Informacja

Drogi użytkowniku, aplikacja do prawidłowego działania wymaga obsługi JavaScript. Proszę włącz obsługę JavaScript w Twojej przeglądarce.

English (EN)·Polski (PL)·Yкраїнський (UK)
Przejdź do strony domowej biblioteki Centralna Biblioteka Wojskowa Link otwiera się w nowym oknie Logo biblioteki Prolib Integro - strona głównaCentralna Biblioteka Wojskowa

Wyszukujesz frazę "zwolnienie" wg kryterium: Temat

  Lista filtrów
Wyrównaj
    Wyświetlanie 1-4 z 4
    Tytuł:
    Efektywność warunkowego przedterminowego zwolnienia (wstępne wyniki badań)
    Effectiveness of Parole (Preliminary research findings)
    Autorzy:
    Gruszczyńska, Beata
    Marczewski, Marek
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/698702.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    1998
    Wydawca:
    Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN
    Tematy:
    warunkowe przedterminowe zwolnienie
    parole
    Opis:
    The article discusses preliminary findings of empirical research into effectiveness of the institution of parole. The project was carried out in 1996 within the Institute of Administration of Justice. The basic aims of the project included: a) appraisal of effectiveness of parole with respect to the entire examined population and to individual categories of convicted persons; b) analysis of conditions of effectiveness of parole. Used as the basic measure of effectiveness of parole was the index of relapse into crime, that is the fact of valid conviction for any offense after parole. The global index of relapse into crime in the examined population is the quotient of persons convicted again after parole to the total of examined persons. Analysis of effectiveness of parole based on data on further criminal records of convicted  persons (from their parole in 1991 till mid-1995), obtained in April 1996 from the Central Register of Condvicted Persons (CRS) of Ministry of Justice. Factors that determined the effectiveness of parole were identified on the grounds of information obtained from two sources: penitentiary files examined with a specially prepared questionnaire, and CRS data. The questionnaire consisted of five parts concerning: a) the convicted person’s basic socio-demographic data; b) information on his psycho-physical state; c) information on his serving of the term from which he was paroled; d) data on the sentence; e) particulars of the parole granted in 1991. The general population was made up of all convicted men paroled in 1991. Sampling was stratified and proportional. Division of the general population into strata based on two-dimensional demographic-criminological criteria, that is age and previous criminal record. Obtained were 5 subpopulations: young adults; young adult recidivists; first offenders; persons with previous convictions; and adult recidivists. Selected for the original sample were 10% of convicted persons from each of the strata except the young adult recidivists: because of the small size of that particular stratum (238 persons), sampling was dropped out here and the entire stratum was included in the sample. The total of 2,142 persons were sampled. Verification of the sample followed, data on the sampled person's being confronted with those from CRS and from the records of Central Prison Administration. As a result of verification, the sample was reduced to 1,635. Of the 1,635 questionnaires, 1,552 (93%) were returned, and 1,430 of them qualified for analysis. Thus ultimately the sample included l,430 convicted persons paroled in 1991. For each examined person, the follow-up period was 42 months (three years and a half) from the moment of parole. The findings lead to the following conclusions: After parole, 41.7% of the sample relapsed into crime. Among the examined socio-demographic traits, the following prove conducive to relapse into crime: age under 21 and lack of vocational training. Psychological factors such as self-destructive acts, personality disorders, and low IQ also condition relapse into crime. Relapse into crime was significantly more frequent among young adults, young adult recidivists, and recidivists. Also conducive to relapse are: participation in the prison subculture, disciplinary penalties, and failures to return on time from pass. The factor that hinders relapse into crime is employment during the term. Relapse into crime was significantly more frequent among persons guilty of offenses against property and against family. Relapse into crime depends on the length of term served before parole: it is most frequent among persons paroled after 2 to 3 years. Other factors that also influenced relapse into crime were: previous criminal record and a prison sentence under Art. 60 from which the person was paroled in 1991. The following factors proved of no significant influence on relapse into crime: level of education; number of dependent children aged under 18; length of the sentence from which the person was paroled; length of probation; and the fact of surveillance over the paroled person.
