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

Results found: 7

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  penalty of restriction of liberty
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

Dozór kuratora sądowego nad sprawcami wymagającymi stosowania szczególnych środków leczniczych lub terapeutycznych. Tymczasowy element zmian w prawie czy może ich nieunikniona perspektywa?

100%
Kwieciński A.
Nowa kodyfikacja prawa karnego
|
2014
|
vol. 33
197 - 214
EN
The essence of this paper is to present the most important issues related to the execution of professional duties by adult probation officers in Poland. In criminal proceedings they were given a number of tasks within a custodial sentence and probation measures. Since 2009 they have also played an important part in the system of electronic surveillance. They are also increasingly present in the process of punishment execution and isolation measures.
2

Materialnoprawne aspekty orzekania kary ograniczenia wolności

100%
Mrozek K.
Nowa kodyfikacja prawa karnego
|
2016
|
vol. 39
73-82
EN
Numerous changes introduced within the criminal law have had a significant impact on the final model of the penalty of restriction of liberty. The measures adopted in 2015, following the general reform of the criminal law, have turned out to be rather ineffective. Thus, certain steps have been taken to re-model the penalty of restriction of liberty, which, to a large extent meant returning to previous solutions. This paper is primarily focused on analysing subsequent amendments within the substantive criminal law related to the penalty of restriction of liberty, with particular focus on the amendments introduced in 2016.
3

Nowa treść kary ograniczenia wolności

88%
Pietruszka R.
Nowa kodyfikacja prawa karnego
|
2015
|
vol. 36
37 - 63
EN
The penalty of restriction of liberty functions in the Polish criminal law as of 1st January, 1970. The Penal Code of 1969, which introduced this penalty, stated it to be an adjudicated punishment ranging from 3 months to 2 years, in three variants: unpaid, nonsupervised work towards community purposes, deductions of some part of remuneration and referral to work with obligatory deduction. Regardless of the form of punishment, the convicted must adhere to certain additional duties, which subsisted on them under the law or were imposed by the Court. The Act also provided for the possibility of modification of the sentence in the specified range in the proceedings. The legislative body reduced the penalty of restriction of liberty in the Penal Code of 1997 (from 1 month to 12 months) and abolished the form which was to refer the offender to work and withhold some part of the remuneration. Maintaining the extra obligations arising from the Act, however only slightly trimmed, it created a wider possibility of educational influence on the offender through the development of a directory of facultative responsibilities and an authorization by the court of probation officer supervision or another entity. Due to retaining the possibility of making changes during the execution of the penalty of restriction of liberty, it widened their scope. The original content of the penalty of restriction of liberty was subject to different changes, for example in 2010 supervision was abolished, while allowing for the use of a larger range of facultative duties. However, the most serious changes that “hit” the penalty of restriction of liberty were implemented by the Act of 20 February, 2015 (with effect from 1 July, 2015), which raised the maximum statutory punishment up to 2 years, but above all performed its significant development. In place of the two main characteristics it introduced much more variants of this punishment. The penalty of restriction of liberty may, in fact, currently rely on: 1) the obligation to perform unpaid, non-supervised work towards community goals, 2) the obligation to remain in the place of residence or other designated area, with the use of electronic surveillance system, 3) the obligation as stated in article 72 § 1 items 4–7a of the Penal Code, 4) deduction of some part of the remuneration. The above obligations (and deduction) can be adjudicated separately or in overlapping with another (or others), in any combination. Thus it can be calculated, assuming the form of punishment referred to in point 3 as unitary (entailing actually a few options), that the penalty of restriction of liberty may occur in 15 major variants. In the literature it is also allowed to form a sequential content of penalty obligations which are to be carried out in a fixed order, including when they partially overlap. In any case, the sentenced to the restriction of liberty is further required to submit explanations concerning the course of detention and cannot change their habitual residence without the consent of the court. Yet there is the possibility to adjudicate certain obligations which are optional. Quite a wide range of possibilities for modifying the contents of the penalty of restriction of liberty in its executive phase must also be mentioned. All the above means that, at present, the penalty of restriction of liberty presents itself as a measure which carries a great deal of potential, creates wide opportunities for the customization of criminal-law response to crime, but also as a measure which may give rise to serious problems (both at the stage of adjudicating the punishment, but probably even more at the stage of its implementation), and certainly will require a great commitment on the part of the authorities who apply and carry out this punishment (also in terms of making the offender aware of its content).
4

