Wszystkie pola: Kodeks Karny - Katalog OPAC zbiorów

Skocz do pozycji: 1.

Tytuł:: O polityce karnej z perspektywy retrospektywnej
On Criminal Policy in Retrospection
Autorzy:: Pływaczewski, Emil W.
Powiązania:: https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/698744.pdf
Data publikacji:: 2008
Wydawca:: Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN
Tematy:: polityka karna
kodeks karny
analiza retrospektywna
criminal policy
penal code
retrospection
Źródło:: Archiwum Kryminologii; 2008, XXIX-XXX; 617-628
0066-6890
2719-4280
Pojawia się w:: Archiwum Kryminologii
Dostawca treści:: Biblioteka Nauki

Artykuł

Zmień widok

na półce

Skocz do pozycji: 2.

Tytuł:: Przestępstwa przeciwko rodzinie w kodeksie karnym Hiszpanii
Crime Against Family in the Spanish Penal Code
Autorzy:: Kunicka-Michalska, Barbara
Powiązania:: https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/698738.pdf
Data publikacji:: 2008
Wydawca:: Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN
Tematy:: przestępstwa przeciwko rodzinie
kodeks karny
Hiszpania
crime against family
Spanish Penal Code
Źródło:: Archiwum Kryminologii; 2008, XXIX-XXX; 533-541
0066-6890
2719-4280
Pojawia się w:: Archiwum Kryminologii
Dostawca treści:: Biblioteka Nauki

Artykuł

Zmień widok

na półce

Skocz do pozycji: 3.

Tytuł:: Penalizacja i jej ograniczenia
Penalization and its limitations
Autorzy:: Gardocki, Lech
Powiązania:: https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/699198.pdf
Data publikacji:: 1985
Wydawca:: Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN
Tematy:: penalizacja
ograniczenia
prawo karne
kodeks karny
społeczeństwo
penalization
limitations
penal law
penal code
society
Źródło:: Archiwum Kryminologii; 1985, XII; 11-16
0066-6890
2719-4280
Pojawia się w:: Archiwum Kryminologii
Dostawca treści:: Biblioteka Nauki

Artykuł

Zmień widok

na półce

Skocz do pozycji: 4.

