1. When imposing a punishment on a minor, in addition to the circumstances provided for in the article of this Code, the conditions of his life and upbringing, the level of mental development, other personality characteristics, as well as the influence of older persons on him are taken into account.
2. Minor age as a mitigating circumstance is taken into account in conjunction with other mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
- Article 88. Types of punishments imposed on minors
- Article 90. Application of compulsory measures of educational influence
Commentary to Art. 89 Criminal Code
1. When assigning punishment, the court is obliged to take into account both circumstances that are the same for all persons who have committed crimes, regardless of their age, i.e. be guided by the general principles of sentencing (Article 60 of the Criminal Code), as well as by the circumstances caused by the minority of the perpetrator: a) the conditions of his life and upbringing; b) level of mental development, other personality characteristics; c) the influence of older people on him.
2. The living conditions and upbringing of a minor are determined taking into account information about his parents, studies, living conditions in the family, etc. The level of mental development is determined using a forensic psychological examination. Other personality traits are understood as: suggestibility, tendency to imitate, impulsiveness, etc. If the commission of a crime by minors was preceded by unlawful or provoking behavior of adults, including those recognized as victims in the case, the court has the right to recognize this circumstance as mitigating the punishment of the perpetrator, and also, if necessary, send private rulings to the place of work or residence of these persons.
Another commentary on Article 89 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. When assigning punishment to a minor, the court takes into account not only the nature and degree of social danger of the crime and the personality of the perpetrator, but also the degree of his development, awareness of the motives of the crime, the conditions of his life and upbringing, the level of mental development, other personality characteristics, as well as the influence of elders on him by age of persons. Under other conditions, a minor who falls under the influence of adults or is deprived of parental education and care, or who experiences violence from a guardian, deserves a less severe punishment. The court must take into account that, due to the age characteristics of the minor, the decisive motive could be such as a false sense of camaraderie; the role was played by the tendency to imitate, and not by the antisocial orientation of the individual and the desire to extract personal benefit from the crime committed.
2. The legislator drew attention to the fact that minor age cannot take precedence over other mitigating and aggravating circumstances, but must be taken into account only in conjunction with other factors.
Second commentary to Art. 89 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. Punishment for minors is imposed in full accordance with the provisions of the general principles of sentencing provided for in Article 60 of the Criminal Code. Minor age is taken into account as a mitigating circumstance in accordance with the requirements of Article 60 of the Criminal Code and the provisions of Article 61 of the Criminal Code. The peculiarity of imposing punishment on minors is to expand the range of circumstances to be taken into account. Provisions of Art. 89 of the Criminal Code obliges the court to take into account, in addition to ordinary circumstances, additional:
1) living conditions and upbringing of the minor;
2) the level of his mental development;
3) other personality characteristics;
4) the influence of older people.
Another comment on Art. 89 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. When imposing a sentence on a minor, in addition to the circumstances provided for in Art. 60 of the Criminal Code, the following are taken into account: a) the living conditions and upbringing of a minor, which are identified by collecting data about his parents (persons replacing them), study (work), everyday environment, connections, pastime and range of interests, behavior at home and everyday life; b) level of mental development, reflecting the state of the adolescent’s intellectual and volitional sphere, his socialization, ideas about moral priorities, etc.; c) other personality characteristics, which include physical disabilities, bad habits, characteristics of a teenager’s character, etc.; d) the influence of older persons on the minor. When considering cases of juvenile crimes committed with the participation of older persons, it is necessary to carefully determine the nature of the relationship between an adult and a teenager, since this data can be significant in establishing the role of an adult in involving a minor in the commission of a crime.
2. Being a minor is taken into account as a mitigating circumstance, since minors, due to their insufficient maturity, are not always able to correctly assess what they have done; In addition, they are subject to negative influence from other people and are more susceptible to mood. However, it should be borne in mind that minor age is taken into account in conjunction with aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Third commentary to Article 89 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. When assigning punishment to a minor, the court takes into account not only the nature and degree of social danger of the crime and the personality of the perpetrator, but also the degree of his development, awareness of the motives of the crime, the conditions of his life and upbringing, the level of mental development, other personality characteristics, as well as the influence of elders on him by age of persons. Under other conditions, a minor who falls under the influence of adults or is deprived of parental education and care, or who experiences violence from a guardian, deserves a less severe punishment. The court must take into account that, due to the age characteristics of the minor, the decisive motive could be such as a false sense of camaraderie; the role was played by the tendency to imitate, and not by the antisocial orientation of the individual and the desire to extract personal benefit from the crime committed.
2. The legislator drew attention to the fact that minor age cannot take precedence over other mitigating and aggravating circumstances, but must be taken into account only in conjunction with other factors.
