Search results

1

Polityka stosowania kary konfiskaty mienia w PRL

100%

Rzeplińska I.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

1992

|

issue XVIII

147-167

EN

Fofeiture of property is the most severe of all penalties affecting property that have ever been imposed in hisiory. It consists in the convicted offender’s property being taken over – wholly or in part – by the treasury. The paper deals with the history of this particular penalty in the criminal policy of Polish People’s Republic in the years 1944–1990. The penalty of forfeiture of property was not provided for in the 1932 penal code (which remained in force till December 31, 1969). It appeared in the legislation shortly before World War II, in the act of June 23, 1939 on special criminal responsibility for desertion to the enemy or abroad. Before the passing of the 1932 penal code, the codes of the partitioning powers had been in force in the Polish territories (as until the regaining of independence in 1918, Poland was partitioned by Russia, Austria and Germany). Also those codes did not provide for forfeiture of property. It was only the legislator of People’s Poland who introduced forfeiture of property as an additionar penalty and provided for its broad adjudication. The history of forfeiture of property in postwar Poland is analyzed divided into four stages which differ from one another due to significant changes in the legislation. The changes reflected re-orientation of criminal policy in connection with a succession of political crises. The first such stage in the history of forfeiture of property were the years 1944–1958. The data discussed in the paper that concern this period are statistics of civilians convicted by military courts from the spring of l944 till April 30, 1955 (till which date in special cases provided for in statutes, civilians fell under the jurisdiction of military courts), and statistics of convictions by common courts till 1949. The second stage began with the passing of the act of June 18, 1959 on protection of social property. Stage three was initiated by the entering into force, on January 1, 1970, of the new penal code of April 19, 1969. The fourth and last stage began with the passing of the act of May 10, 1985 on special criminal responsability and ended with the act of February 23, 1990 which derogated the penalty of forfeiture of property. The introduction of forfeiture of property as an additional penalty is characteristic of the earliest legislative acts of the new authorities of People’s Poland, imposed from without. Its broad application and obligatory character demonstrate the importance attached by those authorities to forfeiture as an element of political game against society. The first legal acts of the Polish Committee for National Liberaltion provided for that penalty: the decree of August 31, 1944 on statutory penalties for the Nazi was criminals, the decree of September 23, 1944 – Penal Code of the Polish Army, and the decree of October 30, 1944 on protection of State. One year later, the decree of November 11,1945 was passed on offences of particular danger in the period of reconstruction of State (which quashed the former wartime decree on protection of State). It was in turn replaced with a new one under the same title, passed on June 13, 1946. The Council of Ministers justified the new decree with the need for aggravation of penalties for all activities that disturbed internal peace, order, and safety, and impaired Poland’s international position. The decree piovided for particularly severe penalties for perpetration of, incitement to, and approval of fratricide; for membership of illegal organizations and terrorist groups; for distribution of illegal literature; for illegal possession of firearms; for helping the members of terrorist groups; and in some cases of failure to inform on an offence. (The decree was generally known as the small penal code – s.p.c.). As provided for in the decree, the additional penalty of forfeiture of property was obfigatory in two cases: sentence to death or to life imprisonment, and conviction for attempt with violence or membership of an armed union. It was optional in the case of sentence to a prison term (Art. 49 para 1 and 2 of the decree). The provisions of s.p.c. extended the application of forfeiture: the court could at ail times adjudicate forfeiture of the property not only of the convicted person himself but also of his spouse or familly members (this did not concern, though, the property such persons attained themselves, inherited, or acquired gift not donated by the convicted persons). Thus forfeiture could affect a very large group of actually innocent persons. Here the decree introduced group responsability for crime. In 1953, four decrees were passed; according to the people’s legislator, they aimed at protecting social property and the interests of buyers in commercial trade. Two of them, the decree of March 4, 1953 on protection of buyers in commercial trade and another one passed on that same date on increased protection of social property, provided for the possibility of forfeiture of the offender’s property wholly or in part. In that case, forfeiture was optional. Statistical data concerning the adjudication of forfeiture were gathered since 1949. Beginning from August 15, 1944, though, forfeiture of property was also adjudicated in cases of civilians convicted by military courts which had civilians in their jurisdiction by force of the decree of October 30, 1944 on protection of State. Military courts were competent to decide in cases of persons accused of offences specified in Art. Art. 85–88 and 101 – 103 of penal code of the Polish Army, in the decree on protection of State, and – the latter quashed – in s.p.c. The jurisdiction of military courts in cases of civilians was abolished in the act of April 5, 1955 on transfer to common courts of the former competence of military courts in cases of civilians, functionaries of public security agencies, the Civic Militaria and Prison Staff. Military courts retained their competence in cases of the specified categories of civilians accused of espionage (Art. 7 s.p.c.). The passing of that act was the first manifestation of a gradual abolition of the legal and judiciary terror. Convictions of civilians tried by military courts were two or three times more frequent than convictions of military service men. Starting from as early as the latter half of 1944, civilians were convicted for membership of illegal or delegalized organizations (mainly the former Home Army) and for illegal possession of firearms (70 per cent of all convictions). Aftcr 1952, the number of persons convicted for the latter went down; instead, more persons were convicted for banditry and failure to inform on an offence. Forfeiture of property was adjudicated in about 40 to 50 per cent of cases of civilians; it accompanied sentences to long prison terms or to death, as well as another additional penalty: deprivation of public rights. It was imposed first of all on those who opposed the newly introduced political system, but also on chance perpetrators of what was called anti-State propagande. Common courts adjudicated forfeiture of property mainly for offences specified in two decrees: the one of August 31, 1944 on statutory penalties for Nazi war criminals, and the decree of June 28,1946 on criminal responsability for repudiation of Polish nationality during the 1939-1945 war. Over 90 per cent of all forfeiture were adjudicated in such cases. During the 1959–1969 decade, the additional penalty of forfeiture of property was imposed basing on special statutes. Two statutes were passed as a novelty which provided for forfeiture while aiming at special protection of the social property. They were: the act of January 21, 1958 on increased protection of social property, and the act of June 18, 1959 on criminal responsability for offences against social property. Nearly all forfeitures in that period were adjudicated for offences specified in the act of June 18, 1959, and the actual offence concerned was appropriation of social property in practically all cases. Convictions for the offences specified in the discussed statut constituted one-fifth of all convictions; most cases, however, concerned petty or not too serious offences where forfeiture was optional only. This is why that penalty was imposed rather seldom; there were realatively few acts for which it was obligatory. Forfeiture was also most seldom adjudicated by force of ther statutes. It amounted to 1,5–2,2 per cent of all additional penalties imposed. The new penal code passed on April 19, 1969 introduced forfeiture of property to its catalogue of additional penalties. Forfeiture of the whole or part of property was obligatory on the case of conviction for the following crimes: 1) against the basic political or economic interests of Polish People’s Republic: betrayal of the fatherland, conspiracy against Polish People’s Republic, espionage, terrorism, sabotage, abuse of confidence in foreign relations, misinformation, participation in organized crime against the economy or foreign currency regulations; and 2) appropriation of social property of considerable value. Besides, the court could adjudicate forfeiture of property wholly or in part in the case of conviction of another crime committed for material profit. The code’s regulation of application of forfeiture was clearly copied from the earlier legislation: the s.p.c. and the acts that increased the protection of social property. During the fifteen years 1970–1984, forfeiture of property was among the least frequently imposed penalties and constituted from 1,2 to 3,3 per cent of all additional penalties. It accompagnied nearly exlusively the convictions for two types of offences: appropriation of social property of considerable value, and that same offence committed by a person who availed himself of the activity of a unit of socialized economy, and acted in conspiracy with others to the detriment of that unit, its customers or contractors. Convictions for these offences constituted about 1 per cent of all convictions for offences against property. The fourth and last period discussed are the years 1985–1990 when forfeiture was again adjudicated very often, as in the 1940’s – 1950’s, to be abolished completely in the end. The entire five-year period was characterized by changes in penal law, one completely opposing another: from extension of penalization and increase of repressiveness introduced by the acts of 1985 to liberalization in 1990. Two acts were passed bearing the same date – may 10, 1985: on changing some provisions of penal law and the law on transgressions, and on special criminal responsability (the so-called provisional act in force till June 30, 1988). They introduced significant changes in the range of application of forfeiture of property, making its adjudication possible, and for some time even obligatory, for common offences. In the discussed period, that penalty was imposed mainly for offences against property. Nearly a half of them were burglaries, and the victims were usually – in two-thirds of cases – natural persons. In the period of particular intensity of convictions – 1986–1987 – forfeiture accompanied 11–12 per cent of ail convictions, the proportion going down to a mere 0,1 per cent in 1989. The imposition of that penalty was extremely broad: consequently, forfeiture was adjudicated in cases of quite petty offences where it was inappropriate and out of all proportion to the seriousness of the act and the guilt of the offender. This made the execution of forfeiture actually ineffective as it usually proved objectless in the case of petty common offenders. Forfeiture of property evolved in a way from was practically non-existence to emergence in special statutes and then in the penal code, to its special use in the criminal policy of the eighties when grounds well known from the past were given for its broader imposition: the need for severe penal repression towards offenders against property, to a complete abolition of that penalty in 1990. Forfeiture was extensively applied in the years 1949–1958 (when common courts adjudicated 1044, and military courts – 1538 forfeitures a year on the average). The next two periods were similar as to the number of forfeitures (503 and 513 respectively). The use of forfeiture was the broadest under the provisional statute (10,345 cases a year on the average). Forfeiture is no doubt one of the most severe penalties affecting property, or penalties in general, which is why it should have been adjudicated in exceptional cases only. Its use under the provisional statute in cases of ,,ordinary” offenders violated the principle of just punishment. On the other hand, forfeiture can hardly be called a just penalty anyway as it always affects not only the offender himself but also his family. The political changes in Poland made it possible to liberalize penal law and to remove the most unjust solutions it contained, the penalty of forfeiture of property included.

