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 "Polish penal code" wg kryterium: Wszystkie pola

  Lista filtrów
Wyrównaj
    Wyświetlanie 1-10 z 10
    Tytuł:
    Terminologia militarna polskiego kodeksu karnego w przekładach na język niemiecki
    Military terminology of the Polish Penal Code in German translations
    Autorzy:
    Pietrzak, Agnieszka
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/2192180.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2022-12-21
    Wydawca:
    Akademia Humanistyczno-Ekonomiczna w Łodzi
    Tematy:
    terminologia militarna
    tłumaczenia
    ekwiwalencja
    kodeks karny
    military terminology
    translations
    Penal Code
    equivalence
    Opis:
    Niniejszy artykuł zajmuje się problematyką terminologii militarnej z punktu widzenia przekładoznawstwa. W artykule przeprowadzona została analiza kontrastywna wybranych terminów pochodzących z części wojskowej polskiego kodeksu karnego oraz ekwiwalentów zastosowanych w trzech tłumaczeniach kodeksu na język niemiecki. Celem badania jest ocena użytych ekwiwalentów oraz zastosowanych strategii tłumaczeniowych. Pozwoli to ocenić, czy tłumaczenia polskiego kodeksu karnego na język niemiecki są wartościowym narzędziem pracy tłumacza.
    The paper deals with the issue of military language from the point of view of translation studies. This paper conducts a contrastive analysis of selected terms from the military part of the Polish Penal Code with equivalents used in three translations of code into German. The aim of the study is to assess what equivalents were used and what translation strategies were employed. This will make it possible to assess whether translations of the Polish Penal Code into German are a valuable tool for the translator.
    Źródło:
    Językoznawstwo; 2022, 17, 2; 81-91
    1897-0389
    2391-5137
    Pojawia się w:
    Językoznawstwo
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    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
    Tytuł:
    Czy istnieją granice dozwolonej krytyki. O relacji kontratypu określonego w art. 41 ustawy – prawo prasowe z kontratypem zapisanym w art. 213 k.k.
    Autorzy:
    Kwiatkowska-Serafin, Paulina
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/2204958.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2016-12-31
    Wydawca:
    Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek
    Tematy:
    artistic expression
    satire
    Polish penal code
    press law
    defamation
    wolność ekspresji artystycznej
    satyra
    prawo prasowe
    zniesławienie
    kodeks karny
    Opis:
    Form of an artistic expression, satire has been present in human’s life for ages. It has many varieties and forms. From the very beginning its practitioners have been subjected to the public authorities restrictions and have been getting into trouble with the ones who became objects of the artist projections. In Polish regulation – law, there is a justification of admissible satire, covered by the article 41 of the press law, witch is an extension to the justification of admissible criticism, covered by the article 213 of the polish penal code. However, there is no such thing as justification of art. due to this fact, the artist may be fully liable both for violation of personal rights and the offence of defamation.
    Źródło:
    Themis Polska Nova; 2016, 2(11); 152-163
    2084-4522
    Pojawia się w:
    Themis Polska Nova
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    SPOŁECZNE KOSZTY NIEALIMENTACJI
    Autorzy:
    Rosiak, Łukasz
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/664174.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2018
    Wydawca:
    Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie
    Tematy:
    the offence of child maintenance evasion
    social cost
    the Polish penal code
    recidivation
    penalisation.
    przestępstwo niealimentacji
    społeczne koszty
    kodeks karny
    uporczywość
    sankcja karna.
    Opis:
    SummaryThis article describes the history of the penalties for default on child maintenance payments in place in Polish criminal codes. All the criminal codes which have been in force in Poland since 1932 (viz. its 1932, 1969, and 1997 versions) describe the offence of child maintenance evasion. The current maximum penalty is less than what was prescribed by the 1932 Code. Penalisation should always be a last resort for nonpayment of child maintenance. Te legislator creates new instruments to make the collection of child maintenance more efficient. Te most important point is not to punish the debtor but to provide the money due to eligible recipients. We should not forget that it is the business of all of us to see that child maintenance is paid as efficiently as possible. The amendment to the provisions of Polish criminal law is designed to improve the recoverability of unpaid child maintenance and thereby reduce the funds paid out to eligible claimants directly from the state budget.