Kara ograniczenia wolności i jej resocjalizacyjny wymiar przez pracę

75%
Marczak M.
Resocjalizacja Polska
|
2012
|
issue 3/2012
63 - 72
PL
Założeniem przyświecającym opracowaniu niniejszego artykułu było podkreślenie resocjalizacyjnej roli kary ograniczenia wolności, która poza karą grzywny stanowi najlżejszą formę kary i pozostawia jednostkę w jej dotychczasowym środowisku, pozwalając jej na względnie normalne w nim funkcjonowanie. Podstawowym zadaniem tej kary poza ograniczeniem wolności jednostki jest wdrożenie jej do wykonywania pracy społecznie użytecznej, a ta z kolei w znacznej mierze przyczynia się do osiągnięcia celów kary, którymi są wzbudzenie w skazanych woli kształtowania społecznie pożądanych postaw poprzez przestrzeganie norm narzuconych przez system społeczny, a przede wszystkim poprzez przestrzeganie porządku prawnego.
EN
The underlining arguement in this article is to highlight the positive effect of comunity service as a form of punishment for criminal activity, which other than a fine is considered the lightest form of penalty. This is because it does not take the criminal out of thier current environment, thus not creating a change in their lifestyle and actions. Aside from the basic restriction of forcing the individual to do these jobs which are considered useful to society, the purpose of this community service is also to teach the criminal about how to behave responsibly in society. By helping the community the individual is not only following the law but also learning to conform to the norms and actions which are desirable in a successful social system.
5

Polityka karna sądów w kontekście reformy prawa karnego. Wstępne wyniki badań

75%
Melezini M.
Nowa kodyfikacja prawa karnego
|
2017
|
vol. 43
421-440
EN
The subject matter of the article is the penal policy of courts of law implemented in 2005 and 2010, and in the years 2014–2015, presented based on court statistics. The principal objective of the discussion is to find the answer to the question of whether the penal code reform implementedby the Act of 20 February 2015, which became effective on 1 July 2015, brought about the expected changes in the jurisprudence. The preliminary results of the research demonstrated that the penal code reform did to an extent result in the expected changes in the penal policy, because, after its implementation, the extent to which the penalty of imprisonment with conditional suspension of its enforcement was imposed decreased, and the importance of the penalty of restriction of liberty increased. Also, the importance of the so-called mixed penalties increased. However, contrary to the expectations, the importance of unconditional imprisonment did not decrease and, instead, its share increased from 12.1% in 2014 to 14.4% in 2015.
6
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Kilka uwag w kwestii zaliczania okresu rzeczywistego pozbawienia wolności na poczet kary ograniczenia wolności na podstawie art. 63 k.k.

63%
Piekut G.
Ius Novum
|
2020
|
vol. 14
|
issue 3
50-66
EN
This article discusses certain issues relating to the crediting of the period of actual deprivation of liberty towards the penalty of restriction of liberty in accordance with Article 63 of the Polish Criminal Code. The author presents a method of rounding up the period of a sentenced person’s prior detention to be credited towards the penalty of restriction of liberty subsequently imposed upon him/her, which differs from the method adopted so far in the legal doctrine, while indicating that there are no grounds in the current legal state for rounding that period up to a full month and that the rounding up should only be to a full day. The paper also points to the difficulties related to the crediting of the period of actual deprivation of liberty towards the penalty of restriction of liberty resulting from the lack of coherence between the period of one year and the period of 12 months (Article 12c of the Polish Penal Enforcement Code). The article also discusses the impact that crediting of the sentenced person’s detention period under Article 63 Criminal Code has on the possibility of releasing such person from serving the remainder of his/her penalty under Article 83 Criminal Code.
PL
Artykuł dotyczy wybranych zagadnień związanych z zaliczaniem okresu rzeczywistego pozbawienia wolności na poczet kary ograniczenia wolności w trybie art. 63 k.k. Autorka prezentuje odmienny od przyjmowanego dotychczas w doktrynie sposób zaokrąglania okresu uprzedniej izolacji skazanego na poczet orzeczonej następnie względem niego kary ograniczenia wolności, wskazując, że w aktualnym stanie prawnym brak jest podstaw do zaokrąglania tego okresu w górę do pełnego miesiąca, a zaokrąglenie powinno nastąpić w górę jedynie do pełnego dnia. W pracy zwrócono również uwagę na trudności związane z dokonywaniem zaliczenia okresu rzeczywistego pozbawiania wolności na poczet kary ograniczenia wolności, wynikające z braku koherencji pomiędzy okresem jednego roku, a okresem 12 miesięcy (art. 12c k.k.w.). Omówiony został także wpływ zaliczenia skazanemu okresu izolacji, w trybie art. 63 k.k., na możliwość zwolnienia go od reszty kary na podstawie art. 83 k.k.
7
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Ocena stanu zdrowia skazanych na karę ograniczenia wolności

