Informacja

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

Wyszukujesz frazę "social court" wg kryterium: Temat


Wyświetlanie 1-3 z 3
Tytuł:
Les juridictions sociales en Pologne
Autorzy:
Rybicki, Marian
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/44315089.pdf
Data publikacji:
1972-12-31
Wydawca:
Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN
Tematy:
social court
Polska
Opis:
The article tackles the problem of social courts and social conciliation commissions and jury existing in Poland and in other socialist countries, being the realization of a Marxist-Leninist theory of the state. These institutions provide accomplishment of constitutional rule of increasing the engagement of working classes in the governance of the state (with the broadest meaning of the “governance”, including justice administration). It is highlighted that the engagement of the citizens in the jurisdiction is an important feature of newly created society. As the participation of jury is an element of civil factor in the professional jurisprudence, the social courts are somewhere in the middle, between mediation and justice administration, and are purely social element with no professional background. As such the social courts may be seen as the realisation of communist idea of social self-governance.Short part of the article is devoted to the previous attempt of introduction of social courts and the reasons of its failure. Idea introduced by the Decree of the 2nd February 1946 on the law of citizen’s courts. It’s civil character was to be granted by the fact, that the non-professional citizen’s judges were to be elected by municipal national council. Unfortunately, the complexity and the formality of their functioning caused lack of interest in their foundation and finally their liquidation.Further part of the article analyses briefly the Law of the 30th March about social courts. They were created as a response to a social initiative in workplaces (social courts) or cities, communities and villages (social conciliation committees). The adopted regulation was modelled on the workers’ court in Wrocław and the conciliation commission functioning in Łódź. Their main function was to educate and prevent, and their effectivity was based on the moral authority and personal experience of their members. They were devoid of repressive function, and could apply only educative measures as: obligation to repair the damage, apology the victim, caution, reprimand or payment for a social aim (but very limited). The execution of the decision of the social court was voluntary. The model regulation of their functioning is proclaimed by the Front of National Unity’s National Committee and the Central Council of Trades Unions.In the next part of the article we can find a brief overview of the main sort of cases before the aforementioned institutions and the analysis of statistics of disputes gathered by the social conciliation committee in the countryside and in the cities. We can also find here the statistics concluding the functioning of the both institutions, their popularity and effectiveness.Author concludes that very important is lack of formal procedures what helps to resolve different kind of cases without reference to certain legal act. It also help to educate new society, free from the class conflict and introduce the mediation as the best way to resolve interpersonal conflicts.
Źródło:
Droit Polonais Contemporain; 1972, 17-18; 19-29
0070-7325
Pojawia się w:
Droit Polonais Contemporain
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
Tytuł:
Rozmiary przestępczości wśród dawnych podopiecznych sądu opiekuńczego – dzieci rodziców z ograniczoną władzą rodzicielską
Extent of Crime Among Former Juveniles Whose Parents Were Limited in Their Parental Authority, and Who Were Under the Care of Juvenile and Civil Courts
Autorzy:
Strzembosz, Adam
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/699060.pdf
Data publikacji:
1982
Wydawca:
Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN
Tematy:
przestępczość
sąd opiekuńczy
ograniczona władza rodzicielska
władza rodzicielska
kara
warunki rodzinne
małoletni
zaburzenia w zachowaniu
karalność
rozmiary przestępczości
niedostosowanie społeczne
criminality
guardianship court
limited parental responsibility
parental authority
penalty
family conditions
minor
behavioral disorders
penality
extent of crime
social maladjustment
Opis:
The reported research is a continuation of the studies on families under court’s supervision in consequence of the limitation of parental authority. The former studies were conducted on the sample of such families representative of the entire country, which consisted of 757 families with the  total of 1,436 children in whose interest protection proceedings has been instituted in 1973. While in that phase of research an attempt was made to characterize the families and the children that came within the above proceedings and to describe the action of the court and the efficiency of the measures adjudicated by the court, in the present studies the further fates have been studied of 330 boys and 252 girls - formerly under the care of the court - who were aged at least 19 on September 1, 1980 (they were aged 19 - 24, mean age being 22). During the research, it was found that among the persons under examination - after coming up to the age of 17 (upper limit of minority) - there were 27% of men and 7% of women with criminal records (12% of men and 2% of women had been convicted at least twice). This percentage was three times higher as regards the convicted men and 8 times higher as regards the convicted women in comparison with the extent of crime measured by the number of convictions among men and women aged 21. Among the convicted men there were as many as 49% convicted for larceny, 19% for robbery, and 13% convicted for offences against person. As many as 84% of men were convicted for offences against property only, or for these offences as well as for others. The structure of crime of the persons under scrutiny differs from that of the whole of young adult offenders (aged 17 - 20) as regards the high percentage of those convicted for larceny. In this respect it resembles the structure of crime of the juveniles formerly under care of juvenile courts in, the cases pertaining to parental rights in Warsaw, but only as regards the sons of alcoholics (also aged 22 on the average), as the sons of non-alcoholics were in a much higher percentage convicted for offences against person, characterized by a large intensity of aggressiveness. The offences of the persons under examination resemble juvenile delinquency in the eldest age groups, though the harmfulness of their offences is much greater. 50% of the convicted men had been sentenced to immediate imprisonment already in their first case, 95% - in their second case, and all of the convicted men –in  their third case. An attempt was made to differentiate the category of the investigated sons who would be characterized by a higher extent of crime when aged over 17; however, no increase in offending was found both among children from broken homes and among those whose parents revealedconsiderable social demoralization. Even the percentage of socially demoralized mothers whose sons had criminal records when aged over 17 was only slightly higher than that of socially adjusted mothers of the convicted men. On the other hand, the men coming from towns were considerably more frequently convicted as compared with those coming from the rural areas, which seems to shake the now established opinion about the small differences between the intensity of crime in the town and the country, if we take into account the offender’s place of residence and not the place where the given offence has been committed. In spite of the confirmation by the present study of the well known regularity that there is a higher percentage of persons convicted when aged over 17 among those who revealed early behavior disorders, and in spite of the fact that there is a correlation between the improvement in the minor’s behavior accomplished by the probation officer during his supervision and the subsequent clear record of his former probationer - no correlation was found between the way in which the supervision had been performed and the criminal records of the men when aged over 17. Such a correlation was not revealed even by comparing the most highly estimated supervision with this actually not performed at all. This proves the  predominating role of factors other than probation officer’s supervision in the process of forming social attitudes of the youth. Since even those of the probation officers, who perform their supervision reliably and efficiently, are not in approximately one half of the cases able to cause improvement of their probationer’s behavior, then the role of other factors independent of the officer’s action is immense and their further negative or favourable influence may - in course of time - wholly destroy the impact of the methods of supervision. Therefore not only the probation officer’s efforts should be supported by creating the actual possibilities for him to organize the proper educational environment for his probationer but also these social processes should be strenghtened which promote the internalization by children and youths of favourable patterns of behavior and moral standards.
Źródło:
Archiwum Kryminologii; 1982, VIII-IX; 271-290
0066-6890
2719-4280
Pojawia się w:
Archiwum Kryminologii
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
    Wyświetlanie 1-3 z 3

    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