    Niniejszy artykuł opisuje historię kryminalizacji przestępstwa niealimentacji w polskich kodeksach karnych. We wszystkich polskich kodeksach karnych: kodeksie karnym z 1932 r., kodeksie karnym z 1969 r. oraz w kodeksie karnym z 1997 r. ujęto przestępstwo niealimentacji. Aktualna maksymalna sankcja z tytułu przestępstwa niealimentacji jest niższa niż w kodeksie karnym z 1932 r. Sankcje karne zawsze powinny być ostatecznością w przypadku braku płatności alimentów. Ustawodawca tworzy nowe instrumenty, aby osiągnąć większą skuteczność w sferze ściągnięcia alimentów. Najważniejsza nie jest jednak sama kara, ale uzyskanie środków na rzecz osób uprawnionych. Zawsze powinniśmy pamiętać, iż dążenie do podniesienia efektywności ściągalności alimentów jest sprawą nas wszystkich. Nowelizacja rozwiązań w zakresie prawa karnego w Polsce ma na celu poprawę odzyskiwania alimentów i zmniejszenie luki w budżecie państwa.
    Źródło:
    Zeszyty Prawnicze; 2018, 18, 1
    2353-8139
    Pojawia się w:
    Zeszyty Prawnicze
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    GLOSA APROBUJĄCA DO WYROKU IZBY KARNEJ SĄDU NAJWYŻSZEGO Z 29 MAJA 2018 R. O SYGN. AKT II KK 99/18
    Autorzy:
    Rosiak, Łukasz
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/664212.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2019
    Wydawca:
    Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie
    Tematy:
    offences against property
    petty offence
    offence
    thef
    the Polish Code of Petty Offences
    the Polish Penal Code.
    przestępstwa przeciwko mieniu
    wykroczenie
    przestępstwo
    kradzież
    kodeks wykroczeń
    kodeks karny.
    Opis:
    The comment relates to the verdict issued by the Supreme Court on the adjudication of offences and petty offences against property (viz. theft), for which the financial criterion for criminalization (as of 9 November 2013) is the minimum value of payment for work, as set down in Kodeks wykroczeń (the Polish Code of Petty Offences). In cases of this kind the value of minimum pay should be taken for the day when the verdict for the offence was passed, not for the day on which it was committed.
    Glosowany wyrok Sądu Najwyższego dotyczy problematyki orzekania o czynach przeciwko mieniu, w stosunku do których od 9 listopada 2013 r. kryterium uznania danego czynu za przestępstwo albo za wykroczenie stanowi określony w kodeksie wykroczeń wskaźnik minimalnego wynagrodzenia za pracę. We wskazanym zakresie należy mieć na uwadze minimalne wynagrodzenie z daty orzekania w przedmiocie odpowiedzialności za taki czyn, a nie z daty jego popełnienia.
    Źródło:
    Zeszyty Prawnicze; 2019, 19, 2
    2353-8139
    Pojawia się w:
    Zeszyty Prawnicze
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Propozycje zmian w polskim kodeksie karnym w kontekście współczesnej roli własności prywatnej i znaczenia konstytucyjnej zasady ochrony prawa własności
    Suggestions for Changes in the Polish Penal Code in the Context of Current Role of Private Property (Ownership) and Meaning of the Constitutional Principle of Protection of Property Rights
    Autorzy:
    Banaszkiewicz, Adam
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/1596318.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2017
    Wydawca:
    Uniwersytet Szczeciński. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego
    Tematy:
    ownership
    the constitutional principle of protection of property
    the Penal Code
    forfeiture of things
    prawo własności
    konstytucyjna zasada ochrony własności
    kodeks karny
    przepadek rzeczy
    Opis:
    Artykuł ma za zadanie przypomnienie o szczególnym znaczeniu gospodarczym i społecznym własności oraz prawa własności. Punktem odniesienia są zmiany, jakie przewidziano do wprowadzenia w polskim kodeksie karnym oraz innych powiązanych z nim ustawach nowelizacją z dnia 23 maja 2016 r. (w chwili publikacji artykułu już wprowadzone w życie – w zmodyfikowanej postaci). Ma ona otwierać drogę do orzekania przepadku mienia podmiotów niebędących sprawcami przestępstwa i nieskazanych za jego popełnienie, jak również mienia niepowiązanego z działalnością przestępczą sprawcy i niestanowiącego korzyści z takiej działalności. W pierwszej kolejności przypomniano względy, z uwagi na które własność, w szczególności zaś własność prywatna, powinna zostać objęta specjalną ochroną, następnie zaś przedstawiono konkretne zapisy polskiej Konstytucji z dnia 2 kwietnia 1997 r. mające zapewnić tę ochronę i umożliwić własności odgrywanie przewidzianej dla niej i oczekiwanej od niej roli. Na koniec nawiązano do zmian w polskim ustawodawstwie karnym, komentując je w kontekście omówionych wcześniej kwestii.
