Search results

1

Sprawcy i kara. Skazani w PRL na karę konfiskaty mienia

100%

Rzeplińska I.

Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Kryminologicznego im. prof. Stanisława Batawii

|

2017

|

vol. 24

73-78

EN

Punishment of confiscation of estate, property, possessions - one of the oldest sanctions applied for committing crimes occurred. Punishment was applied in criminal justice systems of totalitarian states: Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, in socialistic countries also. In article, I present criminological research of persons convicted on punishment of confiscation in 80. of XX century in Poland. I analyse purpose of this punishment in specific political and economic system – socialistic system in Poland at 80. of XX c.

2

Sylwetki społeczne nieletnich – późniejszych dorosłych sprawców przestępstw

100%

Rzeplińska I.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

2008

|

issue XXIX-XXX

409-415

3

Kara konfiskaty mienia w prawie polskim i obowiązującym na ziemiach polskich oraz w praktyce jego stosowania

100%

Rzeplińska I.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

1994

|

issue XX

79-96

EN

Forfeiture of property is one of the oldest penalties in Polish law. Its origins can be traced in pre-state law, in the penalty of exclusion from tribe. Anybody could kill a person thus punished and destroy his property, and would suffer no penalty for such acts. Later on, in early Middle Ages, the penalty of plunder was introduced: the offender’s possessions were looted, and his house burned. Destruction of the offender’s property as a penal sanction resulted from the conception of crime and punishment of that time. Crime was an offence against God, and punishment was seen as God’s revenge for crime – that offender’s house was destroyed as the place that had become unchaste, inhabited by an enemy of God. The penalties imposed in Poland in the 12th and 13th centuries were personal, material, and mixed penalties. There were two material penalties: forfeiture of the whole or part of property and pecuniary penalties. The utmost penalty was being outlawed which consisted of banishment of the convicted person from the country and forfeiture of his property by the ruler. Being outlawed was imposed for the most serious offences; with time, it became an exceptional penalty. In those days, forfeiture of property was a self-standing, as well as an additional penalty, imposed together with death, banishment, or imprisonment. As shown by the sources of law, forfeiture of property (as an additional penalty) could be imposed for “conspiracy against state” rape of a nun forgery of coins, cheating at games, and profiteering. Other offences punishable in this way included murder, raid with armed troops and theft of Church property, murder of a Jew committed by a Christian, and raid of a Jewish cemetery. Data on the extent of the imposition of that penalty in the early feudal period are scarce; as follows from available sources, it was applied but seldom. The consequences of forfeiture were serious in those days. Deprived of property, the convicted person and his family inevitably lost their social and political status which made forfeiture one of the most severe penalties. From the viewpoint of the punishing authority (duke), forfeiture was clearly advantageous due to its universal feasibility; to the duke’s officials, it was profitable as they were entitled to plunder the convicted persons’s movables. In the laws of the 16th and 17th centuries, forfeiture was provided for: serious political crimes (crimen leaesae maiestatis – laese-majesty; perduelio – desertion to the enemy), offences against currency and against the armed forces. As an additional penalty, it accompanied capital punishment and being outlawed. The law also provided for situations where forfeiture could be imposed as a self-standing penalty. In 1573, the Warsaw Confederacy Act which guaranteed equality to confessors of different religions banned the inposition of forfeiture for conversion to another faith. Initially absolute – the whole of property being forfeited and taken over by the Treasury where it was at the king’s free disposal – forfeiture of property was limited already in the 14th century. To begin with, in consideration of the rights of the family and third to forfeited property, the wife’s dowry was excluded from forfeiture. Later on, in the 16th century, the limitations concerned the king’s freedom of disposal of forfeited property. A nobleman’s property could no longer remain in the king’s hands but had to be granted to another nobleman. Forfeiture of property can also be found in the practice of Polish village courts; as follows from court registers, though, it was actually seldom imposed. European Enlightenment was the period of emergence of ideas which radically changed the conceptions of the essence and aims of punishment, types of penalties, and the policy of their imposition. In their writings, penologists of those days formulated the principle of the offender’s individual responsibility. This standpoint led to a declaration against forfeiture of property as a penalty which affected not only the offender but also his family and therefore expressed collective responsibility. The above ideas were known in Poland as well. They are reflected in the numerous drafts of penal law reform, prepared in 18th century Poland. The first such draft, so-called Collection of Jidicial Laws by Andrzej Zamojski, still provided for forfeiture. A later one (draft code of King