Tytuł:: Efektywność nadzoru ochronnego (wyniki badań 232 recydywistów poddanych nadzorowi ochronnemu)
The effectiveness of protective supervision (results of a stud of 232 habitual criminals put under protective supersivion)
Autorzy:: Rzeplińska, Irena
Powiązania:: https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/699072.pdf
Data publikacji:: 1983
Wydawca:: Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN
Tematy:: recydywa
nadzór ochronny
recydywista
resocjalizacja
kodeks karny
protective supervision
recidivist
resocialization
Penal Code
recidivism
Opis:: 1.The 1969 Penal Code introduced a new system of sanctions for offences committed by habitual criminals in special circumstances. Two new categories of special recidivism are here introduced: special basic recidivism (Art. 60, § 1 of the Penal Code), and special multi-recidivism (Art. 60, § 2 of the Penal Code). The legal consequences of a conviction under Art. 60, § 1 or § 2 are as follows: 1) longer terms of imprisonment, 2)the application of special measures: protective supervison and commitment to a social readaptation centre, These measures take effect after the prison sentence has been served. Under the protective supervision system, the habitual offender is free, but supervised for a period of 3-5 years. The readaptation centre is a closed institution. The habitual offender is sent there for a minimum period of two years, up to a maximum of five years. After two years the penitentiary court may free the recidivist if it thinks he is unlikely to commit another crime after regaining his freedom. The conditions under which a person is sent to a readaptation centre differ, according to whether he or she was sentenced under Art. 60, §1 or Art. 60, § 2 of the Penal Code. A recidivist may be sent to a readaptation centre by either the criminal court or the penitentiary courts. The decision to apply these measures may be taken at diverse stages of the juridical and penitentiary process: 1) when the sentence is pronounced (by the criminal court), 2) towards the end of the prison sentence (penitentiary court), or 3) during the period of protective supervision (penitentiary court). In the first of the three stages mentioned above, the recidivist senrenced under Art. 60, § 1 of the Penal Code may or may not be put under protective supervison. It is not obligatory. In the case of a person sentenced under § 2 of Art. 60 of the Penal Code, it is obligatory either to put him under protecive supervision or to send him to a social readaptation centre. The decision to send a recidivist to a social readaptation centre (a more severe measure) is taken only if the court is of the opinion that protective supervision would be insufficient io prevent a return to crime. In the second of the three stages mentioned above, towards the end of the recidivists's sentence the penitentiary court takes the following decisions: 1) it may put the habitual criminal under protective supervision if that was not done in the sentence of the criminal court; 2) it may alter the decision of the criminal court and put the offender under a protective supervision order instead of sending him to a social readaptation centre. The third and last stage in which decisions are taken about the application of special measures, is when the offender is actually under the supervision of a Probation Officer. If the supervision is not working out satisfactorily, the recidivist may be sent to a social readaptation centre. 2.The habitual offender is supervised by a Probation Officer after he has served his prison sentence. No person who is under protective supervision may change his place of residence without the consent of the court. He is obliged to appear in court if summoned, and to carry out the court's recommendations (Art. 63 of the Penal Code). The court may order the recidivists: 1. to perform an obligation incumbent on the sentenced person to provide support for another person; 2. to perform specified work for a social purpose; 3. to perform remunerated work, pursuing an education or preparing for an occupation; 4. to refrain from abusing alcohol; 5. to submit to medical treatment; 6. to refrain from frequenting specified surroundings or places; 7. other appropriated behaviour in the period of protective supervision, if it may prevent the commission again of an offense. During the protective supervision period, the court may issue orders, or extend or alter those already given. During the protective supervision period the recidivist comes under the supervision of a Probation Officer appointed by the court, who at the same time is responsible for organizing the resocialization of the person being supervised. Protective supervision ceases: 1 when the appointed period of probation is at an end, and when probation has been successful, 2) Or aerlier, if the person being supervised fails to carry out the orders and obligations placed on him, or if he makes it impossible or difficult for the purpose of the protective supervison order to be attained (e.g. by committing a crime when under supervision, which means that the supervision was unsuccessful, 3) owing to causes which bring supervision to an end (e.g. death of the supervised person). 3. The study reported here dealt with one of the two special measures mentioned above - protective supervision. The main problem examined is the effectiveness of protective supervision. Protective supervision is a system which has two goals: one is to keep the supervised person from committing another crime (here we may speak of the restraining function of supervision), while the other is to resocialise the person on supervision (in this case we may speak of the resocialising function of probation). The key question asked by anyone who examines the effectiveness of some penal measure is: whether, and to what extent, does it attain its aims? With this definition in mind, the effectiveness of probation was examined in two fields. In the first (narrower) field, the author asked if there had been a juridical improvement in the behaviour of persons put under supervision. In the second (wider) field, success was measured by the extent of the supervised persons resocialisation - that is, an attempt was made to find out how the supervised person functioned in society, that is, whether he kept to the basic social norms that society expects,of its members. In both fields, the moment of time when effectiveness of supervision was assessed was that at which supervision ceased. Those who successfully completed their period of probation were checked again at the end of 38 months, to see whether or not they had reverted to crime. The group studied here consisted of all male recidivists in Warsaw who were put under a protective supervision order in 1971-1972. There were 232 persons in the group. Two research techniques were used. ln the first, the relevant documents were studied (documents concerning previous criminal caces, prison documents, records of the course of protective supervision, data, about previous convictions, as well as about periods spent in penal institutions and in remand). In the second, the recidivist was interviewed on the basis of a questionnaire. 4. Out of the 232 persons investigated, 43.1 % completed the supervision period successfully, 53.3% failed to do so, and in 3.4% of the cases death intervened. In this group of recidivists who had been put under supervision the author differentiated three groups: Group I - taken as having been resocialised during the supervision period, and as having successfully completed their supervision. This group consisted of 57 men (26% of the total number studied). Group II – regarded as not having been resocialised, but that completed the probation period successfully, without ill consequences for themselves. Group II consisted of 43 men (19% of the total). Group III, consisting of men who were not resocialised, and who as a result suffered the additional ill effect of being isolated in the social readaptation centre; this group failed to complete their supervision successfully. In this group were 124 men (55% of the total). Some of the unresocialised men in Group III did not carry out any of the duties or orders given them. Some reverted to crime even although for a time they carried out their duties and orders. Some did not carry out their duties and orders, and reverted to crime. In this group the supervision system failed to fulfil the functions expected of it. With regard to those who did not carry out their obligations and orders it failed in its resocialisation function, while with regard to the others, who committed a crime while under supervision, it failed in both its functions: restraint and resocialisation. The following characteristics were found in Groups I, II and III. Group I consisted mostly of the youngest men (only one-eighth of the group were over 40). They were educated at least up to elementary school standard (approx. age 14-15). During the probation period they carried out work that called for skills. They were physically healthy. In their case the supervision period was one in which their lives were financially more stable (they had paid jobs). They also had stable family lives, and started their own a families. Of all the groups, they had the fewest convictions up to the time the probation period began. They had mainly committed offences against property, but a significant number had been gauilty of crimes of a predominantly aggressive nature. Drunkenness was not noted among them during the supervision period. The men in this group declared that after they had come out of prison and been put under protective supervision they had no special trouble in beginning life again in freedom. They also said they were pleased with life. Group II consisted of men who, judged from the formal point of view, completed their supervision period successfully. But their behaviour during supervision, and above all their heavy drinking, does not justify us in regarding them as having been resocialised. These were habitual criminals who when put under supervision were older (mostly over the age of thirty), as compared witn the men in Group I. As many as a quarter of the men in Group II were habitual criminals aged forty and over. Compared with the men in Group I, they were less well educated, and worse qualified for jobs. Among them various types of physical complaints were found, possibly because they were older, and possibly also because they had a longer career of crime. Fewer of them were married. They seemed to make little effort to achieve financial stability. During the supervision period they frequently changed their job - often because of some infringement of discipline, or because they arbitrarily threw up their job. When they began probation, they had more convictions behind them than the men in Group I. Group II had the lowest number of men who had committed serious crimes against property, or serious aggressive crimes. They were guilty mostly of petty crimes. Above all the habitual criminals in this group are the most awkward ones from the social point of view. They were the ones who mostly said they were dissatisfied with their lives. While on supervision they did not give up heavy drinking. Moreover, although ordered to take a "drying-out" cure , they did not go for treatment at all, or did so irregularly. Before their conviction they had worked irregularly, with gaps in between jobs, but during the whole supervision period they worked. Groups III: protective supervision was a failure with group. As compared with the other groups the men in this one had more previous convictions - the average number of previous convictions being nearly six. More of them, as compared with the men in the other groups, went in mainly for crimes against property; the minority went in for crimes of a predominantly aggressive character and crimes of diverse types. Half of the men in Group II came into the 21-30 age group when ,they began supervision, while the other half were older (moreover, one-seventh were habitual criminals aged over forty). Even at the beginning of supervision the men in this group were in a worse situation than the others - especially as compared with the men in Group II, for they were worse educated, and worse prepared for earning living. The majority of the men in this group were single. Only one in five was married. Their health was noticeably poorer than that of the men in the other groups. Most of the men in this group drank heavilly during the supervision period. The men here confessed that immediately after getting out of prison they had trouble in getting back to a normal life. The main obstacles were lack of money, and the difficulty in finding a job. When questioned they said that on the whole they were not happy about their lives. The majority (72.6%) had reverted to crime while on supervision. The others had been taken out of supervision because they did not carry out their obligations ot the orders or the probation officer. 6. In this study of men put under protective supervision, one in every four is reckoned to have been a success. it was noted that during the supervision period factors that made for success were: setting up a family, having a regular skilled job, and avoidance of heavy drinking. In view of the above, it is the youngest habitual criminals who have the best chance of completing their supervision period successfultry. Age is in their favour, they have a better chance of a stable family life, they are better educated, better fitted for a job, they do not show the symptoms of social degradation associated with alcoholism, Because of these factors they are more likely to be able to return to a normal life. 7. During a period of 38 months from the end of the each man's supervision period, a check was kept on whether or not these men had further convictions. The men covered by this part of the study were those in Groups I and II, that is, those who successfully completed their probation. Thirteen men from Group I and twelve men from Group II (that is, twenty-five men altogether), had subsequent convictions. They constituted 25% of the two groups. It may therefore be stated that the majority (three-quarters) of the men in Groups I and II had no convictions during the thirty-eight months following the end of their supervision period. 8. In the supervised groups studied here, we took one quarter as having been resocialised by the end of supervision, one-fifth as having at most improved formally, and over a half as not having been resocialised - in their case supervision ended in failure. On the basis of this study it may be stated that the chief criterion on which the man on supervision was judged (and on which the success of the supervision proces was judged) was whether or not he carried out the instruction to have a paid job. This was due to two reasons: in the first place, if the man was in paid employment, it mean that he was fulfilling at least the minimum of the demands made on him during the supervision period (this minimum was: to earn his own living). Secondly, it was easy for both the Probation Officer and for the man he was supervising to check whether this order was being carried out, and how. The implementation of their instructions was treated as being of less importance. The main one was to have paid employment. If the man being supervised was in a job, but failed to carry out other instructions given to him, the Probation Officers did not ask for him to be taken off supervision. At the present moment, when reform of the criminal law in Poland is under discussion, one of the problems being examined is that of the penal liability of people who revert to crime, and the question of what legal penalties should be imposed on them. It has been pointed out during this discussion that the severe legal penalties imposed on habitual criminals during the last ten years have not been effective. Consequently the question still remains open: whether we should not apply the special measures described above - protective supervision or commitment to a social readaptation centre after the prison sentence is served. What we have learned from the use of a closed institution such as a social readaptation centre shows that it is completely ineffective. As for protective supervision, it has been postulated that this way of controlling the behaviour of habitual criminals should be transferred from the sphere of penal measures to the sphere of social security measures. It has been suggested that within the framework of post penitentiary care, specific medsures to help, which would be carried out by the probation officers, would be available to habitual criminals after coming out of prison.