51%
Świderski P., Żaba C., Macioszek N.
Medycyna Pracy
|
2016
|
vol. 67
|
issue 6
765-775
EN
Background Assessment of the health state of people sentenced to the penalty of restriction of liberty makes up a significant percentage of cases annually elaborated in the Department of Forensic Medicine, Poznan University of Medical Sciences. The analysis of such cases was accomplished to point out the difficulties that expert physicians could encounter in formulating their opinions. Material and Methods The analysis involved 1051 medico-legal opinions issued in the years 2004–2013, considering the health state of people performing the duty of free, controlled social labor. The authors collected data on age, sex, type of diseases and the ability to control social work of convicted subjects. Results Among those sentenced to the penalty of restriction of liberty the men aged 51–60 were in the majority. Individuals able to work only in specified conditions were the most numerous group (56.3%). People able to work in all conditions were the smallest set (9.5%). Light work was the type of work most frequently recommended to the persons able to work only in specific conditions (58.4%). The largest group of diseases comprised spondylopathies and osteoarthropathies (51.4%). It was followed by the group of cardiac diseases and angiopathies, including hypertension (38.7%). Conclusions The number of cases concerning the ability of the sentenced persons to serve the penalty of restriction of liberty annually elaborated in the Department of Forensic Medicine, Poznan University of Medical Sciences and the number of sentences imposed on the national scale indicate that medical experts may be obliged to provide opinions of this kind. Assessment of the health state of people sentenced to the penalty of restriction of liberty in some cases can be a difficult task for the expert physicians because of frequent lack of information about a specific type of work performed by the sentenced persons having only the data about their diseases. Med Pr 2016;67(6):765–775
PL
Wstęp Ocena stanu zdrowia skazanych na karę ograniczenia wolności stanowi istotny odsetek spraw opiniowanych rocznie w Katedrze i Zakładzie Medycyny Sądowej Uniwersytetu Medycznego im. Karola Marcinkowskiego w Poznaniu. Pozwoliło to na dokonanie analizy wydanych opinii i wskazanie trudności, jakie mogą napotkać biegli lekarze. Materiał i metody Analizie poddano 1051 opinii sądowo-lekarskich dotyczących oceny stanu zdrowia skazanych na pracę na cele społeczne, wydanych w latach 2004–2013. Z opinii uzyskano dane dotyczące płci, wieku i rodzaju schorzeń skazanych oraz wniosków biegłych w zakresie zdolności do pracy społecznie użytecznej. Wyniki Wśród skazanych przeważającą większość stanowili mężczyźni w wieku 51–60 lat. Najliczniejszą grupę stanowiły osoby zdolne do pracy społecznie użytecznej po spełnieniu określonych warunków, wskazanych w opinii biegłych (56,3%), najmniej liczna była grupa osób uznanych za zdolne do wykonywania pracy bez jakichkolwiek ograniczeń (9,5%). W przypadku skazanych uznanych za zdolnych do pracy jedynie po spełnieniu wskazanych przez biegłych warunków najczęściej zalecano pracę lekką (58,4%). Najliczniejszą grupę schorzeń skazanych stanowiły choroby narządu ruchu (51,4%), drugą w kolejności – schorzenia układu krążenia (38,7%). Wnioski Liczba spraw dotyczących zdolności do odbywania kary ograniczenia wolności, opiniowanych rocznie w Katedrze i Zakładzie Medycyny Sądowej Uniwersytetu Medycznego im. Karola Marcinkowskiego w Poznaniu, oraz liczba wyroków skazujących w skali kraju wskazują, że biegli lekarze mogą otrzymać tego rodzaju sprawy do zaopiniowania. Główną trudnością w ocenie zdolności skazanego do wykonywania pracy na cele społeczne jest brak informacji, jakiego rodzaju i na jakim konkretnie stanowisku osoba skazana miałaby wykonywać pracę w ramach kary ograniczenia wolności. Med. Pr. 2016;67(6):765–775
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.