    Źródło:
    Archiwum Kryminologii; 1998, XXIII-XXIV; 213-225
    0066-6890
    2719-4280
    Pojawia się w:
    Archiwum Kryminologii
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Populacja więzienna w Polsce w pierwszym roku pandemii COVID-19
    Prison population in Poland in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic
    Autorzy:
    Stańdo-Kawecka, Barbara
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/2030533.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2021-12-31
    Wydawca:
    Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN
    Tematy:
    COVID-19
    więzienia
    więźniowie
    populacja więzienna
    dozór elektroniczny
    wcześniejsze zwolnienie
    prisons
    prisoners
    prison population
    electronic monitoring
    early release
    Opis:
    Osoby pozbawione wolności w jednostkach penitencjarnych zaliczane są do grup szczególnie narażonych na zakażenie SARS-CoV-2. Jednym z podstawowych sposobów ograniczania rozwoju epidemii w tych instytucjach jest zmniejszenie liczby więźniów. Pierwszy przypadek COVID-19 zdiagnozowano w Polsce 4 marca 2020 r. Inaczej niż w niektórych krajach europejskich, po wybuchu pandemii COVID-19 nie zastosowano prewencyjnego zwolnienia osób skazanych lub tymczasowo aresztowanych i skazanych w celu ograniczenia rozprzestrzeniania się SARS-CoV-2 na terenie więzień. W marcu 2020 r. parlament uchwalił przepisy prawne, które wprowadziły szczególny rodzaj przerwy w wykonaniu kary pozbawienia wolności z powodu zagrożenia epidemicznego i rozszerzyły podstawy stosowania dozoru elektronicznego jako alternatywnego sposobu odbywania kary pozbawienia wolności. Nowe rozwiązania nie przyczyniły się do istotnego wzrostu liczby więźniów zwalnianych z zakładów karnych. Ponad 10–procentowy spadek populacji więziennej w Polsce w okresie od marca do grudnia 2020 r. wynikał głównie z mniejszej liczby osób przyjmowanych do jednostek penitencjarnych. W artykule dyskutowane są ograniczenia dotyczące stosowania poszczególnych środków w celu zmniejszenia liczby uwięzionych.
    Persons deprived of their liberty in penitentiary institutions are among the groups most exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection. One of basic ways to limit the development of the epidemic in these institutions is to reduce the number of prisoners. The first case of COVID-19 was diagnosed in Poland on 4 March 2020. Unlike in some European countries, after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was no preventive release of prisoners in order to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in prisons. In March 2020, the Polish parliament passed legal provisions which introduced a special break in the enforcement of prison sentences due to the epidemic threat and widened the possible use of electronic monitoring as an alternative way to serve prison terms. These new solutions did not contribute to a significant increase in the number of prisoners released from prisons. In the period from March to December 2020, the prison population in Poland dropped by more than 10%, however, this mainly resulted from a reduced number of admissions to penitentiary institutions. The article discusses the limitations of the use of particular measures in order to reduce the overall number of prisoners.
    Źródło:
    Archiwum Kryminologii; 2021, XLIII/2; 127-149
    0066-6890
    2719-4280
    Pojawia się w:
    Archiwum Kryminologii
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Warunkowe przedterminowe zwolnienie z odbycia reszty kary pozbawienia wolności skazanych młodocianych w orzecznictwie sądu penitencjarnego właściwego dla zakładu karnego we Włocławku
    Release on Parole of Young Adults in the Rulings of the Penitentiary Court Competent for the Penitentiary Facility in Włocławek
    Autorzy:
    Wiktorska, Paulina
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/698799.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2008
    Wydawca:
    Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN
    Tematy:
    warunkowe przedterminowe zwolnienie
    kara pozbawienia wolności
    skazani młodociani
    Zakład Karny we Włocławku
    badania aktowe
    release on parole
    Penitentiary Facility in Włocławek
    imprisonment
    Źródło:
    Archiwum Kryminologii; 2008, XXIX-XXX; 763-775
    0066-6890
    2719-4280
    Pojawia się w:
    Archiwum Kryminologii
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Stosowanie środków specjalnych – nadzoru ochronnego i ośrodka przystosowania społecznego – wobec recydywistów skazanych w warunkach art. 60 k.k.
