Taking over foreign experience ...
The urgency of the problem of juvenile justice in Russia in recent times has often been mentioned in a number of media. The Military Review website also repeatedly published materials on the form in which the idea of cultivating such a concept as the rights of a child can be converted without regard for family rights. Numerous public organizations sounded the alarm, citing hundreds and thousands of examples of which option the situation with juvenile justice is degenerating, which has not yet had time to finally take shape in our country. In publications and television programs, this topic exposed all the existing problems with the protection of family values in the modern state. Much attention was paid to the problem of juvenile justice at the Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church held in early February. The Russian Orthodox Church has categorically opposed the introduction of Yu's methods alien to Russia.
The overwhelming majority of Russians, as the analysis of all recent events shows, as well as the statistics cited by VTsIOM, are extremely negative about everything that today is trying to be imposed by certain forces in terms of juvenile justice.
Now we can state with confidence that all this uplifted, sorry for the pathos, the popular wave led to the fact that President Vladimir Putin himself paid attention to the problem. Obviously, one cannot say that the president was not aware of the problem associated with Yu, but the massive information campaign, revealing the essence of the concept of juvenile justice, clearly allowed the leading elite to look at the problem through the eyes of ordinary Russians. After all, you will agree, even when considering the same subject from two sides (from the side of an ordinary Russian and from a representative of the power elite), this subject may look quite uneven. In this regard, it is especially encouraging that the president, who unexpectedly for many, arrived at the congress of the parents of Russia in the Column Hall of the House of Unions, in fact criticized the norms of work imposed by our children and teenagers from outside.
One of the key phrases in the speech of Vladimir Putin at the congress of parents in Moscow was the phrase that state intervention in the family is possible only in extraordinary cases within the framework of all-round delicacy and without a formal approach, common to all. The President stressed that Russia should not blindly copy foreign experience, especially if such experience is associated with the moral suffering of the child and family, from which he was removed by the forces of state structures for one reason or another.
Taking into account the recent trends, it is possible to say with sufficient confidence that those who, with two hands and even feet, stood for the indispensable extrapolation of the laws of juvenile justice to the expanses of Russia, today will have to either change their point of view to the fundamentally opposite, or push this rather dubious idea without support from the state. The words of Vladimir Putin can be considered a fairly transparent signal to our current Parliament, which, frankly, has not been used to making decisions lately that differ from those of the Russian president. In many other cases, such a tendency with a “completely agreeable” parliament can be considered clearly not constructive, but in the case of the law on juvenile justice, whatever one may say, the parliamentary “no U” is identically equal to protecting Russian traditions and interests in terms of educating the younger generation.
After President Putin’s open remarks, there’s hardly any doubt that our legislators will have a different point of view than the one expressed by the head of state.
Once again, it can be emphasized that this is the case when the unity of opinions of the head of state and parliamentarians, even with possible initial differentiation of opinions regarding the expediency of introducing juvenile justice institutions in Russia, can serve the good of the whole country, the good of the family, the preservation of domestic traditions of upbringing .
It should be noted here that at one time the State Duma (of the previous convocation) had already considered the issue of amendments to the Federal Law Commission on the Russian Judicial System. One of the amendments concerned the creation of special courts throughout Russia that would deal exclusively with minors, as well as strengthening the role of the state in terms of its impact on the upbringing of the child. If the issue of the presence of juvenile courts then did not find much negative, then the question of state intervention in family values, when most families can feel the obvious pressure from the juvenile bodies that determine the fate of children, caused heated debates in 2010. Yelena Mizulina, a deputy from the “Fair Russia” faction in the State Duma, is now and will continue to relate to opponents of introducing UJ practices in the Russian Federation. Here is one of the phrases that Elena Mizulina expressed about 3 years ago in connection with the issue of building a juvenile justice system in Russia:
“Juvenile justice is inevitably transformed into a system of bodies vested with the authority to intervene in the affairs of the family. And in modern Russia, although juvenile courts do not exist in their pure form, a stable practice is emerging, similar to the practice of juvenile justice, including not only a specialized court to consider criminal cases involving juveniles in conflict with the law, but also a whole “army” of officials , including employees of the Department of Internal Affairs, guardianship agencies, social workers, assistants to “juvenile” judges, this is also a system of measures related to the institutionalized (usually excessive) interference in the internal affairs of the Lu, ultimately, it is the trial of the family, the parents. "
The deputy actually revealed the reverse side of UJ, and the reverse side of pushing through a positive decision on juvenile justice is: a) money, b) destruction of the family institution.