2

Justice statistics in the public service. Courts efciency and public criminology

100%

Ostaszewski P.

Biuletyn Kryminologiczny

|

2018

|

issue 25

164-170

PL

How criminological are statistics of justice? How useful are courts eﬃciency data? How the public and public administration uses abuses this data? Paper is focused on the problems of collecting, processing and presenting statistical data on justice system for the purposes of the system itself, as well as for criminology. It considers ﬁve issues: public criminology and public statistics, so called standard criminological statistics, such as recorded crime, suspect, convict- ed, penalties, penal measures, prisoners etc., Polish Ministry of Justice statistics (if they are criminological or not or which of them could be interesting for criminologists) and results of current research of Economic Analysis of Justice Unit in Polish Institute of Justice. It was inter- esting how oﬃcial statistics concerning courts eﬃciency are used and maybe abused in public debates, in criminology, criminal policy, and public media. Czy statystyki wymiaru sprawiedliwości to statystyki kryminologiczne? Na ile przydatne mogą być dane statystyczne dotyczące efektywności sądów? W jaki sposób mogą być one wykorzystane przez administrację publiczną, opinię publiczną i/lub kryminologię publiczną? Artykuł koncentruje się na problemie gromadzenia, przetwarzania i prezentacji danych statystycznych dotyczących wymiaru sprawiedliwości dla celów samego systemu, a także dla kryminologii Omawia on pokrótce pięć kwestii: nurt kryminologii publicznej i tak zwane standardowe statystyki kryminologiczne, dotyczące m.in. zarejestrowanych przestępstw, podejrzanych, skazanych, kar, więźniów, itp., statystyki Ministerstwa Sprawiedliwości oraz wybrane wyniki najnowszych badań Sekcji Analiz Ekonomicznych Wymiaru Sprawiedliwości Instytutu Wymiaru Sprawiedliwości. Szczególnym przedmiotem zainteresowania pozostają możliwości i sposoby wykorzystania statystyk sądowych w kryminologii i polityce kryminalnej oraz debacie publicznej i mediach.