1.The 1969 Penal Code introduced a new system of sanctions for offences committed by habitual criminals in special circumstances. Two new categories of special recidivism are here introduced: special basic recidivism (Art. 60, § 1 of the Penal Code), and special multi-recidivism (Art. 60, § 2 of the Penal Code). The legal consequences of a conviction under Art. 60, § 1 or § 2 are as follows: 1) longer terms of imprisonment, 2)the application of special measures: protective supervison and commitment to a social readaptation centre, These measures take effect after the prison sentence has been served. Under the protective supervision system, the habitual offender is free, but supervised for a period of 3-5 years. The readaptation centre is a closed institution. The habitual offender is sent there for a minimum period of two years, up to a maximum of five years. After two years the penitentiary court may free the recidivist if it thinks he is unlikely to commit another crime after regaining his freedom. The conditions under which a person is sent to a readaptation centre differ, according to whether he or she was sentenced under Art. 60, §1 or Art. 60, § 2 of the Penal Code. A recidivist may be sent to a readaptation centre by either the criminal court or the penitentiary courts. The decision to apply these measures may be taken at diverse stages of the juridical and penitentiary process: 1) when the sentence is pronounced (by the criminal court), 2) towards the end of the prison sentence (penitentiary court), or 3) during the period of protective supervision (penitentiary court). In the first of the three stages mentioned above, the recidivist senrenced under Art. 60, § 1 of the Penal Code may or may not be put under protective supervison. It is not obligatory. In the case of a person sentenced under § 2 of Art. 60 of the Penal Code, it is obligatory either to put him under protecive supervision or to send him to a social readaptation centre. The decision to send a recidivist to a social readaptation centre (a more severe measure) is taken only if the court is of the opinion that protective supervision would be insufficient io prevent a return to crime. In the second of the three stages mentioned above, towards the end of the recidivists's sentence the penitentiary court takes the following decisions: 1) it may put the habitual criminal under protective supervision if that was not done in the sentence of the criminal court; 2) it may alter the decision of the criminal court and put the offender under a protective supervision order instead of sending him to a social readaptation centre. The third and last stage in which decisions are taken about the application of special measures, is when the offender is actually under the supervision of a Probation Officer. If the supervision is not working out satisfactorily, the recidivist may be sent to a social readaptation centre. 2.The habitual offender is supervised by a Probation Officer after he has served his prison sentence. No person who is under protective supervision may change his place of residence without the consent of the court. He is obliged to appear in court if summoned, and to carry out the court's recommendations (Art. 63 of the Penal Code). The court may order the recidivists: 1. to perform an obligation incumbent on the sentenced person to provide support for another person; 2. to perform specified work for a social purpose; 3. to perform remunerated work, pursuing an education or preparing for an occupation; 4. to refrain from abusing alcohol; 5. to submit to medical treatment; 6. to refrain from frequenting specified surroundings or places; 7. other appropriated behaviour in the period of protective supervision, if it may prevent the commission again of an offense. During the protective supervision period, the court may issue orders, or extend or alter those already given. During the protective supervision period the recidivist comes under the supervision of a Probation Officer appointed by the court, who at the same time is responsible for organizing the resocialization of the person being supervised. Protective supervision ceases: 1 when the appointed period of probation is at an end, and when probation has been successful, 2) Or aerlier, if the person being supervised fails to carry out the orders and obligations placed on him, or if he makes it impossible or difficult for the purpose of the protective supervison order to be attained (e.g. by committing a crime when under supervision, which means that the supervision was unsuccessful, 3) owing to causes which bring supervision to an end (e.g. death of the supervised person). 3. The study reported here dealt with one of the two special measures mentioned above - protective supervision. The main problem examined is the effectiveness of protective supervision. Protective supervision is a system which has two goals: one is to keep the supervised person from committing another crime (here we may speak of the restraining function of supervision), while the other is to resocialise the person on supervision (in this case we may speak of the resocialising function of probation). The key question asked by anyone who examines the effectiveness of some penal measure is: whether, and to what extent, does it attain its aims? With this definition in mind, the effectiveness of probation was examined in two fields. In the first (narrower) field, the author asked if there had been a juridical improvement in the behaviour of persons put under supervision. In the second (wider) field, success was measured by the extent of the supervised persons resocialisation - that is, an attempt was made to find out how the supervised person functioned in society, that is, whether he kept to the basic social norms that society expects,of its members. In both fields, the moment of time when effectiveness of supervision was assessed was that at which supervision ceased. Those who successfully completed their period of probation were checked again at the end of 38 months, to see whether or not they had reverted to crime. The group studied here consisted of all male recidivists in Warsaw who were put under a protective supervision order in 1971-1972. There were 232 persons in the group. Two research techniques were used. ln the first, the relevant documents were studied (documents concerning previous criminal caces, prison documents, records of the course of protective supervision, data, about previous convictions, as well as about periods spent in penal institutions and in remand). In the second, the recidivist was interviewed on the basis of a questionnaire. 4. Out of the 232 persons investigated, 43.1 % completed the supervision period successfully, 53.3% failed to do so, and in 3.4% of the cases death intervened. In this group of recidivists who had been put under supervision the author differentiated three groups: Group I - taken as having been resocialised during the supervision period, and as having successfully completed their supervision. This group consisted of 57 men (26% of the total number studied). Group II – regarded as not having been resocialised, but that completed the probation period successfully, without ill consequences for themselves. Group II consisted of 43 men (19% of the total). Group III, consisting of men who were not resocialised, and who as a result suffered the additional ill effect of being isolated in the social readaptation centre; this group failed to complete their supervision successfully. In this group were 124 men (55% of the total). Some of the unresocialised men in Group III did not carry out any of the duties or orders given them. Some reverted to crime even although for a time they carried out their duties and orders. Some did not carry out their duties and orders, and reverted to crime. In this group the supervision system failed to fulfil the functions expected of it. With regard to those who did not carry out their obligations and orders it failed in its resocialisation function, while with regard to the others, who committed a crime while under supervision, it failed in both its functions: restraint and resocialisation. The following characteristics were found in Groups I, II and III. Group I consisted mostly of the youngest men (only one-eighth of the group were over 40). They were educated at least up to elementary school standard (approx. age 14-15). During the probation period they carried out work that called for skills. They were physically healthy. In their case the supervision period was one in which their lives were financially more stable (they had paid jobs). They also had stable family lives, and started their own a families. Of all the groups, they had the fewest convictions up to the time the probation period began. They had mainly committed offences against property, but a significant number had been gauilty of crimes of a predominantly aggressive nature. Drunkenness was not noted among them during the supervision period. The men in this group declared that after they had come out of prison and been put under protective supervision they had no special trouble in beginning life again in freedom. They also said they were pleased with life. Group II consisted of men who, judged from the formal point of view, completed their supervision period successfully. But their behaviour during supervision, and above all their heavy drinking, does not justify us in regarding them as having been resocialised. These were habitual criminals who when put under supervision were older (mostly over the age of thirty), as compared witn the men in Group I. As many as a quarter of the men in Group II were habitual criminals aged forty and over. Compared with the men in Group I, they were less well educated, and worse qualified for jobs. Among them various types of physical complaints were found, possibly because they were older, and possibly also because they had a longer career of crime. Fewer of them were married. They seemed to make little effort to achieve financial stability. During the supervision period they frequently changed their job - often because of some infringement of discipline, or because they arbitrarily threw up their job. When they began probation, they had more convictions behind them than the men in Group I. Group II had the lowest number of men who had committed serious crimes against property, or serious aggressive crimes. They were guilty mostly of petty crimes. Above all the habitual criminals in this group are the most awkward ones from the social point of view. They were the ones who mostly said they were dissatisfied with their lives. While on supervision they did not give up heavy drinking. Moreover, although ordered to take a "drying-out" cure , they did not go for treatment at all, or did so irregularly. Before their conviction they had worked irregularly, with gaps in between jobs, but during the whole supervision period they worked. Groups III: protective supervision was a failure with group. As compared with the other groups the men in this one had more previous convictions - the average number of previous convictions being nearly six. More of them, as compared with the men in the other groups, went in mainly for crimes against property; the minority went in for crimes of a predominantly aggressive character and crimes of diverse types. Half of the men in Group II came into the 21-30 age group when ,they began supervision, while the other half were older (moreover, one-seventh were habitual criminals aged over forty). Even at the beginning of supervision the men in this group were in a worse situation than the others - especially as compared with the men in Group II, for they were worse educated, and worse prepared for earning living. The majority of the men in this group were single. Only one in five was married. Their health was noticeably poorer than that of the men in the other groups. Most of the men in this group drank heavilly during the supervision period. The men here confessed that immediately after getting out of prison they had trouble in getting back to a normal life. The main obstacles were lack of money, and the difficulty in finding a job. When questioned they said that on the whole they were not happy about their lives. The majority (72.6%) had reverted to crime while on supervision. The others had been taken out of supervision because they did not carry out their obligations ot the orders or the probation officer. 6. In this study of men put under protective supervision, one in every four is reckoned to have been a success. it was noted that during the supervision period factors that made for success were: setting up a family, having a regular skilled job, and avoidance of heavy drinking. In view of the above, it is the youngest habitual criminals who have the best chance of completing their supervision period successfultry. Age is in their favour, they have a better chance of a stable family life, they are better educated, better fitted for a job, they do not show the symptoms of social degradation associated with alcoholism, Because of these factors they are more likely to be able to return to a normal life. 7. During a period of 38 months from the end of the each man's supervision period, a check was kept on whether or not these men had further convictions. The men covered by this part of the study were those in Groups I and II, that is, those who successfully completed their probation. Thirteen men from Group I and twelve men from Group II (that is, twenty-five men altogether), had subsequent convictions. They constituted 25% of the two groups. It may therefore be stated that the majority (three-quarters) of the men in Groups I and II had no convictions during the thirty-eight months following the end of their supervision period. 8. In the supervised groups studied here, we took one quarter as having been resocialised by the end of supervision, one-fifth as having at most improved formally, and over a half as not having been resocialised - in their case supervision ended in failure. On the basis of this study it may be stated that the chief criterion on which the man on supervision was judged (and on which the success of the supervision proces was judged) was whether or not he carried out the instruction to have a paid job. This was due to two reasons: in the first place, if the man was in paid employment, it mean that he was fulfilling at least the minimum of the demands made on him during the supervision period (this minimum was: to earn his own living). Secondly, it was easy for both the Probation Officer and for the man he was supervising to check whether this order was being carried out, and how. The implementation of their instructions was treated as being of less importance. The main one was to have paid employment. If the man being supervised was in a job, but failed to carry out other instructions given to him, the Probation Officers did not ask for him to be taken off supervision. At the present moment, when reform of the criminal law in Poland is under discussion, one of the problems being examined is that of the penal liability of people who revert to crime, and the question of what legal penalties should be imposed on them. It has been pointed out during this discussion that the severe legal penalties imposed on habitual criminals during the last ten years have not been effective. Consequently the question still remains open: whether we should not apply the special measures described above - protective supervision or commitment to a social readaptation centre after the prison sentence is served. What we have learned from the use of a closed institution such as a social readaptation centre shows that it is completely ineffective. As for protective supervision, it has been postulated that this way of controlling the behaviour of habitual criminals should be transferred from the sphere of penal measures to the sphere of social security measures. It has been suggested that within the framework of post penitentiary care, specific medsures to help, which would be carried out by the probation officers, would be available to habitual criminals after coming out of prison.
Źródło:: Archiwum Kryminologii; 1983, X; 55-85
0066-6890
2719-4280
Pojawia się w:: Archiwum Kryminologii
Dostawca treści:: Biblioteka Nauki