    The article is to remind you of a particular economic and social importance of ownership and property rights. The main point are the changes, which provided for the introduction of the Polish Penal Code and other associated laws amendment dated May 23, 2016 year (at the time of publication of the article already implemented - in modified form). It has opened the way for the confiscation of property companies that are not perpetrators of the crime and sentenced for the commission of, as well as the property is not associated with criminal activities and perpetrators did not constitute benefits from such activities. The first were reminded reasons, due to which ownership and especially private property should be covered by special protection, then the presented specific provisions of the Polish Constitution of 2 April 1997, which are to ensure that the ownership fulfills its role. At the end refers to the changes in the Polish criminal legislation, commenting on them in the context of the issues discussed earlier.
    Źródło:
    Acta Iuris Stetinensis; 2017, 20, 4; 31-53
    2083-4373
    2545-3181
    Pojawia się w:
    Acta Iuris Stetinensis
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    NAZEWNICTWO KAR W KODEKSIE KARNYM REPUBLIKI KOREI W ASPEKCIE TŁUMACZENIOWYM KOREAŃSKO-POLSKIM
    NAMES OF PENALTIES IN REPUBLIC OF KOREA’S PENAL CODE IN KOREAN-POLISH TRANSLATION
    Autorzy:
    BAŁAZY, Bernadetta
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/920622.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2016-11-24
    Wydawca:
    Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
    Tematy:
    nazewnictwo kar kryminalnych w tłumaczeniu
    koreański kodeks karny
    prawo karne
    tłumaczenie prawnicze
    tłumaczenie koreańsko-polskie
    kodeks karny
    penal law
    criminal penalties
    Korean-Polish translation
    legal translation
    Republic of Korea's Penal Code
    Opis:
    W niniejszym artykule podjęto się próby tłumaczenia prawniczego w odniesieniu do koreańsko-polskiej pary językowej w zakresie prawa karnego materialnego, a dokładniej mówiąc – w zakresie nazewnictwa kar kryminalnych. Posłużono się tekstem obecnie obowiązującego koreańskiego kodeksu karnego, a tłumaczenie polegało na porównaniu tekstów paralelnych, czyli takich, które istnieją niezależnie od siebie nawzajem (jeden nie jest tłumaczeniem drugiego), ale pełnią te same funkcje, z tym że służą użytkownikom różnych języków (Neubert i Shreve 1992, 89). Kodeks Karny Republiki Korei i polska ustawa Kodeks Karny to teksty paralelne, gdyż pełnią tę samą rolę w swojej kulturze prawnej i nie są jednocześnie tłumaczeniami. Przy pracy nad tłumaczeniem okazało się przydatne także posiłkowanie się innymi polskimi ustawami – Kodeksem Wykroczeń, a także nieobowiązującym już Kodeksem Karnym z 1969 roku. Celem artykułu nie było jedynie dokonanie tłumaczenia, ale także przedstawienie chociażby w małym stopniu informacji na temat współczesnego prawa karnego w Korei Południowej. Uznano tę kwestię za istotną ze względu na fakt, że na próżno szukać polskich opracowań dotyczących tej tematyki. W artykule, w całości napisanym w języku polskim, koniecznym było jednak posługiwanie się oryginalnymi terminami koreańskimi, które zostały przedstawione zarówno w pisowni oryginalnej (hangul), jak i za pomocą transkrypcji, ze względu na czytelnika nie znającego języka koreańskiego. Zastosowana transkrypcja to transkrypcja McCune'a – Reischauera (Ogarek – Czoj, 2007, 30). Artykuł jest de facto streszczeniem mojej pracy licencjackiej o tym samym tytule, obronionej w 2013 roku na Wydziale Neofilologii Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu.
    The article was written with the aim of translating the names of criminal penalties in the Republic of Korea’s Penal Code to the Polish language. The text of the current Korean Penal Code has been compared with the pararell text of the Polish Penal Code. Although both Penal Codes have similar functions, the scope of application is slightly different, so the Polish Code of Petty Crimes and the previous Polish Penal Code (from the year 1969) were used subsidiary. However, the article was written not only for translatory purposes, but also to initially present an image of South Korean penal law to the Polish readers since Poland is deficient in such papers. Even though the article is written in Polish, it was essential to use original Korean names of criminal penalties. Due to Koreans using a different alphabet, the names had to be transcripted according to the rules of McCune-Reischauer (Ogarek-Czoj, 2007, 30), to make the Korean words legible for non-Korean readers. The paper is, de facto, a shortened version of my BA paper of the same title.
    Źródło:
    Comparative Legilinguistics; 2015, 22, 1; 43-64
    2080-5926
    2391-4491
    Pojawia się w:
    Comparative Legilinguistics
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Polskie kodeksy karne okresu międzywojnia
    Autorzy:
    Bradliński, Kamil
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/617314.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2018
    Wydawca:
    Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej
    Tematy:
    the Second Polish Republic
    Military Penal Code
    Penal Code
    unification of criminal law
    II Rzeczpospolita
    kodeks karny wojskowy
    kodeks karny
    kodyfikacja prawa karnego
    Opis:
    The lawyers of the Second Polish Republic succeeded in the codification and the unification of criminal law. The most prominent codifiers of this period were J. Makarewicz, A. Mogilnicki, and E. Krzymuski. The Penal Code of 1932, created by those prominent lawyers, is considered to be very polished and detailed to this day. Even the Military Penal Codes of 1919, 1928 and 1932 laid the foundations for the subsequent regulation of this branch of law.
    Prawnicy II Rzeczypospolitej odnieśli sukces w zakresie kodyfikacji prawa karnego, unifikując przepisy na terenie całego kraju. Wybitnymi kodyfikatorami tego okresu byli m.in. J. Makarewicz, W. Makowski, E.S. Rappaport, A. Mogilnicki czy E. Krzymuski. Stworzony przez nich kodeks karny z 1932 r. do dzisiaj jest stawiany za wzór sztuki prawotwórczej. Również kodeksy karne wojskowe (1919, 1928, 1932) położyły podwaliny pod późniejsze uregulowanie tej gałęzi prawa.
    Źródło:
    Studenckie Zeszyty Naukowe; 2018, 21, 38
    1506-8285
    Pojawia się w:
    Studenckie Zeszyty Naukowe
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    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
    Tytuł:
    WYŁĄCZENIE PRZEDAWNIENIA PRZESTĘPSTW FUNKCJONARIUSZY PRL
    EXCLUSION OF PRESCRIPTION OF OFFENCES COMMITTED BY THE FUNCTIONARIES OF THE POLISH PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC Autor: Zawłocki, Robert
    Autorzy:
    Zawłocki, Robert
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/693255.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2012
    Wydawca:
    Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
    Tematy:
    Penal Code
    criminal substantive law
    prescription of offences
    prescription of the enforcement of sentence
    communist crimes
    abuse of power
    kodeks karny
    prawo karne materialne
    przedawnienie karalności
    przedawnienie wykonania kary
    funkcjonariusz publiczny
    zbrodnia komunistyczna
    nadużycie władzy
    Opis:
    The paper features the issue of the prescription of offences and the enforcement of a sentence for homicide, grievous bodily harm, severe impairment to health or deprivation of liberty entailing particular suffering committed by a functionary in connection with the performance of his or her duties (art. 105 § 2 Penal Code). This institution of criminal law has been analysed in the context of intergenerational solidarity. It may be concluded that the ‘no prescription’ institution in respect of serious offences committed by functionaries under article 105 § 2 of the Penal Code is an unquestionable and obvious example of intergenerational solidarity understood as social solidarity and justice. In this very case, pursuant to tightly interrelated axiological and praxeological premises, the state’s right to punish clearly constitutes a particular element of implementation of the idea of intergenerational solidarity.
    Artykuł dotyczy problematyki wyłączenia przedawnienia karalności i wykonania kary kryminalnej za umyślne przestępstwo zabójstwa, ciężkiego uszkodzenia ciała i uszczerbku na zdrowi lub pozbawienia wolności łączonego ze szczególnym udręczeniem, popełnione przez funkcjonariusza publicznego w związku z pełnieniem obowiązków służbowych (art. 105 § 2 k.k.). Analiza tej instytucji karnoprawnej została przeprowadzona w kontekście zagadnienia solidarności międzypokoleniowej. Należy stwierdzić, że instytucja nieprzedawnienia się ciężkich przestępstw popełnionych przez funkcjonariuszy PRL z art. 105 § 2 k.k., choć wyjątkowo, to jednak bezspornie stanowi karnoprawny przejaw solidarności międzypokoleniowej, rozumianej jako przejaw solidarności i sprawiedliwości społecznej. W tym wypadku państwowe prawo karania, opierając się na ściśle powiązanych przesłankach aksjologicznych i prakseologicznych, bez wątpienia stanowi szczególny element realizacji idei solidarności międzypokoleniowej.
    Źródło:
    Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny; 2012, 74, 3; 111-121
    0035-9629
    2543-9170
    Pojawia się w:
    Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
      Wyświetlanie 1-10 z 10

      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