?
ЭФФЕКТИВНОСТЬ УГОЛОВНОЙ ОТВЕТСТВЕННОСТИ НЕСОВЕРШЕННОЛЕТНИХ
The study of the personality of a juvenile offender shows the influence of its characteristics not only on the nature of the crime, but also on the application of punishment to the perpetrator. Despite the fact that bringing minors to criminal responsibility should be based on strict observance of the principle of humanism, research confirms that the impunity of adolescents does not always contribute to the achievement of goals such as correction and private prevention. The article substantiates the thesis that the imposition of criminal penalties for minors related to feasible work is the best option for criminal liability for the majority of convicted adolescents, which should not exclude an individual approach to each such person. Special attention is paid to the problem of establishing in the law the age criterion of criminal law delictability of a person. The changes in approaches to its definition in modern criminal legislation in comparison with the Soviet one are analyzed. The article reflects such a complex ethical and legal problem as the conflict of interests of a minor offender and a minor victim in criminal legal relations. Using the example of criminal liability for rape and sexual violence, it is shown how the principle of humanism, which applies to a minor offender, conflicts with the principle of justice, which protects the interests of a minor victim, and how the vector of criminal policy has turned towards the other side.