Artykuł

Zmień widok

na półce

Skocz do pozycji: 5.

Tytuł:: Prawnokarne i kryminologiczne aspekty przemocy domowej w Szwajcarii
Criminal and criminological aspects of domestic violence in Switzerland
Autorzy:: Dajnowicz-Piesiecka, Diana
Powiązania:: https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/698812.pdf
Data publikacji:: 2019
Wydawca:: Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN
Tematy:: przemoc domowa
Szwajcaria
prawo karne
szwajcarski kodeks karny
domestic violence
Switzerland
the Swiss Criminal Code
Opis:: The article is about domestic violence in Switzerland. The problem of domestic violence is presented from a criminal and criminological perspective. The phenomenon of domestic violence in the Swiss experience has not been studied or described in the Polish literature on criminal law and criminology, so the main aim of the study was to expand the knowledge about crimes related to family violence committed in Switzerland and to present a picture of this type of crime. The dogmatic and statistical methods were used. The first part of the study presents a historical outline of the problem. This section also describes selected criminological theories explaining the causes of violent behaviour and various definitions of domestic violence. The second part of the article contains a description of the crimes from the Swiss Criminal Code which have been registered by the local police as being committed in connection with domestic violence. The third part of the article presents the criminological aspects of domestic violence in Switzerland. This section describes the structure, size and dynamics of crime related to domestic violence. Information on the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator of the crime is also presented in this part. The article also includes information on the proportion of domestic offences in the total number of all violent crimes and information on the perpetrators of crimes of domestic violence (e.g., their age and gender).
Artykuł dotyczy problemu przemocy domowej w Szwajcarii, który ujęto z perspektywy prawnokarnej i kryminologicznej. Zjawisko przemocy domowej w świetle doświadczeń szwajcarskich nie było dotąd badane i opisywane w polskiej literaturze prawnokarnej i kryminologicznej, więc za główny cel opracowania obrano rozwinięcie wiedzy na temat przestępstw związanych z przemocą w rodzinie popełnianych w Szwajcarii oraz przedstawienie obrazu przestępczości tego rodzaju. W tym celu wykorzystano metodę dogmatyczną i statystyczną. W pierwszej części opracowania przedstawiono skromny rys historyczny przedmiotowego problemu, a także odniesiono się do wybranych teorii kryminologicznych objaśniających przyczyny zachowań przemocowych. Następnie skupiono się na zagadnieniach definicyjnych dotyczących pojęcia „przemocy domowej”. Drugą część artykułu poświęcono prawnokarnym aspektom przemocy w rodzinie. Zaprezentowano w niej przestępstwa ze szwajcarskiego Kodeksu karego, które rejestrowane są przez tamtejszą policję jako popełniane w związku z przemocą domową. Trzecia część opracowania obejmuje kryminologiczne aspekty przemocy domowej, do której dochodzi w Szwajcarii. Zjawisko przedstawiono przez pryzmat jego struktury, rozmiarów i dynamiki. Zaprezentowano także informacje dotyczące charakteru relacji między ofiarą a sprawcą przestępstwa oraz dane dotyczące udziału przestępstw domowych w ogólnej liczbie wszystkich przestępstw popełnianych z użyciem przemocy oraz wiadomości o sprawcach przestępstw przemocy domowej.
Źródło:: Archiwum Kryminologii; 2019, XLI/2; 287-334
0066-6890
2719-4280
Pojawia się w:: Archiwum Kryminologii
Dostawca treści:: Biblioteka Nauki

Artykuł

Zmień widok

na półce

Skocz do pozycji: 6.