If we take into account that the practice of juvenile justice comes to us from the West, where the point “b” is mostly realized, then we, due to the corruption specifics of the bureaucracy, excuse me, the hordes in first place will obviously come out point “a”, which Ultimately, the point "b" for a too pull. After all, it is no secret to anyone that in Russia the so-called “local officials” are some kind of demigods who, by their own forces, have elevated themselves to this rank. And if the figures in the quarterly estimates for the “demigods” from the local guardianship and guardianship bodies suddenly come up and the problem of lack of funding from the state budget is revealed, then under the guise of “saving” children “from under the yoke of oppressors” of their parents, local orphanages and shelters "Understaffed" so that all estimates come together as needed ...
In order to realize what a swamp we can plunge into with the possible adoption of a law supporting the development of juvenile justice in Russia, let us give a few examples from those countries where the practice of U has already managed to gain serious momentum.
Sweden. Marianna Zigström lost her son Daniel by the local guardianship authorities who, with the help of the juvenile justice judicial authorities, determined that, say, the mother was paying too much attention to her 16-year-old child ... , it was necessary to thank her the same guardianship authorities. But we think so. Swedish guardians of the rights of children and young people (namely, these law enforcement officers are often given as an example) were decided differently. Daniel Zigström was sent to the family that was supposed to take care of him less than the mother of the young man did. As a result, the guardianship services were achieved: the guardians of Daniel, knowing full well what the young man was taken from his mother, decided that he did not need special care. It led to tragic consequences: during the next attack, no one helped Daniel, and he died. Was there after this a grandiose scandal of international scope, was the “Bergstrom act” approved, for example, in the USA? As you understand, there was no noise, because Swedish justice - he’s justice to all justice ... No cruelty, no arbitrariness ...
Finland. An interview with a representative of the Finnish government, Maria Guzenina-Richardson (Minister of Social Protection and Health) was published in a local newspaper. In this interview, a native of Transbaikalia states that tenders are being held in Finland for the redistribution of children withdrawn from families. The Finnish authorities have allocated for this purpose as much as 620 million euros. The meaning of the tender is that business representatives should, in fact, buy as many children as possible from the state. The more “bought”, the more benefits will receive from the state. But in order to “buy in”, it is necessary that the corresponding “goods” appear on the Finnish market. And where to get it? As an option: withdraw, taking advantage of interpretations of the laws of juvenile justice. To withdraw, for example, from persons with dual citizenship. They say that by non-Finnish methods you bring up - give it to us better, and we are already selling “special goods” at competitive prices.
By the way, among those children that the Finnish state is going to actually sell, there are 53 Russian children ... Apparently, Mrs. Guzenina-Richardson decided to actively naturalize into Finnish, once announcing the official Helsinki initiative as achieving European law ...
France. In this country there is a special article of the Civil Code, which sounds like this:
“If the health, safety, morality of a minor is under threat, or the fundamental principles of his upbringing are seriously undermined, a set of auxiliary educational measures can be taken in court. A petition to take these measures is filed by the parents of the minor (together or by any of them separately), by any other official guardian of the minor, by the minor himself, by any public institution dealing with the minor. Only in the most exceptional cases, these functions are reassigned to a juvenile judge. ”
In the third part of this article there are words that the separation of children from their parents in France can be carried out only if there is a special situation. However, more and more often, the French courts find precisely the “special situation” in this or that manifestation of family troubles. This often leads to surprising situations. Where children need to be immediately removed from criminal families, the guardianship does not manifest itself, and where no one is waiting for the representatives of these bodies - they are right there.
Here is one example: the seven-year-old Dylan from the town of Millau, for three years, was kept by his own parents, in fact, in slavery in his own house. He was not allowed out into the street. Food and water parents gave the child once a day. About the existence of a normal toilet Dylan did not know. For what purposes the child was held in captivity, the court decides. But that was before the trial.
A neighbor accidentally learned about the slavery of a child and turned to the local guardianship bodies. However, no reaction followed. The man turned again and again, but as he was informed, the line of consideration of his appeal had not yet come (to the question of a purely Russian bureaucracy). Then he decided to break into the house, where the boy was kept by force. After that, he told the police, but instead of thanking the courageous man, he himself faces a prison for violating the law on the inviolability of private property ...
If we want this perverted system of social norms relating to our children to get to Russia, finally destroying the moral foundations and questioning the adequacy of the legal system, then the project for the development of juvenile justice should be urgently supported ...
And after all, someone will definitely support ...
- Alexei Volodin
- www.mk.ru
Information