EN

How criminological are statistics of justice? How useful are courts eﬃciency data? How the public and public administration uses abuses this data? Paper is focused on the problems of collecting, processing and presenting statistical data on justice system for the purposes of the system itself, as well as for criminology. It considers ﬁve issues: public criminology and public statistics, so called standard criminological statistics, such as recorded crime, suspect, convict- ed, penalties, penal measures, prisoners etc., Polish Ministry of Justice statistics (if they are criminological or not or which of them could be interesting for criminologists) and results of current research of Economic Analysis of Justice Unit in Polish Institute of Justice. It was inter- esting how oﬃcial statistics concerning courts eﬃciency are used and maybe abused in public debates, in criminology, criminal policy, and public media.

3

Skazani recydywiści w Polsce w okresie transformacji w świetle danych statystycznych

75%

Szymanowski T.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

2008

|

issue XXIX-XXX

739-761

4

Przestępczość i sprawcy przestępstw z użyciem agresji

75%

Wójcik D.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

1991

|

issue XVII

75-115

EN

The object of the paper is to show the trends of convictions for aggressive offences in Poland in the years 1972-1987 basing on court statistics, and to characterize this type of offences and their perpetrators. Moreover, basing on the findings of several Polish criminological studies, some of the factors have been indicated which may play an important part in the origin of aggressive offences. The main focus here is the problem of such offenders aggressiveness and their drinking habits, as the two factors are rather clearly connected with the discussed type of offences. Offences to be submitted to statistical analysis have been separated according to psychological and criminological criteria and not to the classification adopted in the Polish penal code. Thus only those offences from various chapters of the penal code have been taken into account where the facts of the given cases contained an explicit element of physical aggression against person or object, or of verbal aggression. Naturally, there is a great variety of acts which contain an element of aggression and are numbered among offences: they infringe different human values and interests from as vital as life and health to dignity, honour, or religious feelings. Also different is the seriousness of those acts (both misdemeanours and crimes being found among them), as well as the danger they create to the public weal, and the statutory penalties provided for them. Throughout the analysed period 1972–1987, the total number of convicted persons was relatively stable and amounted to the average of 150–160 thousand a year; it went down in 1977 and 1981–1984, only to increase again to the previous level in the years 1985–1987. Also the crime rate fluctuated similarly, amounting to 65–59 per 10,000, adult population, with the exception of 70.6 in 1972. In some years, the decrease of both the number of convictions and the crime rate can be explained with amnesty laws, while the increased number of convictions, in the years 1985–1987 resulted, among other things, from certain additional though temporary legal regulations introduced in that period (particularly from the Act of 1985 on special criminal responsibility). In the period under analysis, the proportion of persons convicted for aggressive offences amounted to about 40 per cent of the total number of convictions. At the same time, starting from 1975, a certain slight downward trend in the proportion of such convictions can be found, to as low as 35-36 per cent in the years 1979–1980, followed by an increase to the previous level. A certain decrease in the extent of convictions for aggressive offences can be explained partly with demographic changes. In the period under analysis, despite the general increase of the population aged 17 and more (by 12.9 per cent), the number of men aged 17–20 went down by about 35.5 per cent, and the same trend could be found in the case of men aged 21–24. It is a well-known fact that aggressive offences are committed mostly by young persons. Analysing the extent of aggressive offences from the point of view of the offenders’ sex and age, we find somewhat different trends in young adult as compared with adult men and women. Aggressive offences constitute about 60 per cent of all offences committed by young adult men, and 34–40 per cent of those of adult men. In the period under analysis, offences of this type committed by young adult men kept up the above level, fluctuations being greater in the case of adult men. In the structure of female crime, aggressive offences play a less significant role and constitute about 20 per cent in both age groups. There is also, as in the case of men, a distinct trend: stability of proportion of convictions of young adult women for such offences (about 20 per cent), and a distinct decrease in the case of adult women (from 23 to 12.6 per cent). Taking certain groups of offences as well as the separate acts into account, we find a considerable increase in the number of aggressive offences against property. It is determined mainly by the increase in the proportion of convictions for burglary and of particularly audacious larceny, and to a slight extent – for damage to property. Instead, proportions of convictions for robbery are rather stable. In the discussed period, robbery which contains an explicit element of aggression revealed no changes as regards the number of convictions: instead, upward trends could be found mainly