Tytuł:: Granice nieletniości w polskim prawie karnym
The Statutory Age-Limits of Juvenile Delinquenta in Polish Penal Law
Autorzy:: Rdzanek-Piwowar, Grażyna
Powiązania:: https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/698533.pdf
Data publikacji:: 1993
Wydawca:: Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN
Tematy:: nieletni przestępcy
nieletni
polskie prawo karne
kodeks karny
juvenile delinquents
juveniles
polish penal law
penal code
Opis:: The entering into force on 13 May l983 of the Act on the treatment of juveniles of 26 October 1982 ended the period of over fifty years of validity of provisions of the penal code of 1932 (Chapter XI) and code of criminal procedure of 1928 (Chapter II of Book XI) which regulated the principles of responsibility of juvenile perpetrators of “acts prohibited under penalty”. Authors of the pre-war legislation, at the first stage of its preparation in particular, intended to make it specific and educational in nature through omission in the treatment of juveniles of the elements of responsibility and punishment. The finally adopted solution was a compromise: responsibility of juveniles have been related to age, discernment, and type of measures applied. With respect to undiscerning juvenile perpetrators of acts prohibited under penalty under the age of 13, and also to those aged 13–17, only educational measures could be applied (admonition; supervision by the parents, former guardians, or a probation officer; placement in an educational institution) Juveniles aged 13–17 who discerned the meaning of their act were to be placed in a correction al institution; educational measures were to be applied in their cases if the circumstances, the juvenile’s personality or his living conditions made such placement inexpedient. Thus the legislation concerning juveniles remained part of the system of penal law in spite of the special features it started to acquire. That was also the direction, after the war in particular, of interpretation of the legal provisions. As a result, the measures applied to juveniles were given an explicitly educational character. This was done through the relation of those imeasures to the perpetrator’s personality and not to the act, and through abolition of the institution of discernment. Since discernment. Since mid–1950s, the juvenile courts followed instructions which changed the legal status of a juvenile. The age limit of penal responsibility of juveniles was set initially at ten and then at 13 years; younger children were not to be brought before the courts unless the case concerned guardianship. Many changes in the post-war provisions were also introduced by means of statutes. They concerned organization and functioning of the system of treatment of juveniles (strengthening of the role of judge, introduction of the so-called family courts, increased number of probation officers). This way, a socially desirable continuation of the legal tradition was secured by means of reforms which were evolutionary and dictated by the current needs, and without liquidation of the existing structures, tested in the practice of many decades. The new statute adopted many of those changes more or less directly. Setting the upper age limit of juveniles, the post-war penal code of 1969 preserved the principle according to which criminal responsibility is conditioned upon the offender’s age of at least 17 (Art. 9). At the same time, though, Art. 9 made it possible to apply to offenders aged 17 the measures normally designed for juveniles, and to sentence juveniles aged 16 guilty of the most serious crimes to the ordinary but extraordinarily mitigated penalties. The final shape of the Act on the treatment of juveniles of 26 October 1982 was influenced both by the intent to preserve the developed and tested solutions, and by the discussion that preceded its introduction when optional conceptions of the treatment of juveniles were submitted. The following stages of the thirty-two years’ period of legislative works can be distinguished: – the years 1950–1956; long works on a new penal code were in progress and attempts were made at aggravating the responsibility of juveniles through the introduction of penalties (according to a draft of 1950, penalties were to be imposed on juveniles starting from the age of 12); – the years 1956–1960; in 1956, it was decided to work on a separate statute on juvenil and not within the preparation of a new penal code; a special team of the Codification Commission failed to agree upon a draft of the statute; – the years 1961–65; no legislative works were formally in progres but two different conceptions were discussed: of inclusion of prevention in the act (which would thus apply to the socially maladjusted juveniles as well) and of introduction of social courts; – the years 1966–1971; attempts were made at partly realizing those conceptions in a succession of draft statutes; – the years 1972–76; the works were conducted by the Ministry of Education which tried to include the problems of prevention of juvenile delinquency and treatment of juveniles in a broader statute called the young generation code; – the years 1977–82 when the works on a statute were again taken over by the Ministry of Justice and a succession of versions of the draft were prepared. The Act of 26 October 1982 on the treatment of juveniles changed the scope of the notion of “juvenile”. According to the statutory definition, juveniles are: 1) persons with respect to whom provisions of the act apply in the sphere of prevention and control of demoralization; the upper age limit in this category is 18 years, and the lower limit is not specified; 2) persons with respect to whom provisions of the statute apply in the sphere of proceedings in cases of punishable acts; such proceedings can be instituted towards persons who have been aged over 13 but under 17 while committing a punishable act; 3) persons with respect to whom provisions of the statute apply in connection with the carrying out of educational or corrective measures; the upper age limit of this category is 21 years. Tlerefore, the statute goes beyond the sphere traditionally reserved for penal law. The aim at making the statute educational in nature is manifested above all by the principle that the commission by a juvenile of a punishable act is not the only condition of the institution of proceedings in the case of that juvenile. The statute sanctions the need for intervention in the early stage of social maladjustment not only in cases where that maladjustment manifests itself in a punishable act. If a juvenile does commit an act of this kind, his offence is not examined in the categories of guilt and responsibility. This is manifested by the abolition of the criteria of discernment, by the term “punishable act” used to designate an offence committed by a juvenile, and by the absence of the term “responsibility of juveniles” in the name and provisions of the statute discussed. The statute bases on the assumption of education; its basic notion is demoralization. In its first meaning in which it has been used by the legislator, “demoralization'” is treated as a prerequisite of initiation of proceedings. Were the educational assumptions adopted to the full, commission of a punishable act could and should be treated as one of the symptoms of demoralization, not different in any way from the other symptoms. Assumed in the statute, however, is a special treatment of the juveniles with respecr to whom provisions of the statute apply in the sphere of prevention of demoralization, and in the sphere of control of demoralization. With respect to the latter, provisions of the statute on proceedings in cases of punishable acts apply, and with respect to the former – provisions on civil proceedings. The differentiation introduced by the statute (which is not consistent for that matter) results from a specific compromise: a combination of the ideas of prevention and education with the approach typical of penal law where the legal response is conditioned upon the gravity of the act. A conflict of the tendencies which clash nowadays all over the world – to preserve the model of treatment of juveniles within the institutions of penal law on the one hand, and to give the statute an educational character on the other hand – can be noticed in other provisions of the statute discussed as well. In the classical system, the age limits of juveniles were clear and had just as clearly defined functions – they marked out the age of the so-called conditional criminal responsibility, provided discernment could be ascertained. Today, the upper limit of the age of juveniles is usually also the limit of full criminal responsibility, although many legislations provide for an exceptional possibility of imposition of penalties upon the oldest juveniles who commit a crime or a serious offence. The problem of the lower limit is more entangled , the modern legislations adopting several age limits here which results usually from the need to determine different scopes of intervention of the legal provisions in the sphere of juvenile law. Therefore, what still remains an important issue is for the juvenile law to define an age limit below which provisions of penal law never apply, not even as auxiliaries.
Źródło:: Archiwum Kryminologii; 1993, XIX; 191-231
0066-6890
2719-4280
Pojawia się w:: Archiwum Kryminologii
Dostawca treści:: Biblioteka Nauki

