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

Results found: 21

first rewind previous Page / 2 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  prohibited act
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 2 next fast forward last
EN
The aim of the research was to learn about juvenile girls in Poland: who they are, what we know about their families, what kind of prohibited acts they commit. Another goal was to confront the results of the survey with the common beliefs. The society is convinced that girls became more cruel and violent and even petit crimes are committed more often. The research results do not confirm such a proposition.
PL
Artykuł analizuje zagadnienie czynów zabronionych dokonywanych przez sprawców niepoczytalnych. Podzielony on został na dwie części. W pierwszej autorka podejmuje zagadnienia teoretyczne: opis przesłanek niepoczytalności, badanie sądowo-psychiatryczne i wydane w sprawie opinie oraz rozstrzygnięcia sądu wobec sprawców czynów z art. 31 § 1 k.k. Część druga stanowi opis badań przeprowadzonych przez autorkę w zakresie czynów zabronionych sprawców niepoczytalnych.
EN
The purpose of the study is to determine the meaning of the term ‘offence’ under the Code of Civil Procedure. Hitherto, this issue has not been the subject of comprehensive in-depth considerations in the Polish doctrine. Meanwhile, this term used several times in the provisions of the aforementioned code may be understood in various ways, primarily due to the multiplicity of prohibited acts the commission of which may result in widely understood criminal liability. According to the authors, a narrow understanding of this concept in the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure is justified what corresponds essentially to the meaning given to it under the provisions of the Criminal Code. Whereas, the term ‘offence’ in the Code of Civil Procedure does not include penal fiscal offences, fiscal petty offences or petty offences.
PL
Celem opracowania jest ustalenie znaczenia pojęcia „przestępstwo” na gruncie kodeksu postępowania cywilnego. Zagadnienie to nie było dotąd przedmiotem pogłębionych rozważań w polskiej doktrynie. Tymczasem termin ten, używany kilkukrotnie w przepisach wymienionego kodeksu, może być różnorako rozumiany przede wszystkim ze względu na wielość czynów zabronionych, których popełnienie skutkować może szeroko rozumianą odpowiedzialnością karną. W ocenie autorów uzasadnione jest wąskie rozumienie tego pojęcia w przepisach kodeksu postępowania cywilnego, odpowiadające zasadniczo znaczeniu nadanemu mu w oparciu o przepisy kodeksu karnego. Pojęcie przestępstwa używane w przepisach kodeksu postępowania cywilnego nie obejmuje zaś przestępstw skarbowych, wykroczeń skarbowych ani wykroczeń. The purpose of the study is to determine the meaning of the term ‘offence’ under the Code of Civil Procedure. Hitherto, this issue has not been the subject of comprehensive in-depth considerations in the Polish doctrine. Meanwhile, this term used several times in the provisions of the aforementioned code may be understood in various ways, primarily due to the multiplicity of prohibited acts the commission of which may result in widely understood criminal liability. According to the authors, a narrow understanding of this concept in the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure is justified what corresponds essentially to the meaning given to it under the provisions of the Criminal Code. Whereas, the term ‘offence’ in the Code of Civil Procedure does not include penal fiscal offences, fiscal petty offences or petty offences.
EN
Prohibition of using evidence obtained contrary to the law is defined in the views of legal scholars and commentators and in the literature as the doctrine of the fruits of the poisonous tree. The aim of the paper is to discuss the subject matter of limiting the freedom of proof both on the ground of criminal procedure, especially through the lens of Article 168a CCrP (Act of 6 June 1997 The Code of Criminal Procedure, consolidated text, Dz. U. (Journal of Laws) of 2018 item 1987 as amended) and administrative procedure. The author stays convinced that the above-mentioned theory should be applied in both these types of procedures, primarily due to the constitutional right afforded to everyone to a public, fair and lawful examination of a given case by public and investigative authorities.
PL
The object of analysis is the amended art. 28 § 1 of the Penal Code, which stipulates that „whoever commits an act while being in justifiable error as to a circumstance constituting a feature of an prohibited act, shall not commit a crime”. The new regulation of 28 § 1 of the Penal Code is the next attempt to statutorily define the concept of an offence based on the methodology of a strict separation of the object of evaluation from the evaluation itself, that is, primarily a radical separation of mens rea of a prohibited act from guilt. Therefore, the authors of the change have consistently attempted to eliminate all normative attributes from the scope of „recklessness” and „negligence”. This is a result of the view that assumes a pure descriptive character of the set of criminal offence features (Ger. „Tatbestand”) including subjective features (offences of intentional and unintentional character). In this context, acts committed while being in justifiable error as to a circumstance constituting a feature of a prohibited act exclude guilt, however the fulfilment of the features of criminal acts of unintentional character is limited to the fulfilment of objective features (a consequence of the concept of the unintentional character of an offence as a plain negation of intent). The negative wording of art. 1 § 3 of the Penal Code, the objective and general interpretation of the term found in art. 9 § 2 „could have foreseen” (a transfer of the so-called objective foreseeability to the category of objective attribution) and the concept of committing an act while being in justifiable error as to a circumstance constituting a feature of a prohibited act excluding guilt lead, in the area of unintentional character of an offence, to the presumption of guilt on the basis of the fulfilling only the objective features of a criminal act. The author of the article demonstrates the inaccuracy of this argument for a strictly descriptive character of the features of a prohibited act, and in particular the features of intent (intentional character of an offence). The object of intent (a feature of a criminal offence) has a evaluative character (evaluation), therefore determining intent can generally constitute a premise for accepting guilt (intended), unless the circumstance of excluding guilt exceptionally occurs. In the case of an unintentional character of an act, such a relation does not occur, and the guarantee functions (the rule of positive establishment of the perpetrator’s guilt) thus require subjective (specific and individual evaluation) interpretation of the premise „could have foreseen” found in art. 9 § 2 of the Penal Code.
PL
Przedmiotem artykułu jest analiza orzeczeń najwyższej instancji sądowej oraz sądów apelacyjnych na przestrzeni lat 1996– 2015, uzupełniona o stanowisko doktryny, w zakresie reprezentowanych poglądów dotyczących dekodowania znamienia strony podmiotowej czynu zabronionego z art. 284 k.k. w zachowaniu sprawcy występku przywłaszczenia. Autor dokonuje syntezy tez sądowych, podejmując próbę stworzenia enumeratywnego katalogu zachowań wskazujących na zamiar przywłaszczenia, jednocześnie poddając pod rozwagę pojawiające się w praktyce stosowania prawa wątpliwości związane z jego subsumcją na kanwie niejednolitej wykładni reprezentowanej w orzeczeniach sądowych.
EN
The article analyses the judgements of the highest judicial instance and of the appeal courts in the years 1996 - 2015, supplemented by the position of doctrine, in terms of represented views on decoding the feature of the perpetrator of an act prohibited under art. 284 of the Penal Code in the behaviour of a perpetrator of a petty crime - appropriation. The Author synthesises the judicial theses in attempt to create an enumerative catalogue of behaviours indicating the intent of appropriation and at the same time raising for consideration the doubts that appear in the practice of law and are associated with its subsumption based on an inconsistent interpretation represented in court decisions
EN
The subject of considerations in the article is the interpretation of the origin of benefits connected with committing a forbidden act specified in art 299 paragraph 1 of the Penal Code in the context of co-incidents consequent, the possibility of reception of the fencing and moreover commenting on whether the offence of "money laundering" may be approved only when the base offence is the offence regulated in Penal fiscal code affecting the interests of the State Treasury. From the practical point of view, the point is to indicate which of the actions taken by the offender who obtained payment means, financial instruments, securities, foreign exchange values, property rights or other movable properties real estate resulting from the commission of a crime may be possibly recognized as co-incident co-incumbent and which may be recognized as derived from the benefits associated with the commission of a prohibited act "and execute a prohibited act from art. 229 paragraph 1 of Penal Code. Moreover, there is no clear relation between an offense of deliberate and unintentional felony to the crime of "laundering money". The same applies to the question whether the crime of "laundering money" may include benefits that have been obtained from committing offences specified in the Penal Code, which is connected with the interpretation of the concept of a prohibited act. The thing seems to be significant, because committing a large number of crimes results in gaining benefits, and interpretation in the above-mentioned areas determines not only the boundaries of the activities concerned, but also the subjective boundaries. Therefore, it seems crucial to interpret the abovementioned sign.
PL
Przedmiotem rozważań w niniejszym artykule jest wykładnia pochodzenia korzyści związanych z popełnieniem czynu zabronionego, określonych w art. 299 § 1 Kodeksu karnego w kontekście czynów współukaralnych następczych, możliwości przyjęcia paserstwa, a ponadto wypowiedzenia się czy przestępstwo „prania brudnych pieniędzy” może być przyjęte wtedy, gdy przestępstwem bazowym jest przestępstwo uregulowane w Kodeksie karnym skarbowym, godzące w interesy Skarbu Państwa. Z punktu widzenia praktycznego chodzi o to, aby wskazać, która z czynności podejmowanych przez sprawcę, który pozyskał środki płatnicze, instrumenty finansowe, papiery wartościowe, wartości dewizowe, prawa majątkowe lub inne mienie ruchome lub nieruchomości pochodzące z popełnienia przestępstwa może być ewentualnie uznana za czyn współukaralny następczy, a która może być uznana za wypełnienie znamienia „pochodzące z korzyści związanych z popełnieniem czynu zabronionego” i zrealizować czyn zabroniony z art. 299 § 1 Kodeksu karnego. Ponadto nie jest jasna relacja pomiędzy przestępstwem paserstwa umyślnego oraz nieumyślnego do przestępstwa „prania brudnych pieniędzy”. Podobnie rzecz ma się z odpowiedzią na pytanie czy przestępstwo „prania brudnych pieniędzy” może obejmować korzyści, jakie zostały uzyskane z popełnienia przestępstw określonych w Kodeksie karnym skarbowym, co łączy się z wykładnią pojęcia czynu zabronionego. Rzecz wydaje się istotna, bowiem popełnienie znacznej ilości przestępstw skutkuje uzyskaniem korzyści, a interpretacja we wskazanych wyżej obszarach wyznacza nie tylko granice przedmiotowe czynności, ale i granice podmiotowe. Stąd też kluczowe wydaje się dokonanie wykładni przytoczonego wyżej znamienia.
EN
The police perform a few tasks in relation to demoralized juveniles as well as juvenile perpetrators of criminal acts. These tasks concern combating and preventing crime. The aim of the article was to present selected changes introduced recently in legal regulations concerning juveniles and to present the scale of juvenile delinquency. The presented material was analyzed in relation to the tasks faced by the police in this aspect. The analysis of statistical data and the analysis of legal acts and literature were used. It turned out that the scale of juvenile delinquency has a downward trend, which results from statistical data, which does not mean, that the police have fewer tasks generated by the phenomenon of demoralization and juvenile delinquency. Changes in legal provisions pose new challenges to the police, such as reacting in the form of a warning in the event of disclosing a punishable act whose perpetrator is a minor and the act bears the hallmarks of an offence. Therefore, police officers face the task of acquiring knowledge and expanding their competences in the field of juvenile delinquency proceedings.
PL
Policja realizuje szereg zadań w odniesieniu do nieletnich zdemoralizowanych, jak również nieletnich sprawców czynów karalnych. Zadania te dotyczą zwalczania i przeciwdziałania przestępczości. Celem artykułu było przedstawienie wybranych zmian wprowadzonych w ostatnim czasie przepisami prawnymi dotyczącymi nieletnich oraz przedstawienie skali przestępczości nieletnich. Dokonano analizy przedstawionego materiału w odniesieniu do zadań stawianych przed Policją w tym aspekcie. Posłużono się analizą danych statystycznych oraz analizą aktów prawnych i literatury. Okazało się, że skala przestępczości nieletnich ma tendencję spadkową, co wynika z danych statystycznych, co nie oznacza jednak, że Policja ma mniej zadań generowanych przez zjawisko demoralizacji i przestępczości nieletnich. Zmiany przepisów prawnych stawiają przed Policją nowe wyzwania, jak reagowanie w formie upomnienia w sytuacji ujawnienia czynu karalnego, którego sprawcą jest nieletni, a czyn nosi znamiona wykroczenia. A zatem przed funkcjonariuszami Policji jawi się przede wszystkim zadanie zdobywania wiedzy i poszerzania kompetencji w zakresie postępowania w sprawach nieletnich.
Ius Novum
|
2022
|
vol. 16
|
issue 4
57-72
EN
Due to the amendment, which entered into force on January 1, 2022, a number of provisions in Chapter XI of Misdemeanour Code concerning safety and order in communication were significantly changed. The legislator decided to introduce new types of prohibited acts and significantly increased the amount of the fine for certain offenses. These changes are revolutionary, which is also associated with controversy. This is because some of the changes made raise doubts due to the higher degree of their repression, which makes the punishability of certain offenses disproportionate in relation to similar crimes under the Penal Code. This issue will be presented later in the article.
PL
Na mocy nowelizacji, która weszła w życie 1 stycznia 2022 r., w sposób bardzo istotny zmieniono wiele przepisów w rozdziale XI Kodeksu wykroczeń, dotyczącym bezpieczeństwa i porządku w komunikacji. Ustawodawca zdecydował się wprowadzić nowe typy czynówzabronionych oraz w sposób znaczący podwyższyć wysokość grzywny za niektóre wykroczenia.Zmiany te mają wręcz rewolucyjny charakter, co wiąże się także z kontrowersjami. Część bowiem z dokonanych zmian budzi wątpliwości ze względu na wyższy stopień represji tychprzepisów, co czyni karalność niektórych wykroczeń nieproporcjonalną w stosunku do analogicznych przestępstw z Kodeksu karnego. Zagadnienie to zostanie przedstawione w dalszejczęści artykułu.
16
63%
EN
The matter under discussion refers to the problem of voluntary sterilisation. The speculations contained in the article, are considered with references to the polish and international law. The fundamental argument demonstrated above, resolves itself to the statement that, despite lack of any judicial regulations related to that kind of  operations directly, sterilisation is legal primary, accepted in polish law. That thesis is based on the law principles eg, freedom and right to self-determination. Voluntary sterilisation is a kind of realization the fundamental right of every human being, woman and man, to the possessing or not possessing children responsibly. Moreover, sterilisation can be observed as a realization of right to access to any kind of methods enabling using that procedure. In particular, right to the procreation includes also the possibility of resignation of it, even though, that resignation has a final and irreversible character, and consequences can be qualified as a serious injury in the criminal law definition. As a result, voluntary sterilisation of an adult, responsible and accountable person, realised with her acceptation can not be considered as an illegal operation, apart from the reasons of that decision.
EN
This paper aims to answer the question whether the concept of dividing a criminal trial into two phases is still useful now, more than half a century after its last broader analysis. It also attempts to solve some specific problems related to the said analysis. The starting point for the considerations contained in the paper was to look at the concept of a two-phase criminal trial as a purely procedural construction and thus to reject its functional link with any model of substantive criminal law. The first part of the paper discusses the history of the concept of a two-phase criminal trial, as well as some of the arguments put forward by its supporters and opponents. In the course of further deliberations, the focus is on searching for elements of the concept in the current legal status. The final part of the text deals with the question whether and, possibly, in what form the concept of division of jurisdictional proceedings should become an element of the Polish criminal procedure. This is followed by numerous and widely justified de lege ferenda conclusions.
EN
The object of analysis is the amended art. 28 § 1 of the Penal Code, which stipulates that „whoever commits an act while being in justifiable error as to a circumstance constituting a feature of an prohibited act, shall not commit a crime”. The new regulation of 28 § 1 of the Penal Code is the next attempt to statutorily define the concept of an offence based on the methodology of a strict separation of the object of evaluation from the evaluation itself, that is, primarily a radical separation of mens rea of a prohibited act from guilt. Therefore, the authors of the change have consistently attempted to eliminate all normative attributes from the scope of „recklessness” and „negligence”. This is a result of the view that assumes a pure descriptive character of the set of criminal offence features (Ger. „Tatbestand”) including subjective features (offences of intentional and unintentional character). In this context, acts committed while being in justifiable error as to a circumstance constituting a feature of a prohibited act exclude guilt, however the fulfilment of the features of criminal acts of unintentional character is limited to the fulfilment of objective features (a consequence of the concept of the unintentional character of an offence as a plain negation of intent). The negative wording of art. 1 § 3 of the Penal Code, the objective and general interpretation of the term found in art. 9 § 2 „could have foreseen” (a transfer of the so-called objective foreseeability to the category of objective attribution) and the concept of committing an act while being in justifiable error as to a circumstance constituting a feature of a prohibited act excluding guilt lead, in the area of unintentional character of an offence, to the presumption of guilt on the basis of the fulfilling only the objective features of a criminal act. The author of the article demonstrates the inaccuracy of this argument for a strictly descriptive character of the features of a prohibited act, and in particular the features of intent (intentional character of an offence). The object of intent (a feature of a criminal offence) has a evaluative character (evaluation), therefore determining intent can generally constitute a premise for accepting guilt (intended), unless the circumstance of excluding guilt exceptionally occurs. In the case of an unintentional character of an act, such a relation does not occur, and the guarantee functions (the rule of positive establishment of the perpetrator’s guilt) thus require subjective (specific and individual evaluation) interpretation of the premise „could have foreseen” found in art. 9 § 2 of the Penal Code.
PL
Konstrukcja zobiektywizowanej odpowiedzialności karnej (strict liability) od lat należy do najbardziej kontrowersyjnych w doktrynie koncepcji z zakresu materialnego prawa karnego krajów kręgu common law. O ile sama idea oparcia odpowiedzialności jednostki o charakterze represyjnym na reżimie opartym o oceny ściśle obiektywne wydaje się stać w kontrze do podstawowych dla systemów zachodnich pryncypiów prawa karnego, takich jak indywidualizacja odpowiedzialności i zasada winy, o tyle z zastosowania omawianej tu konstrukcji mogą wypływać niebagatelne korzyści instrumentalne, zwłaszcza w odniesieniu do ochronnej funkcji prawa karnego. W artykule omówiono konstrukcję odpowiedzialności zobiektywizowanej występującą w systemie prawa karnego Anglii i Walii oraz zaprezentowano pozycję, jaką konstrukcja ta zajmuje w stosunku do klasycznego dla krajów anglosaskich dwuelementowego ujęcia struktury czynu zabronionego, opartego na korespondencji składników o charakterze przedmiotowym i podmiotowym, by następnie przenieść rozważane problemy na grunt polskiego prawa karnego w celu przeanalizowania możliwości zaadoptowania analogicznej konstrukcji w kodeksowej regulacji strony podmiotowej czynu zabronionego. Ponadto przedstawiono tezę, że wskazywane w angielskiej doktrynie zalety konstrukcji strict liability mogą przemawiać za modyfikacją krajowego ujęcia w kierunku częściowej rezygnacji z wymagań występowania w psychice sprawcy czynu zabronionego określonego elementu podmiotowego w odniesieniu do wszystkich znamion przedmiotowych.
EN
The construction of strict liability has been for years one of the most controversial concepts in the field of substantive criminal law in common law countries. While the very idea of basing the liability of an individual of a repressive nature on a regime based on strictly objective assessments seems to stand in opposition to the principles of criminal law that are fundamental to Western systems, such as the individualization of liability and the principle of guilt, at the same time, the use of the construct discussed may bring about considerable instrumental benefits, especially with regard to the protective function of criminal law. The article discusses the concept of strict criminal liability as developed in the system of England and Wales and presents the position that this concept occupies in relation to the classic for Anglo-Saxon countries, a two-element approach to the structure of a prohibited act, based on the correspondence of both objective and subjective components, and then transfers the considered problems onto the Polish criminal law plane in order to analyse the possibility of adapting an analogous construct in the statutory regulation of the subjective side of a prohibited act. In addition, the article presents the thesis that the advantages of strict liability may support the modification of the national approach towards a partial resignation from the requirements of the presence of a specific subjective element in the psyche of the perpetrator of a prohibited act in relation to all its objective features.
EN
The paper presents some considerations regarding the concept of social harm in the Polish criminal law. Legally, it is well known that the reprehensibility of an act, i.e. its social harm, higher than negligible, is a condition for criminal liability and also a factor that determine the seriousness of an offence. Social harm is therefore one of the determinants of a crime. The author draws our attention to the lack of need for statutory regulation, demonstrating the principle nullum crimen sine damno sociali magis quam minimo. It seems that the element of social harm should be included in each generic type of a prohibited act. Thus, it appears sufficient to define a formal crime since the material content is its essential component. No complete elimination of social harm from Polish criminal law is postulated. Given a specific level of harm, certain mechanisms of criminal law are permissible, for example a conditional discontinuance of criminal proceedings. A minimal level of social harm posed by an act would be a prerequisite for discontinuance due to the principle of opportunism.
first rewind previous Page / 2 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.