children's rights.

In the Russian Federation regulatory framework, which is necessary for the introduction of the state juvenile system, is under discussion today.

In modern Russia, since Soviet times, some commissions for minors are successfully operating. For example, the "Commission for minors and protection of their rights under the Governor of the Moscow region.". There is also a "Government Commission on Juvenile" led by Rashid Nurgaliyev, "the chief policeman" of the country.

2.2 The legislative framework

The work of these commissions based on our current federal laws, where the chief among them is - "The Federal Law on Prevention of child neglect and juvenile delinquency" June 9, 1999. Juvenile justice Russia is somewhat different from the west, where a number of countries (Germany, USA, Belgium, South Africa and India) created separate courts for juveniles. The main debated draft - Draft Federal Constitutional Law № 38948-3 «On Amendments to the Federal Constitutional Law of the Russian Federation" On the Judicial System in the Russian Federation ". Indirectly affect juvenile justice issues such laws as:

1) "Draft Federal Law № 198484-5 «On Amendments to the Federal Law" On Basic Guarantees of the Rights of the child in the Russian Federation»

2)" Draft Federal Law № 408759-4 "On Amending Article 9 of the Federal Law" On Prevention of child neglect and juvenile delinquency "

3) Draft Federal Law № 143212-4 «On Amendments to the Family Code of the Russian Federation".

2.3 The current situation

Separate bills suggest not to curtail the idea of the juvenile justice system, only to the creation of criminal courts for juveniles, but to design some projects to solve the broader problem:

1) creation of juvenile civil courts,

2) special penal system for juvenile's social issues, which are related to minors without parental care (including the cases of deprivation of parental rights)

In some cases, it provides the empowerment of social services, which are essentially empowered to control the parents and their parental responsibilities, including appeals, made by children themselves. Individual projects intended to cover medical issues, in particular: sexual education of children family plan On the basis of the Rostov branch of the Russian Academy of Justice in December 2003 there have been opened the regional association of professionals on supporting judicial reform and juvenile justice in the Rostov region. It is designed to provide information and methodological assistance to the courts, authorities and the preventing system of child neglect and juvenile delinquency, also to the local government. In March 2004, in Taganrog, there was opened Russia's first juvenile court. In essence, the plan was limited to the release of special judges for juveniles in a separate building. Among the peculiarities of the court there was an active involvement of children in the trials.

At the beginning of July 2010 Russia has the following 10 specialized judicial structures (juvenile courts of general jurisdiction):

Rostov region: Taganrog City Court (in 2004), Shakhty Town Court (2005), Egorlyksky District Court (2006), Azov City Court (2010)

Irkutsk region: Angarsk City Court (2006)

The Republic of Khakassia: Abakan City Court (2006)

Kamchatka Krai: Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky city court

Lipetsk region: Eletskii District Court (2008)

Bryansk region: (Volodarskiy Bezhetskiy and district courts in Bryansk, Dubrovsky District Court). ing.

2.4 The critics of the Juvenile System in Russia

Part of the Russian public believes that the rules of juvenile justice are in conflict with the Russian national mentality, spirituality and traditional culture: for example, Sergey Roslyakov stated that the equal rights of parents and children leads to the destabilization of not only the family and the school, but also the entire system of social relations. The essence of the juvenile justice system, according to Lyudmila Gromova, that under the guise of slogans about protecting the rights of children omnipotent and no accountability juvenile authorities will be able to pick up any child from any family because of any cause, even the most absurd one. Also, according to the opinion of Lyudmila Gromovoy, they dictate parents how to bring up their children.

Several media sources note that the Orthodox community makes the greatest resistance to the Russian juvenile justice.

2.5 The reasons for critics of Juvenile System

juvenile justice court arrest

The reasons for criticism of juvenile justice According to the lawyer Larisa Pavlova, the performance of juvenile justice in Western countries and the experience of pilot projects in the Russian Federation demonstrate everywhere extremely negative results:

1) increase in juvenile delinquency

2) the breakdown of family ties

3) trampling on the rights of parents

4) spread vicious habits among youth

5) an active protest parents

6) increase in the number of cases of deprivation of parental rights. Other opponents of juvenile justice in Russia pay attention to the high incidence of suicide, among the parents whose children were selected.



CONCLUSION

In Russia the Juvenile System is now a developing process. The critic of it is rather defensible. We have the patriarchal type of the family, and when the state interferes into it, we resist it a lot. Our model of the Juvenile System is very different from the American one. Unlike from it, the Russian government uses this system as a method to control the demographic indices, to plan the family and to work with this institution. In my opinion, the original idea of such system was good. The rest of governmental programs, to my mind, are superfluous. Because of the interference of government the independence of the family is in danger. So, such judicial reform can be useful, if it is used in a right form.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

1) http://projects.essex.ac.uk/ehrr/V7N1/Carrabine.pdf

2) https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/33991/Hakvaag.pdf?sequence=1

3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_justice_in_England_and_Wales

4) https://www.justice.gov.uk/offenders/types-of-offender/juveniles

Размещено на Allbest.ru