Artykuł

Zmień widok

na półce

Skocz do pozycji: 7.

Tytuł:: The emergence of community control sanctions in the Romanian sanctioning system
Wdrożenie kar probacyjnych do systemu kar w Rumunii
Autorzy:: Oancea, Gabriel
Micle, Mihai Ioan
Powiązania:: https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/1375562.pdf
Data publikacji:: 2020-04-24
Wydawca:: Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN
Tematy:: Romania
probation system
community control sanctions
Penal Code
prisons
Rumunia
system probacyjny
kary probacyjne
Kodeks karny
więzienia
Opis:: This article presents the context that led to the establishment of the probation system in Romania, on the background of undertaking of some reforms of the criminal sanctions system. The necessity of achieving them was represented by the difficulties faced by the penitentiary system before and after 1989, but also by the need to align the administration of penalties to the requirements imposed by the country‘s accession to the Council of Europe and the European Union. Eighteen years after the creation of the probation system within the Ministry of Justice, it can be stated that, this endeavor constitutes a success, but it is absolutely necessary to continue the efforts towards its consolidation. In addition, these measures have to be accompanied by a change of vision in relation to how other community members can be involved in the process of social reintegration of persons in conflict with the criminal law.
This article presents the context that led to the establishment of the probation system in Romania in relation to some reforms of the criminal sanctioning system. These reforms were necessary because of the difficulties faced by the penitentiary system before and after 1989, as well as the need to align the administration of penalties with the requirements imposed by the country’s accession to the Council of Europe and the European Union. Eighteen years after the creation of the probation system within the Ministry of Justice, it can be stated that this endeavour constitutes a success, but it is absolutely necessary to continue the efforts towards consolidating it. In addition, these measures have to be accompanied by a change of vision in relation to how other community members can be involved in the process of social reintegration of individuals who have broken the law. W artykule został przedstawiony proces wdrożenia systemu probacyjnego w Rumunii w kontekście reform dotyczących zmian systemu sankcji karnych. Z uwagi na trudności, z jakimi borykał się system penitencjarny w Rumunii przed rokiem 1989 i po tym roku, wprowadzenie takich zmian było konieczne. Przemawiała za tym także potrzeba dostosowania systemu karnego do wymogów nałożonych na państwa członkowskie przez Radę Europy i Unię Europejską. Z perspektywy 18 lat od wdrożenia systemu probacyjnego w ramach Ministerstwa Sprawiedliwości przedsięwzięcie to jest uznawane za sukces. Konieczne wydaje się jednak kontynuowanie dotychczasowego wysiłku, by system ten dodatkowo umocnić. Wykonywaniu środków probacyjnych musi bowiem towarzyszyć zmiana co do postrzegania przez członków społeczeństwa konieczności ich zaangażowania w proces reintegracji społecznej osób, które weszły w konflikt z prawem.
Źródło:: Archiwum Kryminologii; 2020, XLII/1; 207-224
0066-6890
2719-4280
Pojawia się w:: Archiwum Kryminologii
Dostawca treści:: Biblioteka Nauki

Artykuł

Zmień widok

na półce

Skocz do pozycji: 8.

