Operationalising ISRD evidence for youth justice in Estonia: a child‑rights framework for proportionate, least‑restrictive responses

Abstract

Kui noor läheb seadusega pahuksisse – millist reaktsiooni ta päriselt vajab?

Iga vanem loodab, et tema laps ei satu kunagi politsei ega kohtu vaatevälja. Ometi proovivad enamik noori teismeeas piire – mõnikord ka seadust rikkudes. Tartu Ülikooli õigusteaduskonnas kaitstud kriminoloogia doktoritöö küsib: kuidas reageerida nii, et noor õpiks, aga talle ei jääks elu alguses „kurjategija“ silti külge? Anna Markina tugineb rahvusvahelise noorte hälbiva käitumise uuringu ISRD andmetele, mida on Eestis kogutud kolmes laines. Küsimustikud näitavad, kui paljud 12–16-aastased on varastanud, kakelnud, tarbinud alkoholi või olnud vägivalla ohvrid – ka siis, kui politsei sellest kunagi teada ei saa. Tulemused kinnitavad: enamik noori „kasvab välja“ väiksematest rikkumistest, eriti kui kodu, kool ja võrgustik pakuvad tuge. Seetõttu ei peaks karistus olema esimene valik. Kui riik vastab ainult karistusega ega paku noorele tuge ja võimalust muutusteks, võib ka väikseim rikkumine saada kriminaalse karjääri alguseks. Töö keskmes on 2018. aasta alaealiste erikohtlemise reform. Selle järel kadusid alaealiste komisjonid ning suurem roll anti prokurörile ja kohtule. Seadus näeb ette, et 14–17-aastast tuleb eelistatult suunata hoiatuse, konfliktivahenduse, sotsiaalprogrammide, ühiskondliku töö ning ravi- ja nõustamisteenuste poole. Vabadusekaotus jääb viimaseks abinõuks. Reformi alguses kardeti, et „leebem“ reageerimine tekitab karistamatuse tunde ja kasvatab kuritegevust, kuid doktoritöö näitab, et seda ei ole juhtunud. Töös võrreldakse Eesti süsteemi lapse õiguste konventsiooni ja Euroopa „lapsesõbraliku õigusemõistmise“ põhimõtetega. Järeldus on ettevaatlikult optimistlik: liigume õiges suunas, kui koolid, lastekaitse, sotsiaal- ja õigussüsteem suudavad hoida noore fookuses. Arukas reageerimine noorte õigusrikkumistele ei küsi ainult, mis tegu tehti, vaid ka seda, milline noor on meie ees ja milline sekkumine aitab tal päriselt eluga edasi minna.

When a Young Person Breaks the Law: What Kind of Support Do They Truly Need?

Every parent hopes that their child will never attract the attention of the police or the courts. However, it’s common for teenagers to test boundaries, which sometimes results in breaking the law. This PhD thesis in criminology, presented at the University of Tartu School of Law, explores how the state can respond in a way that helps a young person learn from their experiences without labelling them a “criminal” at the beginning of their adult life. Anna Markina draws on data from the International Self-Report Delinquency Study (ISRD), collected in Estonia across three waves. The school-based questionnaires reveal how many 12–16-year-olds have engaged in activities such as stealing, fighting, consuming alcohol, or experiencing violence as victims – even in cases where the police are never informed. The results confirm an important truth: most young people tend to “grow out of” minor offences, especially when they receive support from their home, school, and social networks. This suggests that punishment should not be the primary response. If the state only resorts to punishment without providing support and opportunities for change, even a minor offence can mark the beginning of a criminal career. The central focus of the thesis is the youth justice reform in Estonia, which took place in 2018. As a result of this reform, juvenile committees were abolished, and prosecutors and courts were given a greater role in the justice process. The law now stipulates that individuals aged 14 to 17 should primarily be directed towards alternatives such as warnings, restorative dialogue, social programs, community service, and treatment or counseling services, rather than facing punishment. While deprivation of liberty remains an option, it is considered only as a last resort. Initially, there were concerns that this “softer” approach might create a sense of impunity among young people and lead to an increase in crime. However, the thesis demonstrates that this has not been the case. The study compares the Estonian system to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and European principles regarding child-friendly justice. The conclusion is cautiously optimistic: Estonia is progressing in the right direction, as long as schools, child protection services, social services, and the justice system remain focused on the young individual. A thoughtful approach to juvenile offending considers not only the actions committed but also the identity of the young person and which interventions will truly help them move forward in life.