    Employment of special measures (protective supervision and social readaptation centre) towards recidivists coming under art. 60 of the Penal Code
    Autorzy:
    Rzeplińska, Irena
    Szamota, Barbara
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/699046.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    1982
    Wydawca:
    Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN
    Tematy:
    recydywista
    środki specjalne
    nadzór ochronny
    przystosowanie społeczne
    sąd penitencjarny
    przestępczość
    zwolnienie warunkowe
    pozbawienie wolności
    kara
    recidivist
    special measures
    protective supervision
    social adaptation
    penitentiary court
    criminality
    parole
    deprivation of liberty
    penalty
    Opis:
    The Penal Code of 1969 introduced in Chapter VIII a complex of regulations defining the criminal liability tfor offences committed in the conditions of special recidivism. Two categories of special recidivism were introduced: basic recidivism (Art. 60 § 1 of the Penal Code) and multiple recidivism (Art. 60 § 2 of the Penal Code). To assume the first category, the following criteria are required: 1) commission of an intentional offence similar to the previous one, 2) execution of at least 6 months of imprisonment, 3) commission of a new offence within 5 years after discharge from prison. To impute the offender the commission of an offence coming under the second category of recidivism, the following conditions are necessary: 1) conviction for at least the fourth time, in this twice under the conditions of basic special recidivism, 2) repeated commision of an intentional offence to profit financially or of hooligan character, 3) total imprisonment of at least one year, 4) commission of a new offence within 5 years after the last imprisonment. For each of those two categories of recidivism, the principles of aggravated criminal liability are fixed by the Code, and they refer to less - serious - offences only. Towards persons coming under Art. 60 § 1 and 2, imprisonment within the raised limits is adjudicated. Towards such persons, absolute suppression of suspension of the execution of penalty was formulated. The strictness of these regulations is partly diminished by Art. 61 of the Penal Code, which created the possibility to depart from the aggravation of penalty as expressed in Art. 60, in "particularly justified cases, when even the lowest penalty inflicted on the basis of Art. 60 § 1 and 2 of the Penal Code, would be incommensurably severe". The Code fights special recidivism also by providing special measures against special recidivists coming under Art. 69 § 1 and 2: protective supervision (called "supervision" further on) and social readaptation centre (called "centre" further on). The first of them - supervision - is a non isolating measure, consisting in the control of behavior of the supervised person in the conditions of liberty. It is adjudicated for a period of 3 to 5 years (Art. 63 § 1 of the Penal Code). The second measure - centre - is of isolating character. The duration of stay in the centre is not appointed beforehand in the sentence: it is at least 2 years, at most 5 years long. After 2 years, the recidivist may be discharged by the execution of penalty court if there are good reasons to presume that he will not commit any offence after discharge (Art. 65 of the Penal Code). Special measures are executed after the sentence has been served.             The principles of application of the special measures differ as regards both categories of recidivists: those coming under Art. 60 § 1 of the Penal Code (called "common recidivists" further on) and those coming under Art. 60 § 2 (called further "multiple recidivists"). The organs authorized to adjudge these measures are the criminal and execution of penalty courts. Their decision as to adjudgement of them may be taken at various stages of legal and executive proceedings: in the sentence (criminal court), in the latter part of imprisonment (execution of penalty court), and during the supervision (execution of penalty court).             The principles of application of the special measures by the court which is to pass judgement in the case are stated in Art. 62 of the Penal Code. According to § 1, the application of supervision is optional towards the offenders coming under Art. 60 § 1. The court is here at liberty to decide as to the possible measures, as no premises to adjudge supervision are specified by the regulation. As to the recidivists coming under Art. 60 § 2, the adjudgement of one of the two special measures is obligatory, that of supervision as a rule. The adjudgement of the centre takes place only if the court recognizes supervision insufficient to prevent recidivism (Art. 62 § 2 of the Penal Code).             The second instance when decisions are taken as to the application of the special measures is the close of imprisonment of the recidivists. The rulings of the execution of penalty taken at this stage of the proceedings modify those taken previously - that is, in the sentence - as regards the application of the special measures.  