Yevheniy Skurativsky, attorney at Miller Law Firm, for LAGA:ZAKON
Over the past six months, at least five stories of teenagers beating, raping, or harassing have made headlines. The beating of a girl in Bila Tserkva was just one of them. And how many similar cases are there that our society will never learn about?
In such stories, the question always arises: are the children responsible? And the parents?
In this article, we clearly, simply, and with examples, analyze when a minor is criminally liable, what threatens his parents, and why in our outdated system, the law and courts do not deter teenage violence.
At what age is criminal liability established?
- From the age of 16, a child bears criminal responsibility as an adult (but with certain mitigations).
- From the age of 14 – for serious intentional crimes: murder, rape, robbery, burglary, extortion, hooliganism, etc.
More details in the infographic:
For minors found guilty of committing a criminal offense, according to Article 98 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the court may apply the following main types of punishments:
- probation supervision;
- fine;
- public works;
- corrective work;
- arrest (from the age of 16);
- imprisonment for a certain period of time.
Minors may also be subject to additional penalties in the form of a fine and deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities.
It is important that such types of punishments as confiscation of property (as the main punishment), restriction of liberty, and life imprisonment cannot be applied to minors.
That is, nothing out of the ordinary, general liability, as for all those guilty of criminal offenses with specific features.
If a minor has not reached the appropriate age at the time of committing criminal acts, he is not subject to criminal liability.
What about children who are too young to be criminally responsible?
Compulsory educational measures – what are they? This is something like a “soft punishment” – not criminal, but formally through the court. They can be applied instead of a criminal record and to children who have reached the age of responsibility.
In the first case, we are talking about a case where a minor has committed a misdemeanor or a negligent non-serious crime and the prosecutor believes that such a minor can be corrected without the application of criminal punishment, and instead files a petition with the court for the application of compulsory educational measures and effectively releases the person from criminal liability.
In the second case, minors who have not reached the age of criminal responsibility. For them, educational measures remain the only possible option.
So, we’ve figured out what, when, and to whom it applies. Now it’s time to talk about the types of compulsory educational measures and their real effectiveness. Coercive measures of an educational nature in Part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine include:
1) Warning – a verbal warning. The mildest.
2) Restrictions on leisure – a ban on walking in the evening, an obligation to study or work.
3) Transfer to supervision (usually to parents). Effectiveness is questionable.
4) Property damage if the child is 15+ and has property or income.
5) A closed educational institution is actually a “reform colony”, the most severe measure.
Important: the court may impose one or more compulsory educational measures at its own discretion, regardless of those that the prosecutor may waive.
What if the child simply ignores the educational measures?
If she is 14+ and could already be held criminally liable, but she was released, then she may be held criminally liable for failure to comply with the measures.
If she’s under 14, then… nothing.
There are no additional sanctions. Zero impact.
Perhaps the only available legal instrument is to hold parents or legal representatives administratively liable under Article 184 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (failure to fulfill obligations regarding the upbringing of a child) and possibly even to deprive them of parental rights.
What are the risks for parents if their child breaks the law?
If a child does something illegal or ignores educational measures, his parents can be held liable. This is provided for Article 184 of the Code of Administrative Offenses .
After all, Article 150 of the
What threatens:
- Warnings or fines from 850 to 5100 UAH – depending on the situation.
- Deprivation of parental rights – if the child’s behavior is systemic, and the parents have completely removed themselves.
Liability under Article 184 of the Code of Administrative Offenses arises if:
- Parents do not fulfill their responsibilities regarding upbringing (parts 1 – 2);
- A child aged 14 – 16 committed an administrative offense (part 3);
- The child did something that is a criminal offense in substance, but she is too young for the Criminal Code (Part 4).
That is, the law clearly establishes: parents are directly responsible for creating appropriate conditions for the child’s development and for preventing his or her illegal behavior.
What’s wrong with this system?
A fine of 850 UAH or even 5100 UAH is unlikely to be a “wake-up call” for parents who have been ignoring their child for years. Formally, the tools are there, but the impact is minimal.
Moreover, when a minor does not even comply with compulsory educational measures, this is another signal that the parents have failed. And again: the maximum is an administrative fine.
In practice, the pressure on parents is mild and often does not work.
What’s in the White Church case?
Now let’s return to the case from Bila Tserkva, which became an illustrative example of what holding parents accountable looks like in practice and how the judges “assessed” the responsibility of the parents of the participants and witnesses of this event:
And now the most interesting thing – the parents of the children, who were only witnesses or present, but, according to available information, did not take an active part in the beating:
As we can see, in practice there is complete inconsistency.
Parents of children suspected of committing a crime often receive the mildest punishments – a warning or a minimal fine. At the same time, the courts punish parents of those who were only witnesses or simply present at the scene of the crime severely – sometimes to the maximum extent of the article.
There are cases when:
- Some cases are closed because “they didn’t see any guilt”;
- others do not, although the circumstances are practically identical.
The problem is in the approach. Courts almost never analyze the real role of parents:
- Were they indifferent?
- Did you try to educate?
- Did they have any influence on the child at all?
The principle of individualization of responsibility is absent.
It seems that decisions are made “by eye”, without uniform criteria and logic. As a result, a system where it is not the fact of guilt that determines the punishment, but the subjective assessment of a particular judge
As a result: the administrative responsibility of parents is a lottery. Someone “won” – they were simply reprimanded. Another “lost” and paid a fine, although they did no more (and sometimes less).
Conclusions
So, the law is there. And the mechanisms too. But in reality, everything is too soft, outdated, inconsistent and often unfair. Children who break the law do not always feel the consequences. Parents who did not raise them are mostly punished with symbolic fines. And society and the victims pay the highest price.
Here is a logical question: if the system is not working, maybe it is worth looking at the experience of other countries? The legislation of Germany, Lithuania or Switzerland is similar to ours, but works better. The point is not in the laws, but in the philosophy. There, the emphasis is not on formal punishment, but on real change in behavior: a teenager may be required to undergo a psychological program, improve grades, work hours for the benefit of the community or temporarily go under the supervision of a special curator.
Ukraine should not just increase fines, but modernize the system. First of all, expand the list of educational measures: introduce mandatory psycho-correctional programs, socially useful works with a clear scope, real probation supervision. Also, make the responsibility of parents more meaningful: instead of symbolic fines, mandatory courses or social support. The biggest gap is the lack of consequences for ignoring educational measures by children who have not yet reached the age of criminal responsibility. It must be eliminated.
The conclusion is obvious: the law exists, but it does not work properly. Neither children nor parents feel true responsibility. And impunity breeds even greater cruelty. The goal should not be formal punishment, but the upbringing of a
