1. Introduction

The question of the nature of punishment for minors occupies a special place in criminal law science and practice. It lies at the intersection of law, pedagogy, psychology, and state social policy. On the one hand, a crime always requires a response from the state, as it affects public safety and violates the established legal order. On the other hand, when it comes to a minor, a fundamentally different task arises: not only to respond to the act but also to take into account the age-related, psychological, and social characteristics of the individual [1].

Traditionally, the purposes of punishment are considered through three main functions: retribution (reprisal), prevention, and correction [2]. However, with respect to minors, the balance of these functions shifts. This raises a debate: is the punishment of adolescents primarily a form of retribution for what has been done, or is it a tool for their correction and return to society?

2. Material and methods

 2.1 Distinctive features of the legal status of minors

To answer this question, it is necessary to analyze the goals of criminal liability for minors, the features of their legal status, as well as the practice of applying punishments. In criminal law, a minor is considered a person with a limited degree of mental and social maturity. In most legal systems, including the Russian one, a special age of criminal responsibility is established. According to Article 20 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, general criminal responsibility begins at the age of 16, while for a number of serious crimes (murder, robbery, theft, etc.) — from the age of 14 [3].

This approach is based on the recognition that a teenager:

• does not possess full social maturity;
• perceives the consequences of his or her actions differently than an adult;
• is more susceptible to the influence of the environment and circumstances;
• has increased behavioral plasticity and the potential for correction[4].

Consequently, the state initially assumes that the impact on a juvenile offender should be different in nature from that on an adult criminal. Already at the legislative level, the priority of correction over punishment as retribution is established. Part 2 of Article 87 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation states that educational measures may be applied to minors instead of criminal punishment[3].However, a problem arises here: if a teenager is capable of realizing the public danger of his or her act (which is the basis for criminal liability), then why should his or her liability be mitigated? This contradiction between sanity and reduced maturity is one of the key theoretical problems of criminal law [5].

 2.2 Punitive function of punishment

Despite the humanistic orientation of legislation, it is impossible to completely exclude the punitive element. Any criminal punishment, even when applied to a minor, has a coercive and restrictive nature. The punitive function manifests itself in the following aspects:

• restriction of freedom (for example, imprisonment);
• criminal record and associated legal consequences (Article 86 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) [3];
• moral condemnation by the state;
• isolation from society in some cases.

From the perspective of proponents of a strict punitive model, punishment must correspond in its severity to the degree of public danger of the act. Otherwise, the principle of justice is violated, and there is a risk of reducing the preventive effect of criminal law. The founder of the classical school of criminal law, C. Beccaria, argued that punishment should be inevitable and proportionate to the harm caused, but at the same time he opposed torture and excessive cruelty [6].Тhe weakness of this position lies in the fact that it ignores the personality traits of the minor. A teenager often acts impulsively, without a stable criminal mindset. As noted in the study by E.A. Antonyan, juvenile delinquency is often situational in nature and is associated with age-related psychological crises[7]. Consequently, excessive punishment may not reduce crime but, on the contrary, reinforce deviant behavior through stigmatization. Thus, the punitive approach in its «pure form» does not explain the specifics of juvenile justice and comes into conflict with the objectives of long-term crime prevention.

2.3  Correction as a goal of punishment

The modern criminal policy of most states focuses on the resocialization of minors. This means that the key task is not retribution, but changing the behavior and living conditions of the teenager. Correction includes:

• the formation of legal awareness;
• eliminating the causes of criminal behavior;
• psychological and pedagogical correction;
• social adaptation and integration into societу[8].

Of particular importance is the fact that the criminal behavior of minors is often determined by external factors: a dysfunctional family, lack of supervision, negative social environment, poverty, or psychological trauma [9]. Under such conditions, punishment without corrective work proves ineffective.

Therefore, measures alternative to imprisonment are widely used in practice. In accordance with Article 88 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the following types of punishment may be applied to minors: fines (in a limited form), deprivation of the right to engage in certain activities, community service, corrective labor, restriction of freedom, and imprisonment for a certain term, with significantly reduced maximum sentences compared to adults[3]. Educational measures may also be applied, including a warning, transfer under supervision, limitation of leisure activities, and imposition of the obligation to make amends for the harm caused[3].