‹ Article 88. Types of punishments imposed on minorsUp Article 90. Application of compulsory measures of educational influence ›
Judicial practice under Article 89 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 10, 2018 N 44-UD18-8
As can be seen from the presented materials, Khlyzov V.N. was also convicted by the verdict of January 18, 1979 under Part 3 of Art. 224.1 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, art. , part 2 art. 224.1 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR to 7 years in prison, as well as according to the verdict of May 25, 1983 under Part 2 of Art. Criminal Code of the RSFSR, Part 3, Art. Criminal Code of the RSFSR, Part 2, Art. 224.1 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, art. Criminal Code of the RSFSR to 12 years 9 months in prison, released on September 7, 1995 after serving his sentence.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 2, 2019 N 4-APU19-31
On March 1, 2021, the investigator for the internal affairs department of the department for the investigation of crimes against the person and public safety of the Investigative Directorate of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Republic of Belarus for the Vitebsk Region issued a resolution to involve V.Yu. Panyutic. as a defendant under Part 3 of Art. , part 3 art. 213.1, part 1 art. 213 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus (as amended in 1960), paragraph 6, 12, part 2, art. 139 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 29, 2019 N 45-APU19-20sp
- Sh. Convicted on February 10, 1965 under Part 2 of Art. Criminal Code of the RSFSR and 07/24/1984 under Part 1 of Art. 209 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR; — T. was prosecuted in 2011-2012. according to Part 1 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and on November 20, 2013 he was convicted by the Chkalovsky District Court of Yekaterinburg under Part 2 of Art. 228 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 15, 2017 N AKPI17-630
As follows from the case materials, by the verdict of the Irkutsk Regional Court of May 30, 1991, Tarasov A.G. Convicted for a set of crimes provided for in Part 1 of Article 218, Part 3 of Article 144, Part 3 of Article 103, paragraph “i” of Article 102 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, to an exceptional measure of punishment - the death penalty.
Appeal ruling of the Appeal Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 12, 2017 N APL17-448
Tarasov A.G., ... year of birth, by the verdict of the Irkutsk Regional Court of May 30, 1991, left unchanged by the ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of October 16, 1991, convicted of a set of crimes provided for in part 1 of the article 218, part 3 of article 144, part 3 of article, article 103, paragraph “i” of article 102 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code of the RSFSR), to an exceptional measure of punishment - the death penalty.
Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 6, 2017 N 127-UDp17-8
Moreover, as part 4 of Art. of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and Part 4 of Art. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation includes a crime under Part 2 of Art. 186 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (Part 2 of Article 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), to the category of grave. Crimes under Part 1 of Art. 152 and part 1 of Art. 153 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (Part 1 of Article 131, Part 1 of Article 132 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), in accordance with Part 3 of Art. The Criminal Code of Ukraine is classified as crimes of medium gravity. The expiration period for criminal records for committing serious crimes, as well as crimes of minor and medium gravity, by virtue of paragraphs 7, 8 of Art. Criminal Code of Ukraine and paragraphs “c”, “d”, part 3 of Art. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 63-FZ of June 13, 1996, in force at the time the crime was committed) is, respectively, 6 years and 3 years from the date of serving the sentence.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 31, 2018 N 11-APU18-1
The lawyer's arguments regarding the presence of Zaitsev V.V. individual psychological characteristics, such as emotional immaturity, orientation towards an authority figure, weakened control over emotions, as well as the level of mental development and personality traits, the influence of the older Khasanov A.A. on him, were taken into account by the court in accordance with Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation when appointing Zaitsev V.V. punishments.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 25, 2018 N 66-APU18-8
In additions, Chipizubov notes that the court did not take into account, as mitigating circumstances, the immoral and unlawful behavior of victims V. and witness L., which was the reason for the crime, and the lack of reaction of the colony administration to the unlawful actions of these persons. In his opinion, the court did not take into account the provisions of Art. the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, data about his personality, positive characteristics, rewards, the level of his mental development, personality traits, his susceptibility to suggestibility, tendency to imitate and impulsiveness. Due to his being in custody during the investigation, he was deprived of the opportunity to prove in any way that he realized everything and repented of what he had done. He asks to take into account his arguments and show leniency.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 15, 2019 N 127-APU18-13sp
Danilchenko N.N. has a criminal record according to the verdict of the Evpatoria City Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea dated 02/05/2007, including for committing a crime under Part 1 of Art. 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (murder). This criminal record in accordance with paragraph 9 of Art. Criminal Code of Ukraine, clause “e”, part 3, art. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation has not been extinguished. The specified criminal record, as by virtue of Part 5 of Art. of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and in accordance with Part 5 of Art. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is recognized as a particularly serious crime. Danilchenko N.N. again committed a particularly serious crime.
Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 18, 2021 N 56-UD21-17-A5
When assigning punishment to Shalaev, the norms of criminal law, including the provisions of Art. Art. , , the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, are not violated; the punishment assigned to him corresponds to the nature and degree of social danger of the crimes committed, the circumstances of their commission and the personality of the convicted person. At the same time, the court took into account all the circumstances mitigating Shalaev’s punishment.
Cassation ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 24, 2021 N 15-021-1SP
Indicates that before December 1, 1998, he did not reach the age of majority and when sentencing him under Art. 210 part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation the court was obliged to be guided by the provisions of Art. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In addition, the court did not take into account the fact that the statute of limitations for bringing a minor to criminal responsibility under Art. 210 part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation had already expired, the criminal case was subject to termination.
