Vandalism among minors and its prevention

Vandalism by minors

After fourteen years, any person is prosecuted for committing vandalism. According to statistics for recent years, the largest percentage in this category of criminal cases falls only on minors, as well as young people under the age of 20.

This fact is directly related to the fact that people of these age categories strive to assert themselves in a radical way; they commit a criminal offense to gain the respect of their peers. Criminal liability will occur after an appropriate court decision. The punishment is usually:

1. Fine;
2. Correctional work;
3. Arrest;

When a crime has been committed, a preliminary conspiracy has been proven, the presence of hatred that has developed on the basis of any: racial, religious, as well as ideological contradictions, the action will be defined as a qualified crime.

For such an offense they can be given up to 3 years, but violators are not always arrested; usually the measure of restraint is forced labor, less often - restriction of freedom.

Such punishment is imposed due to a number of negative factors and large amounts of damage caused by the criminal actions of a group of persons, they are:

1. Damage to property;
2. The local population is worried about their own safety.

Vandalism is a fairly common offense. Modern investigative and judicial practice indicates a large number of criminal cases and sentences. If a person accidentally witnesses a crime, you should not pass by. This fact should be promptly reported to law enforcement officers, describing in detail all the circumstances of the crime seen and the remembered signs of the violators. A sample written statement will be provided to the witness at the station.

When convicting a minor, the court has the right to make one of the decisions: to assign him a punishment or to apply a measure that has an educational effect. When the case is exceptional, the judicial authority can make a decision taking into account the benefits. Thus, a person who has committed an act of vandalism may be placed in a medical educational institution in accordance with a court decision. In order for an exception to be made, a precedent is necessary - characteristics of mental or psychological development, the presence of diseases. The issue is resolved individually for each specific case; if doubt arises, the person is assigned the appropriate medical examination.

Types of offenses comparable to vandalism

Desecration is bringing the walls of a building into an obscene condition, offensive and unworthy behavior, taking into account the provisions of public morality. It can be expressed in the application of obscene inscriptions, all kinds of drawings, severe contamination of elements of buildings and structures with paint or other chemical compounds.

Damage is damage that results in the impossibility of subsequent use of the property of public transport or other public places. Damage also includes the application of drawings to walls and other surfaces that do not have an offensive meaning. This could be graffiti, political or religious inscriptions.

If such actions were committed in places that do not belong to public places. For example, if it was the destruction of a fence around a private plot, drawings on the walls of a private cottage, the offense will be classified as significant damage. It will be considered that the subject of the crime had direct intent. Regardless of the motives for the action, it is recognized as hooliganism. Sometimes clarifying the motive is necessary to separate vandalism from property crime.

Author of the article

Dmitry Leonov

Work experience 15 years, specialization - housing, family, inheritance, land, criminal cases.

Author's rating

721

Articles written

712

about the author

Article 20.1. Petty hooliganism

The appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 13, 2019 N 66-APU19-16 notes that the case contains documents on the administrative detention of Kudri (vol. 8 pp. 157, 158). The protocol was drawn up on April 24, 2018 at 17:55. for committing an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 20.1 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (petty hooliganism). However, from the testimony of FSB officer S., it follows that on April 24, after an inspection of the house, which ended at 2:50 p.m., Kudrya was taken to the department and was not at large. It is not clear where he could have committed petty hooliganism.

Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated October 26, 2017 N 2478-O

As follows from the presented materials, the decision of the court of general jurisdiction E.S. entered into legal force. Sizikov was found guilty of committing an administrative offense under Part 2 of Article 20.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (minor hooliganism involving disobedience to the legal demand of a government official or other person performing duties to protect public order or suppressing a violation of public order). As the courts indicated, authorized officials complied with legal requirements when drawing up a protocol on an administrative offense; the time difference between the official drawing up the protocol and the moment the applicant familiarized himself with this protocol, explaining his rights and obligations to him did not violate the right to defense; no comments were made the applicant did not respond to the protocol.

Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 9, 2017 N 78-AD17-23

Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation S.B. Nikiforov, having considered the complaint of Andrey Aleksandrovich Khonin against the ruling of the Deputy Chairman of the St. Petersburg City Court dated March 28, 2022 to terminate the proceedings on the complaint, issued in the case of an administrative offense provided for in Part 1 of Article 20.1 of the Code of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses in relation to Andrey Aleksandrovich Khonin,

Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated February 27, 2020 N 312-O

Article 319 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is aimed at protecting both the order of management and the dignity of the individual, which establishes criminal liability for public insult of a government official during the performance of his official duties or in connection with their performance (Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of December 19, 2022 N 2870 -ABOUT). The signs of this crime are not identical to the signs of an administrative offense specified in Part 2 of Article 20.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. Thus, the qualification according to these norms of two acts of one person, which are different offenses, although committed sequentially, does not contradict the principle of non bis in idem.

Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 10, 2020 N 47-AD20-2

Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Nikiforov S.B., having considered the complaint of Gatin Rumil Minigayazovich against the decision of the judge of the Orenburg Regional Court dated June 25, 2019 N 21-297/2019 and the resolution of the Deputy Chairman of the Orenburg Regional Court dated August 26, 2019 N 4a- 470/2019, held in the case of an administrative offense provided for in Part 2 of Article 20.1 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, in relation to Gatin Rumil Minigayazovich (hereinafter - Gatin R.M.)

Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 06/08/2020 N 46-AD20-5

Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation S.B. Nikiforov, having considered the complaint of Sergei Viktorovich Orlov against the decision of the judge of the Krasnoglinsky District Court of the city of Samara dated January 6, 2016 and the decision of the Chairman of the Samara Regional Court dated November 6, 2022, issued in relation to Sergey Orlov Viktorovich (hereinafter referred to as Orlov S.V.) in the case of an administrative offense provided for in Part 1 of Article 20.1 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences,

Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 3, 2020 N 16-AD20-3

Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Nikiforov S.B., having considered the complaint of Vasily Ivanovich Sivtsev (taking into account the submitted additions) against the decision of the judge of the Fourth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction dated February 12, 2022, which entered into legal force, issued in relation to Vasily Ivanovich Sivtsev (hereinafter - Sivtsev V.I.) in a case of an administrative offense provided for in Part 1 of Article 20.1 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences,

Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 13, 2020 N 1-AD20-1

Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation S.B. Nikiforov, having considered the protest of the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation L.G. Korzhinek. on the decision of the judge of the Kotlas City Court of the Arkhangelsk Region dated June 17, 2019 N 5-168/19, the decision of the judge of the Arkhangelsk Regional Court dated July 30, 2019 N 7p-357 and the decision of the Deputy Chairman of the Arkhangelsk Regional Court dated October 15, 2019 N 4a- 568, issued against Svetlana Aleksandrovna Baksheeva (hereinafter referred to as S.A. Baksheeva) in the case of an administrative offense under Part 3 of Article 20.1 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences,

Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 13, 2017 N 56-AD17-3

Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Nikiforov S.B., having considered the complaint of Garag D.I. (hereinafter referred to as Garaga D.I.), as well as the complaint of Shishkov D.O. (hereinafter referred to as Shishkov D.O.), referred to as the response to the complaint of Garaga D.I. on the decision of the judge of the Spassky District Court of the Primorsky Territory dated November 26, 2015, the decision of the judge of the Primorsky Regional Court dated March 3, 2016 N 7-12-119 and the decision of the deputy chairman of the Primorsky Regional Court dated November 21, 2016 N 4а-1015/2016, 4а-1016/ 2016, issued in the case of an administrative offense provided for in Part 1 of Article 20.1 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, in relation to Shishkov D.O.

Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 7, 2017 N 5-AD17-25

Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation V.P. Merkulov, having considered the complaint of E.S. Sizikov. on the decision of the judge of the Babushkinsky District Court of Moscow dated April 1, 2013 and the decision of the deputy chairman of the Moscow City Court dated October 2, 2015, issued in relation to Sizikov E.S. in a case of an administrative offense provided for in Part 2 of Article 20.1 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences,

Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 25, 2017 N 11-AD17-40

Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation V.P. Merkulov, having considered the complaint, called the application for making a representation, of Mikhail Yuryevich Karelin against the decision of the magistrate of court district No. 21 of the city of Naberezhnye Chelny of the Republic of Tatarstan, which came into force, dated March 29, 2012, the decision of the judge of the Naberezhnye Chelny City Court of the Republic of Tatarstan dated 16.04.2012 N 12-2191/2012 and the resolution of the Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan dated 15.06.2012 N 7a-355m, issued in relation to Karelin Mikhail Yuryevich (hereinafter - Karelin M.Yu.) in the case of an administrative offense, provided for in Part 1 of Article 20.1 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences,

Concept of crime. Features of criminal liability of minors.

1.1. Crime is a socially dangerous act committed guilty of guilt, prohibited by this Code under threat of punishment.

1.2. Minor crimes

1.2.1.
leaving in danger (Article 125) 1.2.2. destruction or damage to property due to negligence (Article 168)

1.3. Moderate crimes

1.3.1. incitement to suicide (Article 110)

1.3.2. intentional infliction of moderate harm to health (Article 112)

1.4. Serious crimes

1.4.1. robbery (Article 162)

1.4.2. rape (Article 131)

1.4.3. intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm (Article 111)

1.5. Particularly serious

1.5.1. murder (Article 105)

1.5.2. kidnapping (Article 126)

1.5.3. terrorism (Article 205)

1.6. Types of punishment imposed on minors

1.6.1. fine

1.6.2. deprivation of the right to engage in certain activities

1.6.3. compulsory work

1.6.4. correctional labor

1.6.5. arrest

1.6.6. imprisonment for a certain period of time

1.7. Compulsory educational measures

1.7.1. warning

1.7.2. transfer under the supervision of parents or persons replacing them, or a specialized government body

1.7.3. imposing an obligation to make amends for the harm caused

1.7.4. restricting leisure time and establishing special requirements for the behavior of a minor

Punishment for vandalism in Russia

The Criminal Code provides for the following types of punishment for vandalism:

• a fine in the amount of 40 thousand rubles or in the amount of the convicted person’s salary for a 3-month period;
• 3 month arrest;
• correctional labor for up to 3 months;
• compulsory work lasting up to 360 hours.

The type of punishment is chosen by the court after analyzing all the circumstances of the case: the severity of the crime, the consequences that occurred, the amount of damage, mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

Criminal legal analysis

Punishment for vandalism is provided for in Art. 214 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The subjective side of the crime consists of actions to damage property in public transport and other places. Harm is caused by damage to buildings and other structures: stadiums, fences and overpasses, recreation parks, attractions, premises for education, work or residence.

Desecration can be expressed in the following actions:

• applying obscene cynical inscriptions;
• placement of fascist symbols;
• contamination with dyes, sewage;
• pasting reproductions, posters of immoral content, writing offensive poems;
• damage to cultural and historical monuments, architectural values.

It is not vandalism to paint decent images and inscriptions, or offensive inscriptions on the walls of abandoned buildings and in deserted places. The object of the crime cannot be forest plantations, natural objects and personal property.

Difference from other crimes

Vandalism is related to a number of other compounds. Hooliganism (Article 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), in contrast, represents an open challenge to society. Vandals act secretly, usually at night, without attracting public attention.

In contrast to the elements of property damage (Article 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), which involves causing damage to the property of a specific citizen, the actions of vandals cause damage to property in public places.

Art. has a similar composition. 243 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on damage to cultural monuments. The objects of this crime can only be sculptures and monuments of high national and cultural value.

Vandalism is an illegal and immoral way of self-expression or an act of aggression towards the environment. Only the education of cultural and moral values ​​in young people and public condemnation of this crime will reduce the statistics of its commission.

• Didn't find the answer to your question? Find out how to solve exactly your problem - call right now:
• Federal number -
• Moscow region, Moscow -
• Leningr. region, St. Petersburg -
• It's absolutely free and fast!