Tytuł:: Przestępstwa uprowadzenia lub zatrzymania małoletniego lub osoby nieporadnej (art. 188 K.K.)
Abductons or Detention of Minor or a Helpless Person (Art. 188 of the Polish Penal Code)
Autorzy:: Kołakowska-Przełomiec, Helena
Powiązania:: https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/699146.pdf
Data publikacji:: 1984
Wydawca:: Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN
Tematy:: przestępstwa
uprowadzenie
zatrzymanie
małoletni
osoba nieporadna
kodeks karny
Polska
abductions
detention of minor
helpless person
Polska
penal code
Opis:: The present article contains a detailed description and results of analysis of cases of abduction and detention sentenced in Poland in 1979. The total of these cases was 9. Abduction or detention, specified in Art. 188 of the Polish Penal Code, belongs to the group of offences against the family. Art. 188 of the Penal Code provides, that "whoever contrary to the will of the person appointed to take care or to supervise, abducts or detains a minor or a person who is helpless by reason of this mental or physical condition, shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for from 6 months to 5 years”. Theoretical studies and commentaries to the Penal Code stress the fact that the subject of legal protection in Art. 188 of the Penal Code is the institution of care and supervision. Art. 188 is turned against lawless one-sided alterations in the relation, directly determined or adjudicated by court, of care or supervision of a person specified in this Article. It is also indicated that this Article aims at protecting the child from the lawlessness of this quarrelling parents or other persons. It is also characteristic that the commentaries stress the fact that the motives from which the perpetrator acted are unessential as regards the existence of an offence specified in Art. 188. A small number of persons sentenced for abduction or detention does not mean that offences of this kind are of little social significance. The real extent of this phenomenon is much greater than indicated by the small number of sentenced persons. As the common knowledge shows, the cases of lawless taking away of the children by quarrelling parents or relatives are frequent. Thus it could have been expected that the cases of abduction or detention which had been investigated by court as offences might be particularly drastic of nature. Yet the analysis of all cases failed to confirm this supposition. Among the 9 cases, there were 4 cases of "abdcution" and 5 cases of "detention'' of minors. None of the cases concerned a helpless person. In as few as 2 cases the minors were strangers unrelated to the perpetrator. In four cases, the minors were sons of the perpetrators, in one case the minor was the perpetrator's daughter, in one case – granddaughter; also in one case, the minor was the perpetrator’s cousion. Among the perpetrators of „abduction" or „detention” there were six men and three women. The analysis of all criminal cases specified in Art. 188 reveals two sides of this type of offence: a) the aspect of family, care, and education, b) the criminal aspect. However, these two sides are not closely connected with one another. The cases of "abduction and detention" as represented in the paper reveal the background on which it comes to various forms of behaviour of parents towards children and towards each other. In the majority of cases, an intervention of guardianship authorities in the life of parents and children has already taken place and various provisions have been made. However, they failed to eliminate the existing conflicts, what is more, they increased them. The further execution of these decisions lacks additional supervision which would ensure a free contact with the child for the parent with whom the child does, not reside permanently, and, on the other hand, which would limit the lawlessness of mothers who do not allow the fathers to contact the children they care for. Therefore, in the examined cases we deal with "abduction'' or "detention'' of a child by his father who is faced with difficulties on the mother's part when he wants to see his child. The analysed cases are not drastic in character as regards the conduct of perpetrators and the circumstances of their offence. On the other hand, they are generally most drastic as regards legal proceedings in such cases and sentences. The examined fathers, mother, grandmother, and cousin are treated as offenders: persecuted, charged, tried, and sentenced for acts which, even if they disturbed the institution of care, could be treated as family and care cases. Generally it seems that the criminal character of the analysed cases is independent and separate, so to say, from the entire aspect of family, care, and education of these cases. It may be assumed that this situation is to a certain degree conditioned by the dogmatic and formalistic approach in the proceedings and sentencing in these cases, which is based on the formulation found in commentaries, that the perpetrator’s motives are unrelevant to the existence of the offence, and that the subject of legal protection in Art. 188 is the institution of care and supervision, not the interest of the abducted person. In the final part of the present paper it is stressed that while protecting the institution of care, one should still take into consideration first of all the interest of the child for whom this institution is to function. It is also in the child's interest that his parents and close relations do not become criminals because of him. The cases of „abduction and detention of a minor” should be examined as cases of family and care, penal law proceedings instituted only in cases of actual abduction of a minor, first of all that committed by strangers.
The present article contains a detailed description and results of analysis of cases of abduction and detention sentenced in Poland in 1979. The total of these cases was 9. Abduction or detention, specified in Art. 188 of the Polish Penal Code, belongs to the group of offences against the family. Art. 188 of the Penal Code provides, that "whoever contrary to the will of the person appointed to take care or to supervise, abducts or detains a minor or a person who is helpless by reason of this mental or physical condition, shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for from 6 months to 5 years”. Theoretical studies and commentaries to the Penal Code stress the fact that the subject of legal protection in Art. 188 of the Penal Code is the institution of care and supervision. Art. 188 is turned against lawless one-sided alterations in the relation, directly determined or adjudicated by court, of care or supervision of a person specified in this Article. It is also indicated that this Article aims at protecting the child from the lawlessness of this quarrelling parents or other persons. It is also characteristic that the commentaries stress the fact that the motives from which the perpetrator acted are unessential as regards the existence of an offence specified in Art. 188. A small number of persons sentenced for abduction or detention does not mean that offences of this kind are of little social significance. The real extent of this phenomenon is much greater than indicated by the small number of sentenced persons. As the common knowledge shows, the cases of lawless taking away of the children by quarrelling parents or relatives are frequent. Thus it could have been expected that the cases of abduction or detention which had been investigated by court as offences might be particularly drastic of nature. Yet the analysis of all cases failed to confirm this supposition. Among the 9 cases, there were 4 cases of "abdcution" and 5 cases of "detention'' of minors. None of the cases concerned a helpless person. In as few as 2 cases the minors were strangers unrelated to the perpetrator. In four cases, the minors were sons of the perpetrators, in one case the minor was the perpetrator's daughter, in one case – granddaughter; also in one case, the minor was the perpetrator’s cousion. Among the perpetrators of „abduction" or „detention” there were six men and three women. The analysis of all criminal cases specified in Art. 188 reveals two sides of this type of offence: a) the aspect of family, care, and education, b) the criminal aspect. However, these two sides are not closely connected with one another. The cases of "abduction and detention" as represented in the paper reveal the background on which it comes to various forms of behaviour of parents towards children and towards each other. In the majority of cases, an intervention of guardianship authorities in the life of parents and children has already taken place and various provisions have been made. However, they failed to eliminate the existing conflicts, what is more, they increased them. The further execution of these decisions lacks additional supervision which would ensure a free contact with the child for the parent with whom the child does, not reside permanently, and, on the other hand, which would limit the lawlessness of mothers who do not allow the fathers to contact the children they care for. Therefore, in the examined cases we deal with "abduction'' or "detention'' of a child by his father who is faced with difficulties on the mother's part when he wants to see his child. The analysed cases are not drastic in character as regards the conduct of perpetrators and the circumstances of their offence. On the other hand, they are generally most drastic as regards legal proceedings in such cases and sentences. The examined fathers, mother, grandmother, and cousin are treated as offenders: persecuted, charged, tried, and sentenced for acts which, even if they disturbed the institution of care, could be treated as family and care cases. Generally it seems that the criminal character of the analysed cases is independent and separate, so to say, from the entire aspect of family, care, and education of these cases. It may be assumed that this situation is to a certain degree conditioned by the dogmatic and formalistic approach in the proceedings and sentencing in these cases, which is based on the formulation found in commentaries, that the perpetrator’s motives are unrelevant to the existence of the offence, and that the subject of legal protection in Art. 188 is the institution of care and supervision, not the interest of the abducted person. In the final part of the present paper it is stressed that while protecting the institution of care, one should still take into consideration first of all the interest of the child for whom this institution is to function. It is also in the child's interest that his parents and close relations do not become criminals because of him. The cases of „abduction and detention of a minor” should be examined as cases of family and care, penal law proceedings instituted only in cases of actual abduction of a minor, first of all that committed by strangers.
Źródło:: Archiwum Kryminologii; 1984, XI; 227-244
0066-6890
2719-4280
Pojawia się w:: Archiwum Kryminologii
Dostawca treści:: Biblioteka Nauki

Artykuł

Zmień widok

na półce

Skocz do pozycji: 9.

Tytuł:: Nieprawomocne orzeczenia sądów w sprawach karnych w świetle starego i nowego kodeksu karnego
Invalid judgments in criminal matters in the light of the ‘old’ and the new penal code
Autorzy:: Gruszczyńska, Beata
Marczewski, Marek
Powiązania:: https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/698931.pdf
Data publikacji:: 2000
Wydawca:: Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN
Tematy:: kodeks karny
orzeczenie nieprawomocne
statystyka
polityka karna
the Penal Code
statistics
criminal policy
judgement is not final
judgment is not final
Źródło:: Archiwum Kryminologii; 2000, XXV; 179-192
0066-6890
2719-4280
Pojawia się w:: Archiwum Kryminologii
Dostawca treści:: Biblioteka Nauki

Artykuł

Zmień widok

na półce

Skocz do pozycji: 10.

Tytuł:: Z rozważań o karach i środkach karnych o charakterze majątkowym (w świetle przepisów kodeksu karnego z 1997 r.)
Remarks on Penalties and Penal Measures of Pecuniary Nature (In the Light of the Provisions of 1997 Penal Code)
Autorzy:: Sienkiewicz, Zofia
Powiązania:: https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/698746.pdf
Data publikacji:: 2008
Wydawca:: Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN
Tematy:: kara
środki karne o charakterze majątkowym
kodeks karny z 1997 r.
polityka karna
penalty
penal measures of pecuniary nature
penal policy
Polish Penal Code of 1997
Źródło:: Archiwum Kryminologii; 2008, XXIX-XXX; 629-641
0066-6890
2719-4280
Pojawia się w:: Archiwum Kryminologii
Dostawca treści:: Biblioteka Nauki

Artykuł

Zmień widok

na półce

Skocz do pozycji: 11.

