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 "warunkowe" wg kryterium: Temat

  Lista filtrów
Wyrównaj
    Wyświetlanie 1-5 z 5
    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:
    Warunkowe przedterminowe zwolnienie sprawców skazanych na kary najsurowsze – ujęcie de lege lata i de lege ferenda
    Parole for the perpetrators sentenced to the most severe punishments – de lege lata and de lege ferenda perspective
    Autorzy:
    Łakomy, Kamil
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/499569.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2019
    Wydawca:
    Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
    Tematy:
    warunkowe przedterminowe zwolnienie
    najsurowsze kary
    humanitarne traktowanie
    populizm penalny
    parole
    the most severe punishments
    humanitarian treatment
    penal populism
    Opis:
    Artykuł przedstawia analizę proponowanych zmian legislacyjnych w zakresie zmiany zasad orzekania o warunkowym przedterminowym zwolnieniu z odbycia reszty kary. W projektach zmian zaproponowanych przez Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwości zawarty jest obligatoryjny zakaz stosowania tej instytucji wobec skazanych za kary najsurowsze w określonej konfiguracji procesowej. Takie rozwiązanie zostało poddane analizie z punktu widzenia systemu prawa karnego oraz zgodności z zasadą humanitarnego traktowania wyrażoną w Konstytucji RP. Artykuł uwzględnia również kontekst międzynarodowy oraz prawnoporównawczy stosowania warunkowego przedterminowego zwolnienia. W podsumowaniu autor dokonuje oceny proponowanej nowelizacji Kodeksu karnego w analizowanym obszarze, z perspektywy aktualnego trendu obecnego ostatnio w polskiej polityce karnej, jakim jest populizm penalny.
    This article presents an analysis of the proposed legislative changes in the area of the act of parole in Polish criminal law. According to the new proposal of the amendment presented by the Ministry of Justice, courts in certain procedural configuration would not be able to use this institution in relation to persons sentenced to the most severe punishments. Such solution may raise doubts as to the conformity with the principle of the humanitarian treatment derived both from the Polish Constitution and the Polish Criminal Code. Additionally, this paper contains a presentation of the broader perspective which is the inclusion of the comparative and international approach to the institution of parole. Eventually, the author evaluates the proposed amendment by highlighting that it may be a manifestation of the current trend in Polish criminal policy nowadays, which is the phenomenon of penal populism.
    Źródło:
    Zeszyt Studencki Kół Naukowych Wydziału Prawa i Administracji UAM; 2019, 9; s. 195-211
    2299-2774
    Pojawia się w:
    Zeszyt Studencki Kół Naukowych Wydziału Prawa i Administracji UAM
    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:
    Konsekwencje wprowadzenia do Kodeksu karnego możliwości wymierzenia kary nieredukowalnego dożywotniego pozbawienia wolności w aspekcie stosowania ekstradycji i wykonywania europejskiego nakazu aresztowania
    Consequences of introducing the possibility of imposing an irreducible life sentence into the criminal code with regard to extradition and the execution of the European arrest warrant
    Autorzy:
    Tyburcy, Tomasz
    Rogoziński, Piotr
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/28407822.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2023
    Wydawca:
    Uczelnia Łazarskiego. Oficyna Wydawnicza
    Tematy:
    dożywotnie pozbawienie wolności
    nieredukowalne dożywotnie pozbawienie wolności
    warunkowe zwolnienie
    zakaz warunkowego zwolnienia
    Europejski Nakaz Aresztowania
    ekstradycja
    life imprisonment
    life imprisonment without parole
    parole
    conditional release
    prohibition of conditional release
    European arrest warrant
    extradition
    Opis:
    Ustawa z dnia 7 lipca 2022 r. o zmianie ustawy – Kodeks karny oraz niektórych innych ustaw wprowadziła do Kodeksu karnego możliwość wymierzenia kary dożywotniego pozbawienia wolności z zakazem ubiegania się o warunkowe przedterminowe zwolnienie. Ustawodawca przewidział dwie podstawy do fakultatywnego orzeczenia kary nieredukowalnego dożywotniego pozbawienia wolności. Pierwsza z nich (art. 77 § 3 k.k.) opiera się na przesłankach formalnych, tj. uprzednim skazaniu za określony rodzaj przestępstwa (przeciwko życiu i zdrowiu, wolności, wolności seksualnej, bezpieczeństwu powszechnemu lub o charakterze terrorystycznym) na karę dożywotniego pozbawienia wolności lub karę pozbawienia wolności na czas nie krótszy niż 20 lat. Natomiast druga podstawa (art. 77 § 4 k.k.) operuje warunkiem materialnym, tj. stwierdzeniem, że charakter i okoliczności czynu oraz właściwości osobiste sprawcy wskazują, iż pozostawanie sprawcy na wolności spowoduje trwałe niebezpieczeństwo dla życia, zdrowia, wolności lub wolności seksualnej innych osób. Tezą niniejszego artykułu jest, że w wyniku wprowadzenia przepisów art. 77 § 3 i 4 k.k. możemy, niestety, realnie spodziewać się odmów wydawania przez inne państwa ściganych za przestępstwa zagrożone taką karą albo skazanych na takie kary.
    The Act of 7 July 2022 amending the Act – Criminal Code and certain other acts introduced into the Criminal Code the possibility of imposing a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. The legislator provided for two grounds for the optional imposition of an irreducible life imprisonment sentence. The first of them (Article 77 § 3 of the Criminal Code) is based on formal grounds: previous conviction for a specific type of crime (against life and health, freedom, sexual freedom, public security or of a terrorist nature) to life imprisonment or imprisonment for a term of not less than 20 years. The second ground (Article 77 § 4 of the Criminal Code) operates on a substantive condition: that the nature and circumstances of the act and the personal characteristics of the perpetrator indicate that the perpetrator’s remaining at liberty will cause a permanent danger to the life, health, freedom or sexual freedom of others. The thesis of this article is that the provisions of Article 77 § 3 and 4 of the Criminal Code are incompatible with Article 3 of the ECHR, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and that, as a result of the introduction of this type of punishment in Polish law, we may unfortunately realistically expect the refusal of other states to hand over those prosecuted for crimes punishable by such punishment or sentenced to such punishment.
    Źródło:
    Ius Novum; 2023, 17, 4; 95-111
    1897-5577
    Pojawia się w:
    Ius Novum
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Kara nieredukowalnego dożywotniego pozbawienia wolności (art. 77 § 3 k.k.) jako przykład nowej recydywy jurydycznej?
    Prerequisites for the sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole on the grounds of the new juridical recidivism (Article 77 § 3 of Criminal Code)
    Autorzy:
    Tyburcy, Tomasz
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/27324466.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2023
    Wydawca:
    Krakowska Akademia im. Andrzeja Frycza Modrzewskiego
    Tematy:
    dożywotnie pozbawienie wolności
    kara dożywotniego pozbawienia wolności
    nieredukowalne dożywotnie pozbawienie wolności
    warunkowe zwolnienie
    zakaz warunkowego zwolnienia
    recydywa
    life imprisonment
    life imprisonment without parole
    probation
    prohibition of parole
    parole ban
    ban of conditional release
    recidivism
    parole
    Opis:
    Ustawa z dnia 7 lipca 2022 r. o zmianie ustawy – Kodeks karny oraz niektórych innych ustaw wprowadziła do Kodeksu karnego możliwość wymierzenia przez sąd kary nieredukowalnego dożywotniego pozbawienia wolności, czyli z zakazem warunkowego przedterminowego zwolnienia (art. 77 § 3 i 4 k.k.), co stanowi novum w polskim prawie karnym i jest powszechnie krytykowane przez środowisko prawnicze. Ustawodawca przewidział dwie podstawy do fakultatywnego orzeczenia kary nieredukowalnego dożywotniego pozbawienia wolności. Artykuł omawia art. 77 § 3 k.k., który opiera się na przesłankach formalnych, tj. uprzednim prawomocnym skazaniu za określony rodzaj przestępstwa (przeciwko życiu i zdrowiu, wolności, wolności seksualnej, bezpieczeństwu powszechnemu lub o charakterze terrorystycznym) na karę dożywotniego pozbawienia wolności lub karę pozbawienia wolności na czas nie krótszy niż 20 lat. Wprowadza nową postać recydywy jurydycznej (prawnej, specjalnej) jednokrotnej. Spełnienie jej przesłanek nie powoduje jednak obostrzenia granic kary dożywotniego pozbawienia wolności, lecz możliwość wymierzenia jej z zakazem warunkowego zwolnienia.
    The Act of 7 July 2022 amending the Act – Criminal Code and certain other acts introduced into the Criminal Code the possibility for the court to impose the sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole (Article 77 § 3 and 4 of the Criminal Code), which constitutes a novelty in Polish criminal law and is widely criticised by the legal community. The legislator has provided two grounds for the optional imposition of life imprisonment without possibility of parole. The article discusses Article 77 § 3 of the Criminal Code is based on formal grounds: a previous final conviction for a specific type of crime (against life and health, freedom, sexual liberty, public security or of a terrorist nature) for life imprisonment or imprisonment for a period of not less than 20 years. It introduces a new form of juridical (legal, special) one-time recidivism. Fulfilment of its prerequisites, however, does not tighten the limits of life imprisonment, but the possibility of imposing it with the prohibition of conditional release.
    Źródło:
    Studia Prawnicze: rozprawy i materiały; 2023, 33, 2; 123-152
    1689-8052
    2451-0807
    Pojawia się w:
    Studia Prawnicze: rozprawy i materiały
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
      Wyświetlanie 1-5 z 5

      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