Search results

1

Psychological characteristics of juvenile offenders with constant integration problems

100%

Démuthová S.

Journal for Perspectives of Economic Political and Social Integration

|

2012

|

vol. 18

|

issue 1-2

177-192

EN

The aim of this study is to identify the typical psychological, demographic, socio-economical, educational, health, and criminological characteristics of juvenile delinquents who tend to continue in their criminal career to adulthood and therefore obstruct the possibility of successful, non-offending integration to society. Subjects of research were young male prisoners jailed in the Juvenile imprisonment house that completed the test battery. By ex-post analysis after a period of five years, the differences between offenders and non-offenders were identified. Results show significant differences in the age of prisoners, length of imprisonment, presence of violent offence (esp. robbery) in the criminal history, number of previous offences recorded, differences in factors i, h, and q1 from the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, responses within the Hand test characteristic (affection, dependence, and communication), and in several signs of the drawings in a Draw-A-Person test. The importance and influence of listed factors is discussed.

2

Młodociani i młodzi recydywiści w świetle badań kryminologicznych część pierwsza

87%

Batawia S.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

1965

|

issue III

9-95

EN

This work deals with the results of research carried out by Department of Criminology of the Polish Academy of Sciences concerning young male recidivists aged 17-25 who had been repeatedly convicted. The fundamental material consists of:100 young adult recidivists (aged about 20 on on the average) investigated in prisons in the years 1957/58. Follow-up studies comprise the period of 7-8 years; the average age of those investigated amounted recently to 23; 6 years.100 recidivists, aged 21-25, investigated in prison (their average age being 23 years and 6 months), 60 of whom were subjected to detailed investigations in the years 1961/62. Follow-up studies comprised the period of 3 years; the average of the investigated amounted recently to 26;8 years.The additional material incrudes results of the follow-up studies concerning 331 juvenile recidivists, investigated in various periods of time as of 1957: 1. 158 former juvenile recidivists (cases taken from the Juvenile Court) whose average age is now about 24; 82 of them still continue to commit offences, 2. 81 of former juvenile recidivists discharged from educational and correctional institutions, whose average age now amounts to 31; 50 of them still continue to commit offences, 3. Formerly irrvestigated 92 juveniles and young adults guilty of hooligan misdemeanours whose average age is now about 28; 52 of them still continue to commit offences. Moreover, while dealing with certain questions, results of the research concerning 1,394 juvenile recidivists, a part of whom has recently become young adult recidivists, were also utilized.The above material was chosen for the research in such a way as to satisfy the needs of representativeness.The task facing the investigators at the outset of the research in prisons with regard to young adult recidivists aged 17-20 in 1957 was the verification of the following hypotheses: such recidivists derive as a rule from among individuals who alreardy in their childhood displayed symptoms of social maladjustment and repeatedly committed thefts during their minority. Prisoners aged 17-20, domiciled in Warsaw or its environs, convicted for at least the second time after the completion of 17 years of age and imprisoned for the second time at least, were successively chosen for the research in prison without any selection whatever. After a check in Juvenile Courts it appeared that 90 out of 100 young adult recidivists were tried by Juvenile Courts (for thefts as a rule); on the basis of the information given by their mothers and themselves it has been ascertained that merely 9 out of the remaining 20 did not as juveniles commit thefts repeatedly. Only 9 % of the investigated recidivists did not display any symptoms of serious maladjustment in their childhood.In connection with these results of the research, in 1961 investigations of recidivists aged 21-25 were initiated in the Warsaw prisons. Recidivists of that age who were convicted at least twice and imprisoned for at least the third time were qualified for this research, the purpose of which was to find out a) whether also among recidlvists older than the previously investigated recidivists of 17-20 there are as a rule individuals who began to commit offences as juveniles (under 17), b) and to reveal, in cases when delinquency and recidivism begin at after the completion of 17-18 years of age, the factors influencing the subsequent beginning of the process of social degradation.In course of one year, there were in two Warsaw prisons 259 recidivists aged 21-25, convicted at least twice and imprisoned for at least the third time. After a check in the Juvenile Courts it appeared that 153 of them (59 %) were formerly tried by the Juvenile Courts. Since they constituted an analoguous population in relation to the previously investigated 100 recidivists aged 17-20, they were not included in the research. No information could be obtained at Juvenile Courts with regard to the remaining 106 recidivists aged 21-25 as to their committing offences before the completion of 17 years of age. In course of detailed investigations of 60 out of 106 recidivists, it has been asserted on the basis of interviews held with them and their nearest relations, that 27 % of these recidivists repeatedly committed thefts already in their childhood. Thus, when these results were calculated in relation to the entire population (259) of 21-25 years old recidivists, it appeared that individuals whose delinquency began in their childhood (minority) constitute 70 % of the total. Recidivists who began committing offences after the completion of 17 years of age constitute only 30 % of the total.Below are presented the data relating to the deliquency of 100 recidivists aged 21-25, supplemented by follow-up studies in course of a three years period (their age already amounted to 24-28 years).Among recidivists aged 21-25, only 44 % were tried 3 times after the completion of 17 years of age, and 35 % were tried 5 times and more. After a lapse of 3 years merely 20 % of recidivists three times tried were left while already 58 % of recidivists were tried 5 times and more 24 % were tried 7 times and more).The average length of time spent on liberty between particular arrests in connection with instituting of new judiciai proceedings, was as follows: it did not exceed 6 months for 26 % of recidivists, it amounted to 7-12 months for 37 %, 13-18 months for 19 % and did not exceed one year and a half for merely 18 % of recidivists.63 % of recidivists remained on liberty between subsequent arrests at most one year on the average and 82 % less than year and a half. The age at which first judicial proceedings were instituted against recidivists after their completion of 17 years of age was as folows: 17-18 years for 57 % of recidivists, 19 years for 13%, 21-22 years for 10 % and 23-24 years for 2 % of recidivists. During detailed investigations of 60 recidivists it appeared that they could be divided into two groups: Group A (34) consists of individuals, who were first tried at courts aiready at the age of 17-18 and probably committed offences before. These recidivists are seriously socialIy degraded and at leasts 40% of them are closely connected with the criminal environment, 56 % perpetrated robberies. 62 % were tried six times and more at the age of 24-28 years. Group B (26) consists of individuals of whom 69 % were first tried at courts only at the age of 20 and over and only 39 % were tried six times and more. They are less socially degraded, their deliquency being closely connected with alcoholism. An analysis of deliquency of the seriously socially degraded recidivists from Group A permits to assert that offences against property constitute 55 % of all the offences for which they were convicted, while offences committed under the influence of alcohol - against authorities (mostly insults and attacks on the policemen) and against person (infringement of bodily inviolability, assaults occasioning actual bodily harm) constituted 27 % of the offences committed. Theft (burglary or larceny), the typical offence against property, constitutes 70 % of all offences against property. A relatively large numer of offences against authoritiers, mostly against the policemen and against the person, committed under the influence of alcohol, indicates at once that frequent abuse of alcohol must also play an important role in the delinquency of the Group A recidivists, especially as practically all their robberies were committed in the state of drunkenness.Detailed investigations have shown that 80 % of these recidivists already drank alcoholic beverages several times a week before the completion of 18 years of age and now as many as 56% display symptoms of alcohol addiction although their average age is only 26;6 years. The delinquency of the less demoralized Group B differs from that of the Group A. The percentage of offences against property is only 28 %, most of the offences were committed under the influence of alcohol and offences against the person amount to 18 %. At the time of the research that group did not contain individuals connected with criminal environment or with professional criminals and the thefts they committed were not serious. Ten out of 26 recidivists did not commit offences against property at all. The percentage of alcoholics in that group is as high as 61,5 %; all the others drink large quantities of alcohol several times a week. A group of recidivists, similar to Group B now under review, appears also among the previously investigated 100 recidivists aged 17-20. After a lapse of 8 years, recidivists of that group whose offences against authorities, infringement of bodily inviolability and assaults occasioning actual bodily harm perpetrated under the influence of alcohol, amount to three fourths of all the offences committed, constitute 21 %. Likewise, among the formerly investigated 158 juvenile recidivists now aged about 24, the seriously socially degraded recidivists, who for the most part commit offences against property (analogously to Group A) constitute 42 % and recidivists committing offences mostly connected with abuse of alcohol (similarly to Group B) 25 %.Similar populations of recidivists also appear in other follow-up studies among the other formerly investigated juvenile recidivists. In each of these populations there exists at present a group (less numerous) of adult recidivists whose typical offences are not thefts but offences against authorities and against the person.In connection with the intensified alcoholisrn of the investigated recidivists it should be remembered that these recidivists cannot be identified with the typical aicoholics who commit offences. Apart from the fact that not all alcoholics commit offences, indiviluals who where not tried at courts under thirty years of age can usually be encountered among the convicted alcoholics. The period of time from the beginning of a frequent abuse of alcohoI to the appearance of the first symptoms of the alcohol addiction usually lasts 5-7 years and before the syndrom, characteristic for chronic alcoholisrn becomes manifest a few more years elapse. Delinquency of the alcoholics usually becomes a secondary, late phenomenon, connected with personality deviations and difficult living conditions resulting from a long period of systematic drinking.The delinquency of the alcoholics is besides less intensified and less serious. Therefore, recidivists who became alcoholics only after a lapse of a certain period of time, should be regarded from different points of view than those alcoholics whose delinquency made its appearance considerably later.All investigated recidivists (except 9) aged 17-20 began to commit thefts already at school-age, most of them under 13 years of age and only 30 % of recidivists aged 21-25 were tried at courts for the first time at the age of 20 and over. Thus, the beginning of delinquency and recidivism occurs in most last cases only at the initial stage of a systematic abuse of alcohol which cannot be identified with alcohol addiction.Nevertheless at the time of the research already 53 % of the investigated recidivists were alcohol addicts despite their youth, a fact which ought to be considered in connection with the early beginning of the abuse of alcohol by an overwhelming majority of persons investigated. A large percentage of alcoholics among the younger recidivists also indicates, that the question of personality disorders reveals itself as a problem deserving particular consideration.This work deals in the first place with the question whether the investigated recidivists displayed any symptoms of social maladjustment at their school-time and whether they constitute an analogous population to that of juvenile recidivists who according to other investigations conducted Department of Criminology show tendencies for reiterated perpetration of offences also after the completion of 18-20 years of age.As is well known, a part of juvenile delinquents cease to commit offences in their later years. The question what sort of juvenile delinquents stops committing offences and can be considered resocialized and what still continues to commit them at the age of 20-25, is important from the viewpoint of the problems of recidivism.It has been asserted with regard to 185 juvenile recidivists after a lapse of ten years when their average age was 23;9, that at least 32 % of them were seriously degraded and continued to commit offences frequently. (The percentage of former juvenile recidivists, considered fully resocialized, was only 33 % after 10 years). Among 81 juvenile recidivists discharged from correctional and educational institutions 44 % continued to commit offences after a Iapse of 13 years, (their avelage age already being 31). Regarding another investigated population of 92 juvenile and young adult perpetrators of the so-called misdemeanours of a hooligan character who often abused of alcohol, it has been asserted after the lapse of 11 years when they were already 28 years old, that 56 % of them still continued to commit offences. An analysis of the results of those investigations revealed, that juvenile recidivists who did not cease committing offences after the completion of twenty old years of age, displayed important symptoms of social maladjustment since their childhood and began to commit offences at an earlier stage than those juvenile recidivists who later reformed. Non-attendance at school, truancy, considerable retardation in learning, spending their time with demoralized companions, alcohol drinking etc. were particulary intensified as regards those juveniles who continued to commit offences after 20 years of age. The investigated young adult recidivists (aged 17-20) and the most degraded recidivists of 21-25 (Group A) constitute a population analogous to those population which are encountered among the formerly investigated juvenile recidivists who did not cease to commit offences. Out of 100 recidivists aged 17-20, 58 % attained only 6 grades at school (a half of them ceased to attend school at the age of 11-13), 77 % played truants systematically (practically all of them have done so already in the first years at school), 58% ran away repeatedly from home (three fourths of them started running away before they were 12) and as many as 61 % drank alcohol more often than once a week before the completion of 17 years of age. Only 13 out of 100 recidivists who later ceased to commit offences did not display serious symptoms of social maladjustment at school.Among the seriously socially degraded recidivists of 21-25 (Group A) only 35 % finished elementary school while most of them stopped attending school after 5 grades. Truancy, repetition of grades, early contacts with demoralized boys, often older than themselves being absent from their home for many hours every day, drinking alcohol etc. are typical phenomena. Dislike for all work, quick abandoning of work, frequent changes of employment follow at a later period. None of them ever worked systematically; some of them soon contrived to establish contacts with the criminal environment. Practically all of those recidivists have already first tried at courts art the age of 17-18. Recidivists whose delinquency began at a later tirne (Group B) and a part of whom did not commit offences against property, differ from the former. At the time of the investigations, that group did not include any systematically stealing individuals involved in the criminal background or such who had never worked for their living. It appeared, however, that these less demoralized recidivists who have been drinking alcohol for a long tirne now and among whom, despite their youth, there were 61,5 % of alcoholics, displayed in their chirldhood symptoms of social maladjustment similar to those shown by the more socially degraded recidivists of Group A. These symptoms were more definite regarding those who later committed thefts than those recidivists-alcoholics who did not commit ofences against property (there were but ten of the latter, however). Besides, the former had a more negative attitude to work already in their early youth, although in Group B only 3 recidivists have worked rather systernatically. Typical for ałl the rest was occasionaI work and frequent changes of employment. As is seen from the above, practically all investigated recidivists aged 17-20 and 21-25 already in their childhood displayed symptoms of social maladjustement, which shourd be considered in connection with certain personality disorders. 6. Another question dealt with in Part I of this work is the problem of family environments from which derive the recidivists aged 17-20 and 21-25. It is fitting to mention that after the end of the war in 1945 their average age was 7-8 and 6-7 years; thus, the early childhood of these recidivists coincides with the time of war and occupation. Only 45 % of recidivists aged 17-20 and 51,7 % of recidivists aged 21-25 were brought up families in which were both parents. 32% of the former lost their father when they were under 7 years of age and 16 % under 15 while the figures for the latter are 22 % and 18% respectively. 40 % of young adult recidivists and about 50 % of recidivists aged 21-25 had alcoholic fathers, step-fathers or mothers men-friends living with them. Family environments were classified as negative in 62 % and 70 % with regard to both investigated populations; recidivists more degraded derived from worse family environments than those less antisocial. In connection with the above results of the research this work provides data relating to family environments of the formerly investigated juvenile delinquents of whom a part was born during the war or just before its outbreak (596 cases) and a part after its termination (758 cases). A confrontation of the data relating to family environments of those two populations permits to determine the existence and nature of differences in family environments of recidivists born in these two different periods of time. Following conclusions can be drawn from an analysis of the results of this research: Juvenile recidivists born during the war or just before the war were brought up in the broken families in a larger percentage (51 %, 52 % and 70 %) than juvenile recidivists born after its termination (39% and 34 %). The negative home environment appears, however, in the similar percentage regarding both the former (45 %, 40 % and60 %) and the latter (44 % and 58 %); homes of good educational atmosphere are scarce and do not exceed 19 % - 22 %. Data relating to alcoholism in homes are formed in much the sarne way (55 %, 54 %, 51 % - 58 % and 53 %). Results of investigations of 158 juveniles committing thefts (recidivists constitute 71 %) most of whom were born already several years after the war deserve special consideration. That research covered all juveniles tried for thefts in course of one year at one of the Juvenile Courts in Warsaw. 58 % of the investigated juveniles derived from homes classified as negative family environments (only 20 % of homes deserved a positive appraisal). A statisticaily significant relationship between recidivism and the negative home environment was ascertained at the same time. The same significant relationship between the negative home environment and a further recidivism, estimated on the basis of follow-up studies covering a period of 10 years, applies to another research comprising 158 juvenile recidivists.Thus the abnormal family structure and highly unfavourable home conditions under which the childhood of most of the investigated recidivists aged 17-20 and 21-25 was spent, are typical also for the investigated populations of juvenile recidivists displaying tendencies for further recidivism. Next volume of the "Archives" deals with the problem of personality of the investigated recidivists and with certain questions connected with the erroneous penal and penitentiary policy which is contributing to the process of their social degradation.

3

Prognoza recydywy u nieletnich przestępców oraz wyniki badań prognostycznych 180 recydywistów w wieku 15-16 lat

76%

Ostrihanska Z.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

1965

|

issue III

121-281

EN

Predictions of recidivism may be formulated solely in categories of probability. In predicting human behaviour it is impossible to take account and to control all factors that influence it. Causal relationships and the general laws that explain it are still largely unknown and generally the data available on the subject are incomplete. It is therefore necessary to expect that there may be disagreement between predicted and actual behaviour. Predictions of recidivism may be formulated solely in categories of probability. In predicting human behaviour it is impossible to take account and to control all factors that influence it. Causal relationships and the general laws that explain it are still largely unknown and generally the data available on the subject are incomplete. It is therefore necessary to expect that there may be disagreement between predicted and actual behaviour. Nonetheless, despite these reservations, individual predictions of recidivism of juvenile delinquents are to all practical purposes a constant factor in the decisions of the law courts. The essential problem therefore is not whether it is possible to make individual predictions, where there is always a chance of error, but how to arrive at predictions a large proportion of which will be correct. Literature in the field of criminology devoted to this subject distinguishes the statistical and clinical methodes of prediction. These two methods were studied by the Department of Criminology of the Polish Academy of Sciences. The object of the study was to investigate a number of questions that were raised by research conducted in other countries on the Department's own empirical material.Below are given the problems related to the subject of clinical predictions: 1. Since clinical predictions play an important role in present practice it was advisable to learn to what extent the predictions made in our study were correct as regards juvenile recidivism. 2. It was equally important to discover how a given prediction was justified, what factors are considered significant in predictions made in individual cases. 3. It was resolved to make a study of the subjective aspects of clinical predictions: whether persons who received the same education and professional training tend to make the same predictions regarding the same juveniles? Whether predictions made by different persons for two groups of juveniles will prove to be accurate in the same extent? Problems of statistical predictions were related to the following questions: 1. Whether the predictive factors established in the projects carried out in other countries have any bearing in the predictions relating to juvenile delinquents in Poland? 2. It was resolved that predictive factors found in one group would be incorporated into the experimental prediction table and used in making predictions for another group. It was further resolved to check-up on the correctness of the predictions. In constructing the experimental prediction table the goal was not to construct a table designed for practical use but on the basis of our own experiments to identify the problems that arise when using a prediction table. 3. Special importance was attached to a careful analysis of cases where the predictions made with the aid of the table were incorrect. The research planned according to these guidelines was conducted in two stages. In the first stage clinical predictions were made and experimental prediction table was constructed for a representative sample of 15 and 16 year old recidivists of Warsaw. In the second stage data was tested on a new sample of 15 and 16 year old recidivists and instances were analyzed where the statistical predictions proved incorrect. The initial research embraced 100 recidivists of 15 and 16 years of age out of 202 recidivists, of the entife population of juvenile recidivists who in 1954 came before the juvenile court of Warsaw on charges of larceny and who were embraced by earlier research on juvenile recidivism conducted by the Department of Criminology. The earlier research yielded data on the after-conduct of the recidivists studied that covered a span of three years. It was established that 51 per cent of them commited offences in the follow-up period. First of all the clinical predictions on the 100 recidivists were based on the findings of environmental as well as psychological and medical examinations and without knowledge of the findings of the follow-up studies. Two psychologists who had experience in criminological studies made predictions for each of the 100 recidivists. The psychologists were not in touch with each other and did not estabiish joint criteria beforehand. Good behaviour was predicted if it was assumed that the recidivist would not commit any offences in the future, bad predictions were made if the feeling was that he could commit offences and uncertain if no definite decision was reached. If the two psychologists differed in their predictions they would discuss the subject and try to arrive at a consensus. The predictions made in this manner shaped up as follows: 18 per cent were good, 57 per cent bad and 25 per cent uncertain. There was a significant statistical relationship between the predictions and the commission or non-commission of offences in the course of the next three years by the 100 recidivists studied that may be expressed by a level of significance of p < 0.001. The bad predictions were correct in 70 per cent of the cases, the good in 83 per cent. Thus an overwhelming proportion of the predictions was correct and the proportiorr of uncertain predictions (25 per cent) inconsiderable. The problem arises what part do subjective factors play in the clinical predictions made by two different persons? Two separate predictions regarding the same juvenile agreed in 70 per cent of the cases. Greater agreement was found in the bad predictions (77 per cent) than in the uncertain (60 per cent) and the good (61 per cent) predictions. Moreover, there were large differences in the reasons given for the predictions issued to the same individual. The two psychologists frequently listed different factors in arriving at the same decisions. A great many factors were listed as reasons for the predictions which, based on an analysis of data relating to the individual cases, seemed to bear significantly upon the predictions regarding the juveniles studied. Among those mentioned were envinonmental factors, personality traits, demonstration of antisocial behaviour and information about the offences committed. The next step in the first stage of the project focused on statistical predictions. A study was made of the relationship between 23 factors and the behaviour of the 100 recidivists of 15 and 16 years of age under study over a span of three years. Account was taken of factors which were found significant in the prediction of juvenile recidivism by the research conducted in other countries and of factors which were seemed significant to the problem in the study of juvenile recidivism in Poland. It was established that a significant statistical relationship existed between the following factors and the continued antisocial behaviour of the subjects under study: 1) early age (below 11) of the onset of symptoms of demoralization, 2) early age of onset of antisocial behaviour (below 13), 3) persistent stealing, 4) membership in a group of delinquents or keeping bad company, 5) personality disorders, 6) drinking, 7) running away from home, B) Iack of schooling or work. The findings indicate that the early age of the onset of antisocial behaviour and the far-gone demoralization of the juvenile are important factors in predicting recidivism. However, no relationship was found, and this seemed strange and called for explanation, between recidivism and any of the factors that characterized the family environment. This contrasted with the findings of the previous study that embraced all the juvenile recidivists between the ages of 8 and. 16. The oldest of these were included in the present study. In order to find an explanation for the disparity an additional study, one that was not initially planned, was made of the 28 factors and their relationship to recidivism that continued over a period of three years among the youngest of the recidivists studied at an earlier time in the Department of Criminology. Toward this end 68 of the youngest subjects between the ages of 8 and 13 were isolated from the whole population of recidivists ranging from 8 to 16 years of age. It was found that the following factors had a statistically significant relationship with continued recidivism in the younger age group: 1) alcoholism in the family, 2) the home atmosphere, 3) lack of supervision by parents, 4) systematic truancy, b) early age of first symptoms of demoralization, 6) early age of first offences, 7) membership in a delinquent group, B) personaiitv disorders. Consequently, a slighty different set of factors ought to be taken into account when making predictions for younger recidivists. Environmental factors of the home are far more significant in predictions for younger delinquents. In older delinquents it was totally immaterial whether they came from a good or a bad home environment as far as predictions were concerned. A good home which had failed to guard a child of up to 15 and 16 years of age from becoming a delinquent couId handły guard the child against recidivism. In younger delinquents a good lamily atmosphere, excellent supervision, absence of alcoholism all are positive predictive factors. Younger juveniles are still highly responsive to the influence of the home and careful supervision may guard them against further demoralization. Our research substantiated the thesis that research on the prediction of juvenile recidivism ought to be conducted separately for narrow and strictly defined age levels. The age of the subject at the time the prediction is made is an important factor that must be kept in view.

4

Przestępczość 100 młodocianych recydywistów w okresie od 18 r. ż. do ukończenia 25-28 lat (wyniki badań katamnestycznych)

76%

Szelhaus S.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

1965

|

issue III

97-120

EN

In the years 1957/1958 the Department of Criminology of the Polish Academy of Sciences carried out a research in prisons concerning 100 young-adult recidivists aged 17-20. Qualified for the research without any selection were prisoners of tłrat age, convicted by law courts at least twice after the completion of their 17th year of age (regardless of the kind of the offence committed), and serving their term in prison for at least the second time. Their residence in Warsaw or in the environs of Warsaw and their having at least one parent constituted additional criteria. No other information concerning these recidivists was available at the time they were qualified for the research and thus it was not known whether they committed any offences before the completion of their 17th year of age or whether they were tried by the courts at all.At the time of the research in prisons the average age of recidivists was about 20. 50 % of them were convicted twice after the completion of 17 years of age, 25 % were convicted three times and 23 % four times and more. A check in the Juvenile Court revealed. that 80 % of those recidivists underwent trials in Juvenile Courts for thefts as a rule before they completed 17 years of age. Moreover, 11 % of them repeatedly committed thefts as juveniles (under 17) for which they were not tried by the courts. At least 54 % out of 91 recidivists become delinquents under 13 years of age and only 12 % began cornmitting theft at the age of 15 and over. 44 % of recidivists stayed at correctional institutions (as a rule only at a time when they were 15-16 years old).Already during the investigation in prisons in the years 1957/1958, when the average age of recidivists was merely about 20, it was stated that 82 % of them were seriously demoralized. Their subsequent destinies were further investigated in the course of 6 years until the end of 1964. The average age of these 100 recidivists amounted recently to 26 years and six months. Below are presented data relating to their delinquency from the age of 17 to 25-28 years of age. That period comprises 8-11 years, on the average 10 years. 65 % stayed longer in prisons than on liberty, with 36 % staying in prison even longer than two thirds of that entire period. The average period of their staying on liberty between alternate arrests was up to 6 months for 48 % of recidivists, below a year for 80,5 %, and one year and a half and over for 5,4% only. On the average there are 8.3 proved offences for one recidivist (the number of offences for which they were convicted is actually much higher, as not all judicial records could have been examined; the register of the convicted persons does not contain competent information in this respect). Among 830 offences for which 100 recidivists were convicted the offences against property constituted 63 % (among them thefts – 83 %), offences against authonities 16 % (mostly against policemen), offences against the person 13 % and various other offences 8 %. 37 % of recidivists were convicted exclusively for offences against property, and with 27 % the convictions against property outnumbered those against authorities and against the person. 27 % were convicted for various offences with the preponderance of convictions for offences against authorities and against the person. 9 % of recidivists were convicted exclusively for offences against authorities and against the person.The most antisocial offenders, who as a rule since the completion of their 17th year stayed in prison longer than on liberty, for committing thefts for the most part, constitute 50 % among recidivists ąged 25-28. Only 13 % of recidivists can be considered resocialized. Since their last discharge from prison they have remained on liberty for at least 6 years. They work and lead a normal life, they do not abuse of alcohol often. Those 13 recidivists already in their youth displayed the lowest degree of demoralization, most of them were only twice convicted after the completion of 17 years of age and the average number of offences for which they were tried in courts was merely about 4.The inefficacy of imprisonment with regard to young-adult delinquents is dealt with in the final part of this work.During the period of about 10 years after the completion of 17 years of age, the recidivists were jointly sentenced to imprisonment in 466 cases. Imprisonment, not exceeding 6 months time, constituted 31 % of the total, below 1 year – 52 %, below one year and a half – 66 %, below 2 years – 73 % of the total.An analysis of the material shows that penalties inflicted on the now most antisocial recidivists do not differ from those inflicted on recidivists who have not committed any offences at all for the last six years.AIso there is no relationship whatever between the wight of penalty inflicted by the courts and the succession of convictions.The average penalty inflicted does not show any relationship to the rate of recidivism: as regards recidivists convicted three times only, the average penalty amounted to 16 months of prison, for six previous convictions to twelve months, for seven and more convictions - to 13 months of prison. The average penalty is then lower for the recurrent recidivists already convicted six and more times than for the offenders convicted only three times, despite the fact that the most antisocial recidivists, committing thefts for the most part, constitute 83 % of the offenders convicted six times and more.Moreover, the research has shown, that there is no significant relationship between the length of imprisonment and the length of the subsequent stay on liberty before a new arrest. Recidivists discharged after having served a six months term in prison were arrested again before the lapse of half a year in 44 % of cases; recidivists discharged after a term of three and more years, found thernselves in prison again before the lapse of half a year in 63 % of cases.Application of long-term imprisonment does not prevent further recidivism. It is necessary to apply special sanctions during the recidivists' minority and up to 21 years of age with the sole aim of their resocialisation.

5

Przestępczość wielokrotnych recydywistów i stosowana wobec nich polityka karna

65%

Siemaszko A.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

1983

|

issue X

23-54

EN

In Poland in recent years, the number of people sentenced each year in what is know as „special multiple recidivism (Art.60 § 2) has been in the order of 1,500-1,700. This paragfaph of the Penal Code, which applies to offences against property and to acts of hooliganism, provides for a drastic stepping-up of penal Sanctions. Under the Penal Code, the minimum sentence for multi-recidivists in this category is two years' imprisonment, unless there are mitigating circumstances. Hence it may be concluded that the legislation regards this group of effenders as constituting a specially serious danger to law and order. The sudy described below was designed to elucidate if that is really the case. The subjects in this study were all multi-recidivists sentenced under this paragraph by the courts in five voivodships of Poland, in the years 1975 and 1976. Over 1,700 criminal cases brought against 131 persons were analysed. For technical reasoni, it was not possible to make a random sample. Nevertheless, if we take into consideration the fact that the subjects constituted 10% of all multi-recidivists convicted of special multiple recidivism within this period, as well as the fact that the main social and demographic data and the kinds of crimes committed by the multi-recidivists in our group are almost identical to such data in other investigations based on random samples, we can take it that the sample used in our study may be considered as representative of all the offenders convicted of crimes in what is known as „specual multiple recidivism”. The methods used was to analyse the court records and the data given in the register of convicted persons and in the register of prisoners. Efforfs were made to collect information from the records on all crimes committed by the recidivists in our group, right from the beginning of their criminal career. The study fell into the following headings: 1) basic socio-demographic data, 2) crime record, 3) structure of offences committed, 4) effectiveness of penal measures used, 5) the penal policy adopted towards our subjects in different periods. Finally, conclusions drawn from the present study, as well asfrom other studies of multi-recidivism are presented. Some basic characteristics of this group are as follows: The mean age of the subjects was 40, and their mean age at the time of the first conviction: 21. The percentage of multi-recidivists who began their criminal carrer being aged 25 and over was higher in this group than in other studies. The educational level of the men in this group was much lower than that of the male manual workers employed in the public economy. Nearly 4O% of the subjects had no trade, and among those who did work, most of their jobs consisted of the simplest manual work not requiring any qualifications. Yet it was found that only about 40% of the subjects had worked regularly before their first conviction, and that nearly 39%o had never worked at all. The average number of convictions per subject was 7. The mean length of prison sentence given was 31.9 months (that is, over 2.5 years), while the average stay in prison was 24.44 months, that is, just over two years. Out of 922 sentences, 43.1% did not exceed 18 months. The percentage of prison sentences of five years and over was only 6.6%. These facts may indicate that the offenders in this group had not committed serious crimes that were a real threat to law and order. But the sentences passed for the first two cases were statistically significantly lower than those imposed for later crimes. A similar statistically significant difference was noted as regards length of successive periods spent at liberty. After each period in prison, the periods at liberty became successively shorter. Nevertheless generally speaking the tempo of recidivism was very high in this group. Out of a total number of 818 periods spent in freedom, 11.4% had a duration not exceeding a month, while 40% did not exceed six months in duration. The percentage of periods of freedom that lasted for more than three years was barely 7.4% in this group. As for the structure of offenies committed by the subjects in this group, offences against property dominated, for 85.9% of the total number of 1,784 offences committed were offences of this type, offences against the person 3.48% of the total, offences against authority 3.48%, and offences against the family 1.23%. Theft of private property accounted for 50% of all the offences committed by the recidivists in this group. Serious crimes, such as rape, homicide, or robbery, constituted barely 2.2% of all the offences committed by this group, and by far the most were robberies. But even robbery, regarded as a serious crime, formed a tiny percentage of all the offences committed, for out of the total numbet of 1,784 offences, 37 were robberies. In more than 75% of the crimes against property, the sums obtained were no more than 5,000 zlotys, while in only 11% of the total cases did the sum obtained exceed 10,000 zlotys . Several methods were used to assess the effectiveness of imprisonment. The first method was to work out the correlation between the variable "time in prison” and the variable "time at in freedom". This correlation turend out to be nearly 0 (r = 0.02). This means that we can reject the hypothesis that there is a positive connection between length of imprisonment and time spent in freedom. The second method was to study the length of time spent in freedom after periods of imprisonment of various lengths: up to 6 months, from 7 to 12 month., from 1 to 2 years, from 2 to 3 years, and 3 years and over. Here, too, there was no significant correlation (X2 = 5.10; df = 12), which is below the level of significance. The third method was to try to find out if there was a significant diffence in duration of freedom between the recidivists sentenced to terms of up to 6 months, and those sentenced to three years and over. The aim of this method was to discover if what are regarded as long terms in prison are followed by longer terms in the outside world. In other words, it would be interesting to know if long-term incarceration has a deterrent effect. In this case, too, no significant statistical defferences were found (X2 = O,32; dt= 3, which is below the level of significance). Thus it would seem that in our group of subjects' length of time in prison had no effect at all on the tempo of recidivism. This was confirmed by analysis of the duration of the first stay in prison as compared with the subsequent time spent in freedom: (X2 = 2.80; df = 4, which is below the level of significance). There have been more and more frequent assertions of late, that the Polish criminal justice system has becoming more and more punitive. The present study tried to test whether these assertions are justified with reference to the population of multi-recedivists. Hence the period 1948-1978 was divided into five stages more or less corresponding to different phases of penal policy in Poland. These stages are as follows: Period I (l948-1955), Period II (1956-1960), Period III ( 1961-1965), Period IV (1966-1969), and Period V (197O-1978). The next step was to determine the character of penal policy towards recidivists during these various stages. As regards the length of the first prison sentences, the t test for the significance of the differences between the means showed that the mean duration of prison sentences in Period I (which was a very punitive period) was significantly greater than the duration of sentences passed in Period II and III. On the other hand, the mean duration of sentences passed in Periods I and IV showed no significant difference. This means that from the high figure un the "Stalin era”, the mean length of first prison sentences fell sharply in the next decade (especially in the „post October 1956" period), after which it gradually rose again, till in the period 1966-1969 it had reached a level not much lower than that of the "Stalin era". A similar analysis was made of the second prison sentences meted out. Our findings were that during the whole time under review there were no drastic changes of penal policy towards persons previously sentenced. (None of the differences between the means representing the duration of second prison sentences were statistically significant). The highest mean length of prison sentences was noted in Period I. There was a sharp fall in Period II, followed again by a gradual rise, until Period V, when length of sentence again was nearly as great as in Period I. Since similar results were obtained when the means of the length of third prison sentences in the various periods were compared, as well as the means for the length of all sentences meted out in all five periods (here the tendency we have been discussing was particularly evident), the hypothesis as to the steadily increasing punitive character of the punitive justice system in Poland would seem to be borne out by the evidence. Use of the means has this drawback: that with the exception of the standard deviation we have no other information about the sentences coming into different duration categories. For this reason we carried out an extra test, which consisted in comparing the distribution of sentences in the same five periods, but in categories with sentences of up to 1 year, from 1 year to 2 years, and sentences of two years and over. Here, too, the same tendency was found (X2=119.19; df = 8; p<0.01). The following conclusions were reached as a result of this study. The principles behind the paragraph of the Penal Code which deals with special multiple recidivism, and the construction of that paragraph, are wrong. Instead of being aimed maiunly at the perpetrators of serious crimes against person, as well as serious crimes against property, this paragraph in actual fact affects the perpretators of petty or very petty offences against property. On the whole these are habitual petty thieves, who offer no real serious threat to law and order. The result is that in the practice of punitive justice system even a very petty theft comitted in conditions of special multiple recidivism leads to a long term of imprisonment. The consequence is that it also leads to a formal increase of recidivism, for if the law were different, the case could be discontinued or suspended. Hence Art. 60 § 2 of the Penal Code should definitely be abrogated.

6

Efektywność nadzoru ochronnego (wyniki badań 232 recydywistów poddanych nadzorowi ochronnemu)

65%

Rzeplińska I.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

1983

|

issue X

55-85

EN

1.The 1969 Penal Code introduced a new system of sanctions for offences committed by habitual criminals in special circumstances. Two new categories of special recidivism are here introduced: special basic recidivism (Art. 60, § 1 of the Penal Code), and special multi-recidivism (Art. 60, § 2 of the Penal Code). The legal consequences of a conviction under Art. 60, § 1 or § 2 are as follows: 1) longer terms of imprisonment, 2)the application of special measures: protective supervison and commitment to a social readaptation centre, These measures take effect after the prison sentence has been served. Under the protective supervision system, the habitual offender is free, but supervised for a period of 3-5 years. The readaptation centre is a closed institution. The habitual offender is sent there for a minimum period of two years, up to a maximum of five years. After two years the penitentiary court may free the recidivist if it thinks he is unlikely to commit another crime after regaining his freedom. The conditions under which a person is sent to a readaptation centre differ, according to whether he or she was sentenced under Art. 60, §1 or Art. 60, § 2 of the Penal Code. A recidivist may be sent to a readaptation centre by either the criminal court or the penitentiary courts. The decision to apply these measures may be taken at diverse stages of the juridical and penitentiary process: 1) when the sentence is pronounced (by the criminal court), 2) towards the end of the prison sentence (penitentiary court), or 3) during the period of protective supervision (penitentiary court). In the first of the three stages mentioned above, the recidivist senrenced under Art. 60, § 1 of the Penal Code may or may not be put under protective supervison. It is not obligatory. In the case of a person sentenced under § 2 of Art. 60 of the Penal Code, it is obligatory either to put him under protecive supervision or to send him to a social readaptation centre. The decision to send a recidivist to a social readaptation centre (a more severe measure) is taken only if the court is of the opinion that protective supervision would be insufficient io prevent a return to crime. In the second of the three stages mentioned above, towards the end of the recidivists's sentence the penitentiary court takes the following decisions: 1) it may put the habitual criminal under protective supervision if that was not done in the sentence of the criminal court; 2) it may alter the decision of the criminal court and put the offender under a protective supervision order instead of sending him to a social readaptation centre. The third and last stage in which decisions are taken about the application of special measures, is when the offender is actually under the supervision of a Probation Officer. If the supervision is not working out satisfactorily, the recidivist may be sent to a social readaptation centre. 2.The habitual offender is supervised by a Probation Officer after he has served his prison sentence. No person who is under protective supervision may change his place of residence without the consent of the court. He is obliged to appear in court if summoned, and to carry out the court's recommendations (Art. 63 of the Penal Code). The court may order the recidivists: 1. to perform an obligation incumbent on the sentenced person to provide support for another person; 2. to perform specified work for a social purpose; 3. to perform remunerated work, pursuing an education or preparing for an occupation; 4. to refrain from abusing alcohol; 5. to submit to medical treatment; 6. to refrain from frequenting specified surroundings or places; 7. other appropriated behaviour in the period of protective supervision, if it may prevent the commission again of an offense. During the protective supervision period, the court may issue orders, or extend or alter those already given. During the protective supervision period the recidivist comes under the supervision of a Probation Officer appointed by the court, who at the same time is responsible for organizing the resocialization of the person being supervised. Protective supervision ceases: 1 when the appointed period of probation is at an end, and when probation has been successful, 2) Or aerlier, if the person being supervised fails to carry out the orders and obligations placed on him, or if he makes it impossible or difficult for the purpose of the protective supervison order to be attained (e.g. by committing a crime when under supervision, which means that the supervision was unsuccessful, 3) owing to causes which bring supervision to an end (e.g. death of the supervised person). 3. The study reported here dealt with one of the two special measures mentioned above - protective supervision. The main problem examined is the effectiveness of protective supervision. Protective supervision is a system which has two goals: one is to keep the supervised person from committing another crime (here we may speak of the restraining function of supervision), while the other is to resocialise the person on supervision (in this case we may speak of the resocialising function of probation). The key question asked by anyone who examines the effectiveness of some penal measure is: whether, and to what extent, does it attain its aims? With this definition in mind, the effectiveness of probation was examined in two fields. In the first (narrower) field, the author asked if there had been a juridical improvement in the behaviour of persons put under supervision. In the second (wider) field, success was measured by the extent of the supervised persons resocialisation - that is, an attempt was made to find out how the supervised person functioned in society, that is, whether he kept to the basic social norms that society expects,of its members. In both fields, the moment of time when effectiveness of supervision was assessed was that at which supervision ceased. Those who successfully completed their period of probation were checked again at the end of 38 months, to see whether or not they had reverted to crime. The group studied here consisted of all male recidivists in Warsaw who were put under a protective supervision order in 1971-1972. There were 232 persons in the group. Two research techniques were used. ln the first, the relevant documents were studied (documents concerning previous criminal caces, prison documents, records of the course of protective supervision, data, about previous convictions, as well as about periods spent in penal institutions and in remand). In the second, the recidivist was interviewed on the basis of a questionnaire. 4. Out of the 232 persons investigated, 43.1 % completed the supervision period successfully, 53.3% failed to do so, and in 3.4% of the cases death intervened. In this group of recidivists who had been put under supervision the author differentiated three groups: Group I - taken as having been resocialised during the supervision period, and as having successfully completed their supervision. This group consisted of 57 men (26% of the total number studied). Group II – regarded as not having been resocialised, but that completed the probation period successfully, without ill consequences for themselves. Group II consisted of 43 men (19% of the total). Group III, consisting of men who were not resocialised, and who as a result suffered the additional ill effect of being isolated in the social readaptation centre; this group failed to complete their supervision successfully. In this group were 124 men (55% of the total). Some of the unresocialised men in Group III did not carry out any of the duties or orders given them. Some reverted to crime even although for a time they carried out their duties and orders. Some did not carry out their duties and orders, and reverted to crime. In this group the supervision system failed to fulfil the functions expected of it. With regard to those who did not carry out their obligations and orders it failed in its resocialisation function, while with regard to the others, who committed a crime while under supervision, it failed in both its functions: restraint and resocialisation. The following characteristics were found in Groups I, II and III. Group I consisted mostly of the youngest men (only one-eighth of the group were over 40). They were educated at least up to elementary school standard (approx. age 14-15). During the probation period they carried out work that called for skills. They were physically healthy. In their case the supervision period was one in which their lives were financially more stable (they had paid jobs). They also had stable family lives, and started their own a families. Of all the groups, they had the fewest convictions up to the time the probation period began. They had mainly committed offences against property, but a significant number had been gauilty of crimes of a predominantly aggressive nature. Drunkenness was not noted among them during the supervision period. The men in this group declared that after they had come out of prison and been put under protective supervision they had no special trouble in beginning life again in freedom. They also said they were pleased with life. Group II consisted of men who, judged from the formal point of view, completed their supervision period successfully. But their behaviour during supervision, and above all their heavy drinking, does not justify us in regarding them as having been resocialised. These were habitual criminals who when put under supervision were older (mostly over the age of thirty), as compared witn the men in Group I. As many as a quarter of the men in Group II were habitual criminals aged forty and over. Compared with the men in Group I, they were less well educated, and worse qualified for jobs. Among them various types of physical complaints were found, possibly because they were older, and possibly also because they had a longer career of crime. Fewer of them were married. They seemed to make little effort to achieve financial stability. During the supervision period they frequently changed their job - often because of some infringement of discipline, or because they arbitrarily threw up their job. When they began probation, they had more convictions behind them than the men in Group I. Group II had the lowest number of men who had committed serious crimes against property, or serious aggressive crimes. They were guilty mostly of petty crimes. Above all the habitual criminals in this group are the most awkward ones from the social point of view. They were the ones who mostly said they were dissatisfied with their lives. While on supervision they did not give up heavy drinking. Moreover, although ordered to take a "drying-out" cure , they did not go for treatment at all, or did so irregularly. Before their conviction they had worked irregularly, with gaps in between jobs, but during the whole supervision period they worked. Groups III: protective supervision was a failure with group. As compared with the other groups the men in this one had more previous convictions - the average number of previous convictions being nearly six. More of them, as compared with the men in the other groups, went in mainly for crimes against property; the minority went in for crimes of a predominantly aggressive character and crimes of diverse types. Half of the men in Group II came into the 21-30 age group when ,they began supervision, while the other half were older (moreover, one-seventh were habitual criminals aged over forty). Even at the beginning of supervision the men in this group were in a worse situation than the others - especially as compared with the men in Group II, for they were worse educated, and worse prepared for earning living. The majority of the men in this group were single. Only one in five was married. Their health was noticeably poorer than that of the men in the other groups. Most of the men in this group drank heavilly during the supervision period. The men here confessed that immediately after getting out of prison they had trouble in getting back to a normal life. The main obstacles were lack of money, and the difficulty in finding a job. When questioned they said that on the whole they were not happy about their lives. The majority (72.6%) had reverted to crime while on supervision. The others had been taken out of supervision because they did not carry out their obligations ot the orders or the probation officer. 6. In this study of men put under protective supervision, one in every four is reckoned to have been a success. it was noted that during the supervision period factors that made for success were: setting up a family, having a regular skilled job, and avoidance of heavy drinking. In view of the above, it is the youngest habitual criminals who have the best chance of completing their supervision period successfultry. Age is in their favour, they have a better chance of a stable family life, they are better educated, better fitted for a job, they do not show the symptoms of social degradation associated with alcoholism, Because of these factors they are more likely to be able to return to a normal life. 7. During a period of 38 months from the end of the each man's supervision period, a check was kept on whether or not these men had further convictions. The men covered by this part of the study were those in Groups I and II, that is, those who successfully completed their probation. Thirteen men from Group I and twelve men from Group II (that is, twenty-five men altogether), had subsequent convictions. They constituted 25% of the two groups. It may therefore be stated that the majority (three-quarters) of the men in Groups I and II had no convictions during the thirty-eight months following the end of their supervision period. 8. In the supervised groups studied here, we took one quarter as having been resocialised by the end of supervision, one-fifth as having at most improved formally, and over a half as not having been resocialised - in their case supervision ended in failure. On the basis of this study it may be stated that the chief criterion on which the man on supervision was judged (and on which the success of the supervision proces was judged) was whether or not he carried out the instruction to have a paid job. This was due to two reasons: in the first place, if the man was in paid employment, it mean that he was fulfilling at least the minimum of the demands made on him during the supervision period (this minimum was: to earn his own living). Secondly, it was easy for both the Probation Officer and for the man he was supervising to check whether this order was being carried out, and how. The implementation of their instructions was treated as being of less importance. The main one was to have paid employment. If the man being supervised was in a job, but failed to carry out other instructions given to him, the Probation Officers did not ask for him to be taken off supervision. At the present moment, when reform of the criminal law in Poland is under discussion, one of the problems being examined is that of the penal liability of people who revert to crime, and the question of what legal penalties should be imposed on them. It has been pointed out during this discussion that the severe legal penalties imposed on habitual criminals during the last ten years have not been effective. Consequently the question still remains open: whether we should not apply the special measures described above - protective supervision or commitment to a social readaptation centre after the prison sentence is served. What we have learned from the use of a closed institution such as a social readaptation centre shows that it is completely ineffective. As for protective supervision, it has been postulated that this way of controlling the behaviour of habitual criminals should be transferred from the sphere of penal measures to the sphere of social security measures. It has been suggested that within the framework of post penitentiary care, specific medsures to help, which would be carried out by the probation officers, would be available to habitual criminals after coming out of prison.

PL

1.The 1969 Penal Code introduced a new system of sanctions for offences committed by habitual criminals in special circumstances. Two new categories of special recidivism are here introduced: special basic recidivism (Art. 60, § 1 of the Penal Code), and special multi-recidivism (Art. 60, § 2 of the Penal Code). The legal consequences of a conviction under Art. 60, § 1 or § 2 are as follows: 1) longer terms of imprisonment, 2)the application of special measures: protective supervison and commitment to a social readaptation centre, These measures take effect after the prison sentence has been served. Under the protective supervision system, the habitual offender is free, but supervised for a period of 3-5 years. The readaptation centre is a closed institution. The habitual offender is sent there for a minimum period of two years, up to a maximum of five years. After two years the penitentiary court may free the recidivist if it thinks he is unlikely to commit another crime after regaining his freedom. The conditions under which a person is sent to a readaptation centre differ, according to whether he or she was sentenced under Art. 60, §1 or Art. 60, § 2 of the Penal Code. A recidivist may be sent to a readaptation centre by either the criminal court or the penitentiary courts. The decision to apply these measures may be taken at diverse stages of the juridical and penitentiary process: 1) when the sentence is pronounced (by the criminal court), 2) towards the end of the prison sentence (penitentiary court), or 3) during the period of protective supervision (penitentiary court). In the first of the three stages mentioned above, the recidivist senrenced under Art. 60, § 1 of the Penal Code may or may not be put under protective supervison. It is not obligatory. In the case of a person sentenced under § 2 of Art. 60 of the Penal Code, it is obligatory either to put him under protecive supervision or to send him to a social readaptation centre. The decision to send a recidivist to a social readaptation centre (a more severe measure) is taken only if the court is of the opinion that protective supervision would be insufficient io prevent a return to crime. In the second of the three stages mentioned above, towards the end of the recidivists's sentence the penitentiary court takes the following decisions: 1) it may put the habitual criminal under protective supervision if that was not done in the sentence of the criminal court; 2) it may alter the decision of the criminal court and put the offender under a protective supervision order instead of sending him to a social readaptation centre. The third and last stage in which decisions are taken about the application of special measures, is when the offender is actually under the supervision of a Probation Officer. If the supervision is not working out satisfactorily, the recidivist may be sent to a social readaptation centre. 2.The habitual offender is supervised by a Probation Officer after he has served his prison sentence. No person who is under protective supervision may change his place of residence without the consent of the court. He is obliged to appear in court if summoned, and to carry out the court's recommendations (Art. 63 of the Penal Code). The court may order the recidivists: 1. to perform an obligation incumbent on the sentenced person to provide support for another person; 2. to perform specified work for a social purpose; 3. to perform remunerated work, pursuing an education or preparing for an occupation; 4. to refrain from abusing alcohol; 5. to submit to medical treatment; 6. to refrain from frequenting specified surroundings or places; 7. other appropriated behaviour in the period of protective supervision, if it may prevent the commission again of an offense. During the protective supervision period, the court may issue orders, or extend or alter those already given. During the protective supervision period the recidivist comes under the supervision of a Probation Officer appointed by the court, who at the same time is responsible for organizing the resocialization of the person being supervised. Protective supervision ceases: 1 when the appointed period of probation is at an end, and when probation has been successful, 2) Or aerlier, if the person being supervised fails to carry out the orders and obligations placed on him, or if he makes it impossible or difficult for the purpose of the protective supervison order to be attained (e.g. by committing a crime when under supervision, which means that the supervision was unsuccessful, 3) owing to causes which bring supervision to an end (e.g. death of the supervised person). 3. The study reported here dealt with one of the two special measures mentioned above - protective supervision. The main problem examined is the effectiveness of protective supervision. Protective supervision is a system which has two goals: one is to keep the supervised person from committing another crime (here we may speak of the restraining function of supervision), while the other is to resocialise the person on supervision (in this case we may speak of the resocialising function of probation). The key question asked by anyone who examines the effectiveness of some penal measure is: whether, and to what extent, does it attain its aims? With this definition in mind, the effectiveness of probation was examined in two fields. In the first (narrower) field, the author asked if there had been a juridical improvement in the behaviour of persons put under supervision. In the second (wider) field, success was measured by the extent of the supervised persons resocialisation - that is, an attempt was made to find out how the supervised person functioned in society, that is, whether he kept to the basic social norms that society expects,of its members. In both fields, the moment of time when effectiveness of supervision was assessed was that at which supervision ceased. Those who successfully completed their period of probation were checked again at the end of 38 months, to see whether or not they had reverted to crime. The group studied here consisted of all male recidivists in Warsaw who were put under a protective supervision order in 1971-1972. There were 232 persons in the group. Two research techniques were used. ln the first, the relevant documents were studied (documents concerning previous criminal caces, prison documents, records of the course of protective supervision, data, about previous convictions, as well as about periods spent in penal institutions and in remand). In the second, the recidivist was interviewed on the basis of a questionnaire. 4. Out of the 232 persons investigated, 43.1 % completed the supervision period successfully, 53.3% failed to do so, and in 3.4% of the cases death intervened. In this group of recidivists who had been put under supervision the author differentiated three groups: Group I - taken as having been resocialised during the supervision period, and as having successfully completed their supervision. This group consisted of 57 men (26% of the total number studied). Group II – regarded as not having been resocialised, but that completed the probation period successfully, without ill consequences for themselves. Group II consisted of 43 men (19% of the total). Group III, consisting of men who were not resocialised, and who as a result suffered the additional ill effect of being isolated in the social readaptation centre; this group failed to complete their supervision successfully. In this group were 124 men (55% of the total). Some of the unresocialised men in Group III did not carry out any of the duties or orders given them. Some reverted to crime even although for a time they carried out their duties and orders. Some did not carry out their duties and orders, and reverted to crime. In this group the supervision system failed to fulfil the functions expected of it. With regard to those who did not carry out their obligations and orders it failed in its resocialisation function, while with regard to the others, who committed a crime while under supervision, it failed in both its functions: restraint and resocialisation. The following characteristics were found in Groups I, II and III. Group I consisted mostly of the youngest men (only one-eighth of the group were over 40). They were educated at least up to elementary school standard (approx. age 14-15). During the probation period they carried out work that called for skills. They were physically healthy. In their case the supervision period was one in which their lives were financially more stable (they had paid jobs). They also had stable family lives, and started their own a families. Of all the groups, they had the fewest convictions up to the time the probation period began. They had mainly committed offences against property, but a significant number had been gauilty of crimes of a predominantly aggressive nature. Drunkenness was not noted among them during the supervision period. The men in this group declared that after they had come out of prison and been put under protective supervision they had no special trouble in beginning life again in freedom. They also said they were pleased with life. Group II consisted of men who, judged from the formal point of view, completed their supervision period successfully. But their behaviour during supervision, and above all their heavy drinking, does not justify us in regarding them as having been resocialised. These were habitual criminals who when put under supervision were older (mostly over the age of thirty), as compared witn the men in Group I. As many as a quarter of the men in Group II were habitual criminals aged forty and over. Compared with the men in Group I, they were less well educated, and worse qualified for jobs. Among them various types of physical complaints were found, possibly because they were older, and possibly also because they had a longer career of crime. Fewer of them were married. They seemed to make little effort to achieve financial stability. During the supervision period they frequently changed their job - often because of some infringement of discipline, or because they arbitrarily threw up their job. When they began probation, they had more convictions behind them than the men in Group I. Group II had the lowest number of men who had committed serious crimes against property, or serious aggressive crimes. They were guilty mostly of petty crimes. Above all the habitual criminals in this group are the most awkward ones from the social point of view. They were the ones who mostly said they were dissatisfied with their lives. While on supervision they did not give up heavy drinking. Moreover, although ordered to take a "drying-out" cure , they did not go for treatment at all, or did so irregularly. Before their conviction they had worked irregularly, with gaps in between jobs, but during the whole supervision period they worked. Groups III: protective supervision was a failure with group. As compared with the other groups the men in this one had more previous convictions - the average number of previous convictions being nearly six. More of them, as compared with the men in the other groups, went in mainly for crimes against property; the minority went in for crimes of a predominantly aggressive character and crimes of diverse types. Half of the men in Group II came into the 21-30 age group when ,they began supervision, while the other half were older (moreover, one-seventh were habitual criminals aged over forty). Even at the beginning of supervision the men in this group were in a worse situation than the others - especially as compared with the men in Group II, for they were worse educated, and worse prepared for earning living. The majority of the men in this group were single. Only one in five was married. Their health was noticeably poorer than that of the men in the other groups. Most of the men in this group drank heavilly during the supervision period. The men here confessed that immediately after getting out of prison they had trouble in getting back to a normal life. The main obstacles were lack of money, and the difficulty in finding a job. When questioned they said that on the whole they were not happy about their lives. The majority (72.6%) had reverted to crime while on supervision. The others had been taken out of supervision because they did not carry out their obligations ot the orders or the probation officer. 6. In this study of men put under protective supervision, one in every four is reckoned to have been a success. it was noted that during the supervision period factors that made for success were: setting up a family, having a regular skilled job, and avoidance of heavy drinking. In view of the above, it is the youngest habitual criminals who have the best chance of completing their supervision period successfultry. Age is in their favour, they have a better chance of a stable family life, they are better educated, better fitted for a job, they do not show the symptoms of social degradation associated with alcoholism, Because of these factors they are more likely to be able to return to a normal life. 7. During a period of 38 months from the end of the each man's supervision period, a check was kept on whether or not these men had further convictions. The men covered by this part of the study were those in Groups I and II, that is, those who successfully completed their probation. Thirteen men from Group I and twelve men from Group II (that is, twenty-five men altogether), had subsequent convictions. They constituted 25% of the two groups. It may therefore be stated that the majority (three-quarters) of the men in Groups I and II had no convictions during the thirty-eight months following the end of their supervision period. 8. In the supervised groups studied here, we took one quarter as having been resocialised by the end of supervision, one-fifth as having at most improved formally, and over a half as not having been resocialised - in their case supervision ended in failure. On the basis of this study it may be stated that the chief criterion on which the man on supervision was judged (and on which the success of the supervision proces was judged) was whether or not he carried out the instruction to have a paid job. This was due to two reasons: in the first place, if the man was in paid employment, it mean that he was fulfilling at least the minimum of the demands made on him during the supervision period (this minimum was: to earn his own living). Secondly, it was easy for both the Probation Officer and for the man he was supervising to check whether this order was being carried out, and how. The implementation of their instructions was treated as being of less importance. The main one was to have paid employment. If the man being supervised was in a job, but failed to carry out other instructions given to him, the Probation Officers did not ask for him to be taken off supervision. At the present moment, when reform of the criminal law in Poland is under discussion, one of the problems being examined is that of the penal liability of people who revert to crime, and the question of what legal penalties should be imposed on them. It has been pointed out during this discussion that the severe legal penalties imposed on habitual criminals during the last ten years have not been effective. Consequently the question still remains open: whether we should not apply the special measures described above - protective supervision or commitment to a social readaptation centre after the prison sentence is served. What we have learned from the use of a closed institution such as a social readaptation centre shows that it is completely ineffective. As for protective supervision, it has been postulated that this way of controlling the behaviour of habitual criminals should be transferred from the sphere of penal measures to the sphere of social security measures. It has been suggested that within the framework of post penitentiary care, specific medsures to help, which would be carried out by the probation officers, would be available to habitual criminals after coming out of prison.

7

Stosowanie środków specjalnych – nadzoru ochronnego i ośrodka przystosowania społecznego – wobec recydywistów skazanych w warunkach art. 60 k.k.

44%

Rzeplińska I., Szamota B.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

1982

|

issue VIII-IX

151-190

EN

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.

8

Przemiany polityki karnej sądów powszechnych rozwijanej na tle przepisów nowej kodyfikacji karnej (1970-1980)

39%

Jasiński J.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

1982

|

issue VIII-IX

25-150

EN

We are now entering in Poland into the second decade of the new penal system in force. The period of time which has elapsed: since the introduction of this system is long enough to enable us to take a close look at the new legal institutions envisaged in the system, at the practical value of these institutions and trends observed in their application. This paper is devoted to the above considerations, or to be more exact, to the part played by the application of penal measures. In order to characterize roughly the guidelines underlying the above penal codifications it should first be stated that what the legislators had in mind was a need to treat serious and petty offences in a different way. Those who were guilty of serious crimes were to suffer from penalties of immediate deprivation of liberty, and, exceptionally, that of capital punishment. Some categories of offenders regarded as dangerous, repulsive or persistent were to meet augmented penal repressions. Among these were perpetrators of hooligan, type offences, and recidivists some of whom, after completing their sentences, were to be treated with special penal measures, such as protective supervision and/or placing in a social readaptation centre. At the same time various lenient penal measures were to be imposed against perpetrators of petty offences. Sometimes proceedings against such persons were to be discontinued. Besides, some petty offences became depenalized (for the first time in 1967 and then on a larger scale in 1971) by considering them to be transgressions and getting them transfered from the courts to the Penal Administrative Commissions. The Penal Code, the Penal Executive Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure have been in force since 1st January, 1970. However, it should be borne in mind that penal legislation is not confined to the above mentioned codes. It also embraces some statutes with two very important ones issued in the early seventies: the Code of Transgressions included in the set of acts of 20th May 1971 (Dz.U. no. 12, para 114- 118) making up a codified system of transgressions law and the Financial Penal Code of 26th Oct. 1971 (Dz.U. no. 28, para 260). It is only after the above acts had been passed the process of codification of the Polish penal legislation was completed. If one takes into consideration the need to have a minimum period of time necessary for learning how to make use of new regulations and the date when the previously mentioned acts came into force, as compared with the 1969 codes, one should take the year 1972 as a starting point for the analysis of the penal policy as determined by the new penal codification in the full form. The problems of the applications of penalties by courts arising from the 1969 penal code regulations are among the most complex ones and bear evidence of the fact that at this particular issue, the regulations of the present code are not exceptionally successful. For the purposes of our discussion we should try to introduce some order into this complex subject. Therefore, we shall distinguish three groups among the regulations of the imposition of the penalty by the courts. The first group will include the regulations from the special part of the penal code (and other penal acts), which describe the kind and limits of penal sanctions provided for the perpetrators of crimes envisaged in the regulations. The second group shall include the regulations from the general part of the Penal Code (or statutes with general part, such as the financial Penal Code or Chapter 37 of the military part of the Penal Code) which modify the norms found in the regulations belonging to the above first group. The above modifications concern the changes in the limits of sanctions, rules of the order of choice: among the alternative sanctions, or possibilities of application of penal measures which are not provided for a particular offence. The third group will encompass the regulations specifying the principles to be used by courts in choosing the kind and extent of penal measures against offenders. The essential feature of the above legal system is that it lacks rules which would provide one strictly defined penalty for an offender of a given offence. The court is always faced with the necessity of making a choice of a penalty: first of all, whether to apply any punishment at all, or to confine oneself to a conditional discontinuance of the proceedings (arid sometimes, if the statute makes it possible, to renounce the execution of the penalty). If a sentence is passed, what kind of penalty is to be imposed, whether it should be combined with another basic penalty, or additional penalties, punitive financial award or preventive means should be made use of. What then should be the directives for the court in making the choice? The answer to this question is provided by the Penal Code, above all in Art. 50. In this article three different directives are included for the court in imposing a penalty at its discretion: (1) the degree of social danger of the offence, (2) regard for the social effectiveness of the penalty, and (3) the preventive and educational effect on the person convicted. These directives, dressed as they are in a new wording, correspond, as it were, to the classical purposes of punishment. The first of these is to give justice, i.e. to mete out retribution for the "evil" done by the offender in the form of suffering proportional to this "evil". The second purpose is general prevention, i.e. a tendency to punish the offender in order to prevent others from committing offences. The third purpose of punishment is special prevention, i.e. the effect on the offenders themselves in order to prevent them from committing further criminal acts. The difficulties involved in the implementation of the principle of justice once it ceases to be understood literally as that of "eye for eye, tooth for tooth”, are well known and need not be mentioned here. One ought, however, to point out that there is no "objective" or "invariable" scale of translating the degree of "evil" committed by the offender into the suffering caused to him, This scale is arbitrary and variable. Its variability can be seen both when the degrees of penalties imposed for the same offences at various times are compared, and, what is even more significant, when the comparison is made of penalties for the offences against various values protected by the law. It is thus clear that various penal policies can be pursued based on the principle of just retribution within the framework of the same legal system. The fact that § 1, Art. 50 of the Penal Code makes a mention of the social effect of a penalty rather than of general prevention was not accidental. However, from the argumentation included in the Introduction to the draft of the Penal Code it can easily be seen that what the authors of the draft really had in mind was that social effect meant instilling fear for the punishment in the prospective offenders. In the statements concerning special prevention only two forms of such effect on the convicted persons were distinguished, i.e. prevention and education. The first term refers, as may be judged from the argumentation in the Introduction to the draft of the Penal Code, to making it impossible for the convicted person to pursue crime by physically isolating him from the society in a penal institution or to ultimate exclusion from the society by the application of capital punishment. The second term is self-explanatory: education means that the attitudes and motivation of a convicted person are to be transformed in such a way that he will comply with the requirements of the law in the future. An essential draw back in Art. 50 of the Penal Code is that it includes three separate recommendations as to the court’s decisions on the way of dealing with the offender on the assumption that each of these recommendations would lead to the same result without any collisions between them. Had such a possibility come to the notice of the legislator at the proper time, the above directives would have been classified according to some order of importance or a regulation would have been introduced to solve any collision between them. As the main interest in this work is centered on the penal policy of the courts, of particular importance are the statements made by the Supreme Court concerning the content and interpretation of § 1 Art. 50 of the Penal Code rather than the opinions formulated in the doctrine of the law. Initially, the Supreme Court’s position was that the directives of § 1 Art. 50 of the Penal Code were all equal. But in 1975 for offenders convicted for the misappropriation of social property of high value the Supreme Court recommended the use of the directive of retaliation and general deterrence without mentioning the special prevention directive, thus making some distinction between them. Finally, in 1977 it became clear that the Supreme Court had accepted "just retaliation" as a priority directive in imposing penalties. Within the directive of "just retaliation" (social danger of the act) some shift in the emphasis can be noticed. At first the social danger of the act was regarded to be a synthesis of objective and subjective elements, and finally, the main importance was stressed of one of the objective elements, i.e. the extent of the damage caused or the benefit gained by the perpetrator. Thus a problem arises what value should be attached to these modifications in the positions taken by the Supreme Court. In anticipating further conclusions one is tempted to say now that these modifications were associated by significant augmentation of the penalties imposed by the courts. At least two explanations may be offered here. One is that the reason for the stiffening of the penal policy can be traced to the courts' making a greater use of the "retaliation" directive in the imposition of penalties. This may have an additional support in the fact that the penalties became more severe at the very time when the shift occurred in the emphasis from recommending the taking into consideration of all the three directives of Art. 50 of the Penal Code to "retaliation". Simultaneously special stress was to be put on making the responsibility more objective in the form of close relationship between the fine and the extent of the damage caused. In the second explanation both the above mentioned reasons, i.e. emphasis on retaliation and stiffening of penalties, would be regarded as caused by a third party. They can arbitrarily be called a process of making the legal values more rigid in the circles providing directives for the criminal justice system apparatus. The rigidity would manifest itself either in regarding the offences committed in this country to become more socially dangerous or the offenders to deserve a more severe treatment. It should, therefore, be noted that none of the directives mentioned in the Art. 50 of the Penal Code is unequivocally leading to a lenient or to a stiff criminal policy. Uniter the banners of either of the directives some offenders, some offences, may be considered as calling for lenient penal measures, whereas other offenders, other offences - may be thought of as deserving severe penalties. Thus, the final shape of the penal policy depends on how the line is drawn between those "calling for" lenient treatment and those "deserving" punitive reaction. Taking all the above into consideration the present author thinks of the second explanation as more probable than the first. It should be noted that only the penal measures imposed for offences dealt with by public prosecutor are analysed. Thus the analysis will not include a decreasingly small number of convictions for offences prosecuted by the complainant himself (about 8 thousand in 1972 and 3 thousand in 1980). Although the capital punishment, as seen from Table 1, is imposed in a few cases only, its very existence in the Polish criminal law is strongly criticized by some lawyers and criminologists. Among penal measures used by common courts the penalty of immediate deprivation of liberty takes the second place after the capital punishment on the scale of severity. It is imposed in months and years (Art. 32 §2) and may range from 3 months to 15 years (art. 32 §1) and 25 years. If one analyses information on the duration of the above penalties, four characteristic elements have to be noted: (1) In 1980 for only one in 11 persons the immediate deprivation of liberty was shorter than one year (in 1975 - one in nine and one in four or five in 1972); (2) the immediate deprivation of liberty was most often imposed for the period between one and two years: over 40 per cent and in some years nearly 50 per cent of all persons had such a penalty imposed on them; (3) a long-term penalty (i.e. 3 years and more) was imposed on one person in five over the period 1975- 80 (in 1972 it was one in seven); (4) the absolute number of most severe sentences (over 10 to 15 and 25 years) was on the increase systematically till 1976. It should be particularly emphasized as from 1975 a decrease has been observed in the total number of imposing the penalty of immediate deprivation of liberty. The most commonly used penal measure was deprivation of liberty with conditional suspension of the execution (Art. 73 of the Penal Code). According to Art. 75 of the Penal Code the court when suspending the execution of the penalty of deprivation of liberty can, among other things, impose one or more obligations provided for in the above article. These obligations were imposed on the persons sentenced to the penalty of deprivation of liberty more and more frequently. The courts most often obliged the sentenced persons "to refrain from abusing alcohol", "to perform specified works or render specified contributions for social purposes" and "to perform remunerated work, to pursue education or prepare himself for an occupation". What is also interesting is that the courts have ordered more and more obligations, or to put it differently, they have less and less often confined themselves to ordering one obligation only. Thus the court’s action in this respect has been intensified. Irrespective of ordering the above obligations the court suspending the execution of penalty of deprivation of liberty may, for the test period, "place the sentenced person under the supervision of a designated person, institution or social organization" (Art. 76 § 2). The fraction of those placed under supervision in the totals of liberty was stable in the early seventies (30- 31 per cent), it began to rise in 1974 and reached nearly 40 per cent in 1980. The court may conditionally suspend the execution of a penalty of deprivation of liberty of up to 2 years when sentencing for an intentional offence and of up to 3 years when sentencing for an unintentional offence. (Art. 73 §1). Over the period 1972-80 certain changes were also observed in the extent of these penalties. They were similar to those of the extent in the penalties of immediate deprivation of liberty. They can be summarized as follows: (1) a very significant fall occurred in the fraction of penalties below 1 year (from 45.7 to 12.3 per cent); (2) the most often suspended penalty of deprivation of liberty was that of 1 year (36.6 to 44 per cent); (3) the percentage of suspended penalties over 1 year and up to 2 years increased markedly (from 17.7 to 44.1 per cent). The imposition of a penalty of deprivation of liberty, both immediate and conditionally suspended, is associated with the possibility (and in some cases - an obligation) of imposing a fine in an amount from 500 to 1 000 000 zlotys (Art. 36 §2 - 4. Unfortunately, the judicial statistics do not distinguish (except for some offences) whether the fine is imposed together with immediate or suspended sentence of deprivation of liberty. It turns out that the persons sentenced for the above penalties suffered from a fine quite often and this additional burden became more and more frequent: in 1972 the percentage of penalties of unconditional or suspended deprivation of liberty was 61.1, and in 1980 - 68.1. In the period of only 8 years 1972 - 80 almost no fines were imposed up to 1 000 zlotys, their number having decreased from 13.6 thousand to 82 and the respective contributions from 15.0 to 0.1 per cent. The penalty of limitation of liberty is among the new penal measures which after some hesitation have become accepted in practice. In the period under discussion the contribution made by sentences of this penalty increased threefold: in 1980 they amounted to 18.0 per cent of all sentences. In other words, one in six persons sentenced in cases initiated by public prosecutor is punished by limitation of liberty. This penalty imposes some limitations on a person sentenced, e.g. he may not change his place of abode (Art. 33 §1), and can take three forms. One of them is an obligation of "performing unremunerated supervised work for public purposes from 20 do 50 hours per month" (Art. 34 §1). The penalty of limitation of liberty in this form was applied to 41.4 per cent of sentenced persons in 1980 as compared with 38.1 per cent in 1972. The second form is applicable only to persons employed in a socialized work establishment and consists in deducing 10 to 25 per cent of the remuneration for work for the benefit of the State Treasury (Art. 34 §2). It was applied to 46,4 per cent of sentenced persons in 1980 as compared with 58.8 per cent in 1972. The third form - most seldom applied - is used when the court directs a person not being in an employment relation to an appropriate socialized work establishment for the purpose of performing work there and deduces from 10 do 25 per cent of the remuneration for work (Art. 34 §3). It was, however, applied in 12.2 per cent of cases in 1980 as compared with 3.1 per cent in 1972. Although the penalty of limitation of liberty may be not less than 3 months and not more than 2 years (Art. 33 §1), its minimum duration of 3 months has lately been imposed in 1.1- 1.3 per cent of sentenced persons as compared with 5.2 per cent in 1972. The most commonly imposed duration was over 6 month to 1 year. In 1980 nearly one person sentenced in 3 had it imposed on for a period from 1 to 2 years while in 1972 this happened to one person in 25. Again, like the penalty of unconditional deprivation of liberty, deprivation of liberty with suspension, fine imposed together with deprivation of liberty, the penalty of limitation of liberty shows an ever marked tendency to be imposed most infrequently in its lower extent and most often in its high and highest extent. The same applies to the fine (Art. 36 §1). It can be adjudged in an amount from 500 to 25 000 zlotys, i.e. within much narrower limits than that imposed together with a penalty of deprivation of liberty. The changes which took place in the years 1972- 80 as regards the extent of the fine, resemble those which occurred in the case of a fine adjudged together with deprivation of liberty (Table 1). We shall finish our discussion of basic penalties with two pieces pf information. The imposition of the supplementary penalty only (Art. 55) was confiscation of property in 90 per cent of cases, and prohibition of operating motor driven vehicles in the remaining 10 percent. Educational and corrective measures applied (Art. 9 §3) consisted in placing in a borstal in some dozen percent of cases, which is a kind of deprivation of liberty. The largest group, about half of all on whom these measures were imposed, was placed under the supervision of a probation officer. We shall now try to formulate some general conclusions drawn from the date on the structure an extent of penal measures. We shall use four groups of indexes to present the conclusions in most concise form (Table 2). These indexes will describe the most important statistically determined aspects of Poland's penal system. The first group of indexes refers to the extent of crime known to the police. Traditionally the penal measures applied are thought of as a response to this crime. Therefore, if one wants to understand their evolution one has to look into the nature of the evolution of crime. The determination of the extent of crimes known to the police can be carried out in several ways. It can be based on the data on the offences (taken from the police and public prosecutor’s statistics) or on the data on the offenders supplied as a rule by the judicial, statistics. The data on the serious offences known to the police encompass acts chosen in an arbitrary way limited by the extent of those published in the Statistical Year Books for the years 1971- 80. The number of sentences can be determined more simply from the number of sentences for acts regarded as the most serious ones by the legislator (Art. 5 of the Penal Code). All this information is presented in the form of rates per 100 000 total population (data on the offences known to the police) or per 100 000 adult population (data on sentences). By comparing the changes in these rates two conclusions can be drawn. First, the number of serious crimes known to the police as well as that of the crime perpetrators brought to trial during the seventies was at a similar level although it showed some variations. The general rate of offences known to the police was measured in three different ways, namely the rate of crimes known to the police, the persons found guilty and the sentenced ones. It proves the relevance of two well known observations: the first one is that when the criminal case passes along the subsequent links in the chain of the justice system (police, public prosecutor’s office, court) the size of the crime known to the police becomes smaller. The second observation is that serious crimes are less susceptible to such fluctuations. The second conclusion drawn from the comparison of crime rates introduced above is that it he statement about the stable extent of crime first of all, that of most serious crime, is of greatest importance for further discussion. This statement warrants the opinion that the observed changes in the structure and intensity of penal measures cannot be accounted for by the corresponding changes in the extent and character of the crime known to the police. The reasons of these changes should be traced to changes in legal values, i.e. in the evolution of the opinions as to what kind of penal reactions form the "proper" response to definite offences against the law, what penalty is "adequate" to the amount of social danger involved in the offence and, the belief in the general deterrent effect of severe penalties. The data on the application of preliminary detention show that about one in four persons at the time of being convicted had experienced deprivation of liberty. As expected, this experience was specially common among the persons on which the court had subsequently imposed the penalty of immediate deprivation of liberty. The data collected in the third part of Table 2 on the structure of the penal measures imposed provide a remainder of the changes in these measures. Among them one can observe a certain limitation of sentencing to immediate deprivation of liberty, and a much more marked decrease in the number of sentences to a suspended deprivation of liberty. The former change may be regarded as a symptom of what is so much needed in the Polish criminal justice system, i.e. of eliminating penalties associated with deprivation of liberty and the ever increasing application of penalties without deprivation of liberty in the sentencing practice, not only in verbal statements. As for the latter change it is difficult to take an unequivocal attitude. It is because one should remember that period 1972 - 80 was not only characterized by a fall in the per cent contribution of sentences of suspended deprivation of liberty but also by a rise in the per cent contribution of placing under supervision, ordering obligations, increasing the number of such obligations, imposing fines together with deprivation of liberty, the extent of which is also increasing. We shall now consider the indexes to determine the rate of the application of penal measures. Table 2 shows two such groups chosen out of a variety of others. One group is made up of the numbers of persons sentenced to deprivation of liberty per 100 thousand adult population. The second group constitutes the mean values of various penalties. The above indexes help us to focus our attention on two contradictory, in the author’s opinion, trends. One trend, to limit the imposition of the penalty of immediate deprivation of liberty, is best seen in the fall in the number of sentences to this penalty (per 100 000 adult population) from 272,7 in 1972 to 172,1 in 1980, i.e. by 37 per cent. The other trend, in the opposite direction, is seen in the ’"rates" of sentences to long penalties of deprivation of liberty, i.e. 3 and over years, and particularly, 5 and over years. During only 4 years the mean penalty of immediate deprivation of liberty became longer by nearly 6 months from 19 months in 1972 to over 25 month in 1976. The tendency to augment the penalties has also manifested itself in the rise by as much as 25 per cent of the mean penalty of suspended deprivation of liberty: from about 12 months ip 1972 to about 15 months in 1980. This augmentation seems quite Irrational as it is a well-known fact that for a large majority of such penalties there is no need to have them executed. At the same time there is no evidence that the penalties imposed in the previous extent were ineffective or their lengthening had led to higher effectiveness. The next pair of mean values given in Table 2 provide information about the extent of both kinds of fine. These values must be analysed in close relation with significant devaluation of money in Poland in the seventies. Therefore, the table contains information about the mean monthly salary in the socialized economy in this country (the last line). During the period 1972- 80 the salaries increased more than twofold, but the fines increased fivefold. As early as in 1972 the mean value of either of the above fines was equal to a little over one month salary, in 1980 the fine was equal to more than a two-month salary, and the other fine amounted almost to a three-month salary; the repressiveness of the above penal measures increased markedly. We shall complete our discussion of Table 2 with one general remark. When observing the evolution of penal policy in Poland in the span of the last 25 years, two features may be distinguished. One constant tendency, though not without some hesitations and obstructions, to augment the impact of individual penal measures based almost exclusively on imposing one type of punishment. The second feature is a tendency to combine these effects by simultaneously using various kinds of punishment imposed on a sentenced person. This tendency was noticeable in the sixties, but it became more marked in the light of the present-day regulations which have opened up new and greater possibilities in this respect. The tendencies like the above in the penal policy raise some doubts as to their effectiveness and moral validity. They seem to convey impression that the penal measures in Poland have been undergoing a process of accelerated devaluation. It looks as if in order to attain the same aims of penal policy simultaneous application of the ever increasing measures in ever increasing doses should be resorted to. It is most doubtful whether such a devaluation really takes place as similar results were obtained earlier by means of less severe penal measures. One cannot escape the impression that the present penal policy in Poland is characterised by a certain extravagancy manifesting itself in the above accumulation of various forms of repressiveness instead of making an attempt to use them in an alternative way. The future development of Polish penal policy calls for a fundamental analysis and gradual reorientation.

Refine search results

7 Archiwum Kryminologii

1 Journal for Perspectives of Economic Political and Social Integration

2 Rzeplińska I.

1 Batawia S.

1 Démuthová S.

1 Jasiński J.

1 Ostrihanska Z.

1 Siemaszko A.

1 Szamota B.

1 Szelhaus S.

1 2012

2 1983

2 1982

3 1965

Psychological characteristics of juvenile offenders with constant integration problems

Młodociani i młodzi recydywiści w świetle badań kryminologicznych część pierwsza

Prognoza recydywy u nieletnich przestępców oraz wyniki badań prognostycznych 180 recydywistów w wieku 15-16 lat

Przestępczość 100 młodocianych recydywistów w okresie od 18 r. ż. do ukończenia 25-28 lat (wyniki badań katamnestycznych)

Przestępczość wielokrotnych recydywistów i stosowana wobec nich polityka karna

Efektywność nadzoru ochronnego (wyniki badań 232 recydywistów poddanych nadzorowi ochronnemu)

Stosowanie środków specjalnych – nadzoru ochronnego i ośrodka przystosowania społecznego – wobec recydywistów skazanych w warunkach art. 60 k.k.

Przemiany polityki karnej sądów powszechnych rozwijanej na tle przepisów nowej kodyfikacji karnej (1970-1980)