Teenagers who committed a crime were given a chance by the Constitutional Court to become victims

Even if they admit they broke the law on their own

To recognize a juvenile offender as a victim, it is not necessary to prove that he was forced to commit an unlawful act. This conclusion was made by the judges of the Constitutional Court.

The reason for resolving this issue was the case of a young Muscovite, Marina (names have been changed), who was caught trying to sell 44 bags of drugs through hiding places. For this she was sentenced to 3 years in prison.

As the investigation found out, the bags were purchased from a certain Boris. He was also convicted: he received 10 years for drug trafficking. He was also accused of involving in a crime a person who was obviously under the age of majority, that is, 18 years of age. But under this article of the Criminal Code, he was acquitted, in particular because the girl admitted that he did not force her to sell prohibited substances, she herself wanted to sell them in order to earn money.

However, her mother did not agree with such a verdict, who hoped that if Boris was brought under the article for involvement in the commission of a crime, then her daughter would automatically become a victim, and her term would be reduced. The case was considered in several instances, but no one supported the woman: everyone agreed that since there was no coercion, there was no involvement.

Then the woman and her daughter filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court. The ladies asked to check for compliance with the Basic Law the provision of the article of the Criminal Code, which determines that there is involvement in the commission of a crime.

Having sorted out the issue, the COP proved that the involvement of a teenager in a crime does not necessarily involve physical or moral coercion. Due to physical, mental, psychological immaturity, as well as the fact that a personality is only being formed at this age, minors are not always able to make the right decisions, and the influence of an adult, including negative ones, is of particular importance. As a result of consideration of this case, the court came to the conclusion that the disputed provisions of the legislation did not contradict the constitution, but were misinterpreted, which means that the Boris case needs to be reconsidered.