in the case of burglary and of particularly audacious larceny where explicit aggressive traits can not always be found. Thus this finding corresponds but to some extent with the world trend. In the discussed period, a downward trend could be found as regards convictions for offences which involved physical and verbal aggression against person. Convictions for offences traditionally regarded as serious and dangerous for the public weal, such as murder or rape, remained at the same level, while those for bodily injury trended downwards. As has been mentioned above, the number of robberies, also included among serious offences, remained stable, the proportion of convictions for offences of this type arnong all convictions for aggressive acts being rathen low (murder, 0.5–07 per cent; rape, 2 per cent; robbery, 6.8 per cent). What should also be stressed is the decrease in convictions for participation in a brawl or battery, particularly in rural districts, and for assault on a public functionary or police officer, starting from 1978. Instead, convictions for physical or moral cruelty towards a family member maintain a rather high level with a slight upward trend. A regular increase it the number of convictions for that offence which dates from 1950s, is related to the trends in prosecuting and sentencing policy in family cases. The influence of the changes in criminal policy and legislation is also distinct in the case of convictions for violation of bodily inviolability, insult, and insult of a police officer which went down to begin with and then started increasing in numbers. The second part of the paper contains a discussion of the problem of conditions of aggressive crime. An attempt was made basing on the findings of criminological studies to answer the question whether most perpetrators of aggressive offences can be characterized as highly aggressive persons and excessive drinkers. The analysis concerned both the fact of repeated perpetration of aggressive offences, and the occurrence of aggressiveness as a permanent personality trait. As may be concluded from the studies of offences committed by different samples of young adults those in whose criminal career was at least one aggressive offence (c.g.) robbery, hooligan act, homicide) were more frequently than others convicted for aggressive offences. Thus the question should be answered whether most of the perpetrators of aggressive acts are characterized by distinct aggressiveness as a permanent personality trait. One can hardly suppose in this connection that a single aggressive offence might constitute a sufficient proof of the offendner’s aggressiveness. If, however one and the same person repeatedly commits aggressive offences, he might be an aggressive individual. A person has been defined as aggressive who reveals aggressive behaviour or a decidedly hostile attitude towards many persons in different situations. It has been found basing on psychological examination with the Buss- Durkee questionnaire and detailed data from interviews (which the authoress used to construct scales of aggressiveness), that most perpetrators of aggressive offences are characterized by a considerable aggressiveness as a relatively stable personality trait. Moreover, aggressiveness measured this way is a significantly less frequent characteristic of young adult offenders against property, and of non-delinquent youth. The above findings contribute but to some extent to the explanation of the nature of aggressive crime, as aggressiveness of offenders should be considered in connection with many other factors which exert a mutual influence on one another and jointly determine a criminal act in a given situation. In studies of various samples of aggressive offenders, their considerable excessive drinking was found. The issues under analysis included, among other things, the role of drinking in the origin of aggressive crime, alcohol’s direct as well as indirect influence on criminal behaviour taken into account. It was arqued that the offender’s intoxication plays a greater part in the origin of aggressive crime than of offences against property. Also the interdependence between aggressiveness and excessive drinking. As shown by the findings (among other things, of studies of young adult perpetrators or robbery and hooligan acts), excessive drinkers revealed intense aggressive behaviour significantly more often than those who did not drink excessively; moreover, such behaviour was found already at school which means that those persons were already aggressive as children, before they developed excessive drinking habits. Theorefore, their subsequent regular drinking could have been related to emotional instability with which also their aggressiveness was connected. They could have seeked relief of their emotional tension in excessive drinking. Also aggressive behaviour served to abreact that tension. To conclude, it should be stated that the perpetrators of aggressive acts, as opposed to those who commit mostly offences against property, are highly aggressive as a rule. Most of them also regularly drink excessively. Though they were not found to be significantly different in this respect from offenders on the whole, nevertheless alcohol no doubt plays an important part in most of their aggressive acts. In a given situation, their excessive drinking habits, intoxication at the moment of the act, or aggressiveness caused or intensified their already existing serious conflicts with the environment, influenced their distorted perception and interpretation of the reality, and facilitated an impulsive reaction to casual misunderstandings, and could therefore contribute to the emergence of aggressive acts qualified as offences.