In the case of common recidivists, these modifications may consist in adjudgement of supervision if it was not adjudicated in the sentence (Art. 91 of the Code of Execution of Penalties), or - if the recidivist is released on probation - in the specific conditional simulation of the supervision adjudicated in the sentence (Art. 98 § 1 of the Penal Code). If the release on probation is not cancelled by the court, the adjudgement of supervision loses effect (Art. 98 § 2 of the Penal Code). In the case of multiple recidivists, the modifications which may take place in the latter part of imprisonment as regards the adjudication of the special measures always consist in substitution of a strict measure by a milder one: the penitentiary court may replace the adjudgement of the centre with supervision (Art. 103 of the Code of Execution of Penalties) or release multiple recidivists on probation.             The third closing stage of proceedings when the decisions on application of special measures are taken is the execution of supervision. In this stage, the position of recidivists coming under Art. 60 § 1 and 2 of the Penal Code is identical: they can both be sent to the centre in consequence of failure of the supervision (Art. 64 of the Penal Code). Thus the adjudgement of the centre in consequence of failure of supervision serves here as a measure to discipline the execution of supervision. The present study was based on the data from criminal records of the Criminal Register and the Central Files of Convicted and Temporarily Arrested Persons. The material from these records enables one to notice the differences, as regards the data they include, between the groups of recidivists distinguished in respect of the special measure adjudicated towards them, and thus, to define initially the criteria for application of these measures. As a conclusion, an attempt was made to define the general range of adjudgement of the special measures towards recidivists regardless of the stage of proceedings in which it took place.             The research was of cross-sectional character. The examined population consisted of recidivists (coming under Art. 60) from the entire country and selected to 3 random samples: the first sample included all recidivists whose sentences had become valid within the period from March 1 till April 30, 1979 (1181 persons), the second sample included all recidivists discharged from prison within the period from February 1 till March 31, 1979 (874 persons), and the third one - all recidivists whose supervision had been completed within the period from April 1 till May 31, 1979 (544 persons). There were the total of 2599 cases, from which 72 cases had been excluded because of the lack of complete data in the Criminal Register. The final populations of the separate samples were thus as follows: I - 1146 persons, II - 869 persons, III - 512 persons (the total of 2 527 persons).             The collected material was then analysed, that is, the groups of persons were compared, distinguished on the grounds of the type of the special measure adjudicated towards them, for instance the group of multiple recidivists towards whom supervision had been adjudicated was compared with the group sent to the centre. The above comparisons were made for each sample separately, and within the sample - separately as regards the common and multiple recidivists. The method of representing the results reflects , the analysis scheme: each sample has been represented in a separate part of the present paper. The study is summed un by an attempt to estimate the general range of adjudgement of the special measures towards recidivists. The results of the estimation indicate that the application of the special measures towards recidivists is of a very broad range. As many an approximately a half of the common recidivists had been subjected to supervision; failure occurred as regards 40 per cent of the supervised persons, which makes about 1/5 of all common recidivists, and these persons came under the regulation providing the adjudgement of the centre in consequence of the failure of supervision. In 40 per cent of the cases the cause of the unsuccessful termination of supervision was the non-compliance with orders and duties by the supervised person, and in 60 per cent - commission of a new offence.             As regards multiple recidivists, there were as few as 14 per cent of them towards whom no special measure whatever had been adjudicated, owing to adjudgements of the execution of penalty courts. Approximately 27 per cent of the multiple recidivists had been sent to the centre immediately from prison, while approximately 59 per cent had been subjected to supervision. In over a half of these cases supervision was unsuccessful, which makes about 1/3 of the multiple recidivists. The cause of the unsuccessful termination of supervision was in 2/3 of the cases commission of a new offence, and in 1/3 of the cases non-compliance with orders and duties.
    Źródło:
    Archiwum Kryminologii; 1982, VIII-IX; 151-190
    0066-6890
    2719-4280
    Pojawia się w:
    Archiwum Kryminologii
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
      Wyświetlanie 1-4 z 4

      Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies