Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  mistake of law
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Male circumcision under Polish criminal law

100%
Banasik K.
Progress in Health Sciences
|
2016
|
vol. 6(1)
201-208
EN
Introduction: Male circumcision is not widely discussed in Poland. This article is the first paper on circumcision in the light of Polish criminal law and anticipates a problem that can happen in the practice of the Polish criminal justice system in the next years. The author has discussed selected issues concerning male circumcision. The subject of deliberations has been circumcision of Jewish infants, taking place on the Polish territory. Purpose: To examine whether circumcision of infants is prohibited in Polish criminal law and whether a person carrying out neonatal circumcision for religious reason is punishable for a criminal offence. Materials and methods: The English- and German-language literature and other online available data relating to male circumcision have been examined. The provisions of the Polish Penal Code and other legal acts have been analysed. Moreover, judgements of the Polish courts and the Polish criminal law literature have also been the subject of research. Results: In Poland, there is no special legislation on male circumcision, in particular, there is no special criminal offence of circumcision. However, a person performing infant circumcision completes the elements of criminal offence consisting of causing bodily injury. Conclusions: In Polish criminal law, the customary justification of circumcision excludes the unlawfulness of the conduct of the person (called mohel) carrying out Jewish infant circumcision for religious reason. In the case of Jewish neonatal circumcision, we deal with so-called secondary legality of the committed act. In the final assessment in the aspect of criminal law, the conduct of a mohel is not unlawful and thus is not punishable as a criminal offence.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Kształtowanie się zasad odpowiedzialności sprawcy czynu zabronionego w kontekście art. 30 Kodeksu karnego

84%
Matusiak M.
Zeszyt Studencki Kół Naukowych Wydziału Prawa i Administracji UAM
|
2017
|
issue 7
153-166
PL
Przekształcanie się treści przepisów prawnych kolejnych polskich kodyfikacji karnych, dotyczących error iuris, wskazuje wyraźną tendencję do łagodzenia zasad odpowiedzialności sprawcy przestępstwa, będącego w stanie nieświadomości bezprawności. Okoliczność ta unaocznia, że zawarte w art. 30 Kodeksu karnego określenie „błąd usprawiedliwiony” nie pokrywa się merytorycznie ze sformułowaniem „błąd, którego sprawca nie mógł uniknąć”. Obecnie podstawę do ekskulpowania sprawcy i zwolnienia go z odpowiedzialności mogą stanowić różnorodne okoliczności, dotyczące nie tylko właściwości samej osoby pozostającej pod wpływem błędu, ale też całokształtu warunków, w których dopuściła się czynu zabronionego, nawet jeżeli z punktu widzenia abstrakcyjnie ukształtowanego „wzorcowego obywatela”, dałoby się uniknąć błędu prawnego. W opracowaniu wskazano uwarunkowania historyczne, proces ewolucji error iuris, a także dokonana została próba systematyki katalogu okoliczności usprawiedliwiających nieświadomość bezprawności.
EN
The transformation of the content of legal provisions of subsequent Polish penal codifications, concerning error iuris indicates a clear tendency to mitigate the principles of liability of the perpetrator of an offence, who is ignorant of its unlawfulness. This circumstance reveals that the term “justified error” contained in Article 30 of the Criminal Code does not substantially coincide with the phrase “error which the perpetrator could not avoid”. Currently, the basis for exculpation of the perpetrator and exoneration from liability may be a variety of circumstances relating not only to the characteristics of the person under the influence of the error, but also the overall conditions under which they committed the offence, even if from the perspective of an abstractly formed “model citizen”, the legal error could have been avoided. The study indicates historical conditions, the process of evolution of error iuris, as well as an attempt to systematize the catalog of circumstances justifying ignorance of unlawfulness.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.