Tytuł:: Merytoryczne przesłanki orzekania kar i innych środków wobec wielokrotnych recydywistów
Penalties and other measures applied towards multiple recidivists
Autorzy:: Janiszewski, Bogusław
Powiązania:: https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/699228.pdf
Data publikacji:: 1986
Wydawca:: Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN
Tematy:: recydywa
wielokrotny recydywista
kara
kodeks karny
środki karne
polityka karna
wymiar kary
kara pozbawienia wolności
orzecznictwo
badania empiryczne
statystyki sądowe
recidivism
multiple recidivists
punishment
penal code
penal measures
criminal policy
sentence
imprisonment
case law
empirical research
court statistics
Opis:: The aims of the present study have been: 1) to ascertain the actual conditions of the courts' decisions applying penalties and other measures towards multiple recidivists; 2) to determine the present penal policy towards this category of convicted persons; 3) to compare this policy with the assumptions included in the Penal Code in force. Punishment imposed upon multiple recidivists is regulated by the provisions of Art. 60, para. 2 and 3 Art. 61 of the Penal Code. Their formulation is as follows: on a perpetrator sentenced twice in the conditions specified in para. 1 (special basic recidivism), who has served altogether at leat one year of deprivation of liberty and in the period of 5 years after the serving of the last penalty commits again an intentional offence with the purpose of obtaining a material benefit or of a hooligan character, similar to at least one of the previously committed offencęs, the court shall impose a penalty within the limits of from three times the lowest sanction, but not less than 2 years, up to the highest statutory sanction increased by one half, and if the highest statutory sanction is not higher than 3 years: up to 5 years deprivation of liberty. The increase of the lowest statutory sanction provided in para. 1 or 2 shall not apply, when the offence is a serious offence; in this case the court shall consider the commission of the offence in the conditions specified in para 1 or 2 as a circumstance increasing the penalty. In particularly justified cases when even the lowest penalty imposed on the basis of Art. 60. paras 1 or 2 would be incommeasurably Severe by reason of the motives for the action of the perpetrator, his traits and personal conditions as well as his way of life before the commission and his behaviour after the perpetration of the offence, the court when imposing the penalty may refrain from applying the rules specified in Art. 60. paras 1 or 2; in these cases the court shall take into consideration the commission of the offence in the conditions specified in Art. 60, para 1or 2 as circumstances influencing increasing the penalty. With regard to a perpetrator sentenced in the conditions specified in Art. 60, para. 2 he court shall adjudge protective supervision; if adjudging this supervision is not sufficient to prevent recidivism, the court shall adjudge .the commitment of the sentenced person to a social readaptation centre. (Art. 62, para. 2). The present work has been based on the author's own research and to a minimum extent only on the analysis of the national statistical data. The point of departure for the study of the actual conditions of the courts decisions were the conditions specified in the Penal Code now in force. The conditions specified in Art. 61 of the Penal Code and related to the offender only have been assumed to form the ratio legis of special recidivism in the Polish penal legislation. If, however, when aplying this provision, the courts prefer the conditions related to the most recent act of the offender, this mignt be an indication of their different attitude towards the aim of punishment in the case of the discussed category of offenders. The existence of such divergences between the conditions of application of Art 61 of the Penal Code as included in the law on the one hand, and those applied by the courts on the other hand has been one of the hypotheses verified in the present study. The study has been based on the examination of court records. All the accessible records of criminal cases (230) have been included in it, in which Sentences were passed with regard to multiple recidivists (under Art 60. para. 2 and Art. 61 in connection with Art. 60, para. 2 of the Penal Code) in the District Court of the city of Poznań in the years 1975-1981. The question arised whether this could be treated as an equivalent to a random sample of the national population of convicted multiple recidivists. As shown by a comparison of distributions in question are highly convergent. A questionnaire to investigate the ourt records consisted of 41 questions concerning the convicted recidivist, his previous offences and criminal record, his last offence and the content of the last sentence. The impact of a number of variables on the application of Art. 61 of the Penal Code, on the length of the prison sentence and on the decision of commitment to a social readaptation centre has been analysed in succession. Conclusions from the study are as follows: 1. In the application of Art.61 of the Penal Code ,the predominating part is played by the conditions connected with the degree of socil danger of the act and with its legal label. The conditions connected with the person of the perpetrator seem to have a much smaller effect. The reason of this state of affairs may be seeked in the fact that the court is obligated by Art. 60, para.2 of the Penal Code to impose long-term penalties of deprivation or liberty regardless of the degree of social danger (seriousness) of the offence which may be trivial in particular cases. Therefore, it is not to be wondered at that in these cases the courts apply Art. 61 of the Penal Code so as to impose a lower or more lenient penalty in order to make it commeasurable with the offence. The following conditions have been found to exert the greatest influence on the length of sentences to deprivation of liberty under Art. 60, para. 2: firstly, the legal appraisal of the offence and the related content of the instructions for meting out punishment specified in Art. 60, para. 2 of the Penal Code, and secondly, the degree of social danger of the offence. The character of the offence and the appraisal of its social danger influence the sentence too, including the type of penalty, when Art. 61 of the Penal Code is applied by the court. This is probably a further result of following the same conditions already when deciding on the application of Art. 61 of the Penal Code. When adjudging the commitment of convicted persons to a social readaptation centre, the courst were guided by the conditions connected with intense symptoms of demoralization of these persons and with a previous application of various penal measures towards them; thus the conditions were formally the same as those to be found in the Penal Code. At the same time, conditions connected with the recently committed offence were left out of account here. One should be particularly careful when interpreting the findings in this case aS the decisions in question may be conditioned by the courts' various attitudes towards the practical functioning of the centers, and by different purposes of their adjudgement in definite cases. The length of the perod for which commitment to a social readaptation centre was adjudged has appeared to increase with the length of the sentence to deprivation of libety. Admittedly, outright conclusions as to the need for amendments of the provisions of the Penal Code in its part concerning recidivists do not follow immediately from the findings of the present study. These findings have. however, demonstrated the degree to which the instructions for meting out, punishment specified in Art. 60, para. 2 of the Penal Code sever the relation between the offence and punishment, as well as the fact that the corrective function of punishment imposed upon multiple recidivists - officially assumed by the legislator-has a fictious character in practice. In consequence, Art. 61 of the Penal Code is used in discord with its purpose; it is applied to adjust the adjudicated punishment to the seriousness of the offence committed.
Źródło:: Archiwum Kryminologii; 1986, XIII; 109-139
0066-6890
2719-4280
Pojawia się w:: Archiwum Kryminologii
Dostawca treści:: Biblioteka Nauki

Artykuł

Zmień widok

na półce

Informacja

Wyszukujesz frazę "Kodeks Karny" wg kryterium: Wszystkie pola

Źródło danych

Dostawca treści

Kolekcja

Rok wydania

Wydawca

Temat

Autor

Typ dokumentu

Język