5

Merytoryczne przesłanki orzekania kar i innych środków wobec wielokrotnych recydywistów

51%

Janiszewski B.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

1986

|

issue XIII

109-139

EN

The aims of the present study have been: 1) to ascertain the actual conditions of the courts' decisions applying penalties and other measures towards multiple recidivists; 2) to determine the present penal policy towards this category of convicted persons; 3) to compare this policy with the assumptions included in the Penal Code in force. Punishment imposed upon multiple recidivists is regulated by the provisions of Art. 60, para. 2 and 3 Art. 61 of the Penal Code. Their formulation is as follows: on a perpetrator sentenced twice in the conditions specified in para. 1 (special basic recidivism), who has served altogether at leat one year of deprivation of liberty and in the period of 5 years after the serving of the last penalty commits again an intentional offence with the purpose of obtaining a material benefit or of a hooligan character, similar to at least one of the previously committed offencęs, the court shall impose a penalty within the limits of from three times the lowest sanction, but not less than 2 years, up to the highest statutory sanction increased by one half, and if the highest statutory sanction is not higher than 3 years: up to 5 years deprivation of liberty. The increase of the lowest statutory sanction provided in para. 1 or 2 shall not apply, when the offence is a serious offence; in this case the court shall consider the commission of the offence in the conditions specified in para 1 or 2 as a circumstance increasing the penalty. In particularly justified cases when even the lowest penalty imposed on the basis of Art. 60. paras 1 or 2 would be incommeasurably Severe by reason of the motives for the action of the perpetrator, his traits and personal conditions as well as his way of life before the commission and his behaviour after the perpetration of the offence, the court when imposing the penalty may refrain from applying the rules specified in Art. 60. paras 1 or 2; in these cases the court shall take into consideration the commission of the offence in the conditions specified in Art. 60, para 1or 2 as circumstances influencing increasing the penalty. With regard to a perpetrator sentenced in the conditions specified in Art. 60, para. 2 he court shall adjudge protective supervision; if adjudging this supervision is not sufficient to prevent recidivism, the court shall adjudge .the commitment of the sentenced person to a social readaptation centre. (Art. 62, para. 2). The present work has been based on the author's own research and to a minimum extent only on the analysis of the national statistical data. The point of departure for the study of the actual conditions of the courts decisions were the conditions specified in the Penal Code now in force. The conditions specified in Art. 61 of the Penal Code and related to the offender only have been assumed to form the ratio legis of special recidivism in the Polish penal legislation. If, however, when aplying this provision, the courts prefer the conditions related to the most recent act of the offender, this mignt be an indication of their different attitude towards the aim of punishment in the case of the discussed category of offenders. The existence of such divergences between the conditions of application of Art 61 of the Penal Code as included in the law on the one hand, and those applied by the courts on the other hand has been one of the hypotheses verified in the present study. The study has been based on the examination of court records. All the accessible records of criminal cases (230) have been included in it, in which Sentences were passed with regard to multiple recidivists (under Art 60. para. 2 and Art. 61 in connection with Art. 60, para. 2 of the Penal Code) in the District Court of the city of Poznań in the years 1975-1981. The question arised whether this could be treated as an equivalent to a random sample of the national population of convicted multiple recidivists. As shown by a comparison of distributions in question