However, even here there is a weakness: correction is not always achievable in the short term. Moreover, some adolescents demonstrate persistent antisocial behavior. According to criminological studies, approximately 10–15% of juvenile offenders are characterized by a stable criminal orientation and require stricter measures of control[10].

2.4 Compromise model: balancing retribution and correction

The actual system of punishments for minors represents a compromise between retribution and correction.

On the one hand:

• criminal liability is retained;
• imprisonment is applied (though for shorter terms and in separate educational colonies);
• the institution of criminal record is in effect (although expungement terms for minors are reduced by Article 95 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) [3].

On the other hand:

• the list of punishments is limited compared to adults;
• maximum terms are substantially reduced (imprisonment may not exceed 10 years and is assigned only to persons aged 16 and over, with rare exceptions) [3];
• educational measures are actively used;
• priority is given to alternative sanctions.

Thus, the system does not choose between retribution and correction but combines them. The proportion depends on the gravity of the crime, the personality of the offender, and the circumstances of the case[11]. For example, in the case of serious and especially serious crimes (Articles 105, 111, 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), the punitive element is strengthened, as the need to protect society increases. In less dangerous cases, the corrective logic dominates, and courts actively apply Article 92 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which allows the release of a minor from punishment with placement in a special educational institution [3].

2.5 Efficiency criterion: recidivism and resocialization

The key criterion for evaluating any criminal policy is the recidivism rate. If punishment does not reduce re-offending, its effectiveness is questionable.

Criminological research shows that:

• imprisonment of minors often increases the risk of re-offending (according to some data, the recidivism rate among those who have served a sentence in educational colonies reaches 30-40%) [12];
• isolation from society leads to the formation of a criminal environment, the so-called «criminalization» of a teenager;
• lack of social support after release worsens adaptation and often leads to a return to a criminal lifestyle[13].

At the same time, resocialization programs, educational and psychological interventions demonstrate a more sustainable positive effect. Foreign experience, in particular in Scandinavian countries, shows that a system based on restorative justice and individual work with a teenager can reduce the recidivism rate to 15-20% [14].

This confirms the conclusion: a purely punitive model with respect to minors is ineffective. However, complete exclusion of punishment is also impossible, as it undermines the principle of responsibility and public confidence in the law.

2.6 Philosophical and ethical dimension

The question of punishing minors goes beyond the scope of law and touches upon moral philosophy. Society must answer the question: is a teenager at the time of committing a crime a full-fledged moral subject or only a partially formed personality? If we recognize him as fully responsible [15], then strengthening the punitive approach is logical [16]. If we take into account incomplete maturity, then there is a need to shift the emphasis towards education [17]. Modern ethics tends towards the second option but does not completely exclude the first. This creates a tension between the principles of justice and humanism. As the German philosopher J. Habermas noted, the legal system must simultaneously ensure the protection of society and respect for the rights of the individual [18], including the right to a second chance [1].

3. Results and discussions

During the study

1) the legal status of minors has been considered;

2) the philosophical and ethical aspects of punishment have been studied;

3) the practical consequences of various models of criminal policy have been identified

4) It is concluded that a hybrid model is needed in which punishment serves as a means of coercion while correction remains the primary objective.

4. Conclusion

The punishment of minors cannot be unequivocally attributed to either pure retribution or pure correction. It represents a hybrid model in which the dominant function depends on the specific circumstances of the case and the degree of public danger of the act. Retribution is necessary as a form of legal coercion and as a confirmation of the significance of the legal norm. Correction is necessary as a tool to prevent future crime and social degradation of the individual. Consequently, the most accurate answer to the question posed is as follows: punishment of minors is not an alternative between retribution and correction, but a system in which punishment serves as a means of enforcement, while correction remains the primary goal.

Such a balance makes it possible to simultaneously protect society [20] and preserve the prospect of social rehabilitation for the teenager. As correctly noted in modern juvenile law, the central idea should be the principle of minimum sufficient punishment: the least severe measure that can achieve the goal of correction and prevention should be chosen.