are highly convergent. A questionnaire to investigate the ourt records consisted of 41 questions concerning the convicted recidivist, his previous offences and criminal record, his last offence and the content of the last sentence. The impact of a number of variables on the application of Art. 61 of the Penal Code, on the length of the prison sentence and on the decision of commitment to a social readaptation centre has been analysed in succession. Conclusions from the study are as follows: 1. In the application of Art.61 of the Penal Code ,the predominating part is played by the conditions connected with the degree of socil danger of the act and with its legal label. The conditions connected with the person of the perpetrator seem to have a much smaller effect. The reason of this state of affairs may be seeked in the fact that the court is obligated by Art. 60, para.2 of the Penal Code to impose long-term penalties of deprivation or liberty regardless of the degree of social danger (seriousness) of the offence which may be trivial in particular cases. Therefore, it is not to be wondered at that in these cases the courts apply Art. 61 of the Penal Code so as to impose a lower or more lenient penalty in order to make it commeasurable with the offence. The following conditions have been found to exert the greatest influence on the length of sentences to deprivation of liberty under Art. 60, para. 2: firstly, the legal appraisal of the offence and the related content of the instructions for meting out punishment specified in Art. 60, para. 2 of the Penal Code, and secondly, the degree of social danger of the offence. The character of the offence and the appraisal of its social danger influence the sentence too, including the type of penalty, when Art. 61 of the Penal Code is applied by the court. This is probably a further result of following the same conditions already when deciding on the application of Art. 61 of the Penal Code. When adjudging the commitment of convicted persons to a social readaptation centre, the courst were guided by the conditions connected with intense symptoms of demoralization of these persons and with a previous application of various penal measures towards them; thus the conditions were formally the same as those to be found in the Penal Code. At the same time, conditions connected with the recently committed offence were left out of account here. One should be particularly careful when interpreting the findings in this case aS the decisions in question may be conditioned by the courts' various attitudes towards the practical functioning of the centers, and by different purposes of their adjudgement in definite cases. The length of the perod for which commitment to a social readaptation centre was adjudged has appeared to increase with the length of the sentence to deprivation of libety. Admittedly, outright conclusions as to the need for amendments of the provisions of the Penal Code in its part concerning recidivists do not follow immediately from the findings of the present study. These findings have. however, demonstrated the degree to which the instructions for meting out, punishment specified in Art. 60, para. 2 of the Penal Code sever the relation between the offence and punishment, as well as the fact that the corrective function of punishment imposed upon multiple recidivists - officially assumed by the legislator-has a fictious character in practice. In consequence, Art. 61 of the Penal Code is used in discord with its purpose; it is applied to adjust the adjudicated punishment to the seriousness of the offence committed.

Refine search results

4 Archiwum Kryminologii

1 Biuletyn Kryminologiczny

1 Janiszewski B.

1 Ostaszewski P.

1 Rzeplińska I.

1 Szymanowski T.

1 Wójcik D.

1 2018

1 2008

1 1992

1 1991

1 1986

Polityka stosowania kary konfiskaty mienia w PRL

Justice statistics in the public service. Courts efciency and public criminology

Skazani recydywiści w Polsce w okresie transformacji w świetle danych statystycznych

Przestępczość i sprawcy przestępstw z użyciem agresji

Merytoryczne przesłanki orzekania kar i innych środków wobec wielokrotnych recydywistów