Stanislaw August of the late 18th century) no longer contained this penalty. The athors argued that, affecting not only the offender, that penalty was at variance with the principles of justice. The drafts were never to become the law. In 1794, after the second partition of Poland, an insurrection broke out commanded by Tadeusz Kościuszko. The rebel authorities repealed the former legal system and created a new system of provisions regulating the structure of state authorities, administration of justice, and law applied in courts. In the sphere of substantive penal law and the law of criminal proceedings, an insurgent code was introduced, with severe sanctions included in the catalog of penalties. Forfeiture of property was restored which had a double purpose: first, acutely to punish traitors, and second – to replenish the insurgent funds. When imposing forfeiture, property rights of the convicted person’s spouse and his children’s right to inheritance were taken into account. Yet compared to the administration of justice of the French Revolution with its mass imposition of forfeiture, the Polish insurgent courts were humane and indeed lenient in their practice of sentencing. After the fall of the Kościuszko Insurrection, Poland became a subjugated country, divided between three partitioning powers: Prussia, Russia, and Austria. The Duchy of Warsaw, made of the territories regained from the invaders, survived but a short time. In the sphere of penal law and the present subject of forfeiture of property, that penalty was abolished by a separate parliamentary statute of 1809. After the fall of the Duchy of Warsaw, Poland lost sovereignty and the law of the partitioning powers entered into force on its territories. In the Prussian sector, a succession of laws were introduced: the Common Criminal Law of Prussian States of 1794, followed by the 1851 penal code and the penal code of the German Reich of 1871. Only the first of them still provided for forfeiture: it was abolished in the Prussian State by a law of March 11, 1850. Much earlier, forfeiture disappeared from the legislation of Austria. lt was already absent from the Cpllection of Laws on Penalties for West Galicia of June 17,1796, valid on the Polish territories under Austrian administration. Nor was forfeiture provided for by the two Austrian penal codes of 1803 and 1852. Forfeiture survived the longest in the penal legisation of Russia. In 1815, the Kingdom of Poland was formed of the Polish territories under Russian administration. In its Constitution, conferred by the Tsar of Russia, a provision was included that abolished forfeiture of property. It was also left in the subsequent Penal Code of the Kingdom of Poland, passed in 1818. Forfeiture only returned as a penal sanction applied to participants of the anti-Russian November insurrection of 1831. The Organic Statute of 1832, conferred to the Kingdom of Poland by the Tsar, reintroduced the penalty of forfeiture of property. Moreover, it was to be imposed for offences committed before Organic Statute had entered into force which was an infringement of the ban on retroactive force of law. Of those sentenced to forfeiture in the Kingdom of Poland, Lithuania, and Russia as participants of the November insurrection, few had estates and capital. A part of forfeited estates were donated, the rest were sold to persons of Russian origin. The proces of forfeiting the property of the 1830–1831 insurgents only ended in 1860 (the Tsar’s decree of February 2/March 2,1860). After November insurrection, the Russian authorities aimed at making the penal legislation of the Kingdom of Poland similar to that of the Russian Empire. The code of Main Corrective Penalties of 1847 aimed first of all at a legal unification. It preserved the penalty of “forfeiture of the whole or part of the convicted persons’ possessions and property” as an additional penalty imposed in cases clearly specified by law. It was imposed for offences against the state: attempts against the life, health, freedom or dignity of the Emperor and the supreme rights of the heir to the throne, the Emperor’s wife or other members of the Royal House, and rebellion against the supreme authority. Forfeiture was preserved in the amended code of 1866; in 1876, its application was extended to include offences against official enactments. The penalty could soon be applied – towards the participants of January insurrection of 1863 which broke out in the Russian Partition. The insurgents were tried by Russian military courts. After the January insurrection, 6,491 persons were convicted in the Kingdom of Poland; 6,186 of tchem were sentenced to forfeiture of property. Of that group, as few as 28 owned the whole or a part of real estate; 60 owned mortgage capital and real estate. The imposition of forfeiture on January insurgents stopped in 1867 in the Kingdom of Poland and as late as 1873 in Lithuania. The penalty was only removed from the Russian penal legislation with the introduction a new penal code in 1903. As can be seen, the Russian penal law – as opposed to the law of Prussia and Austria retained forfeiture of property the longest. It was designet to perform special political and deterrent functions as the penalty imposed on opponents of the system for crimes against state. It was severe enough to annihilate the offender’s material existence. It was also intended to deter others, any future dare-devils who might plan to resist authority. It was an fitted element of the repressive criminal policy of the Russian Empire of those days. Forfeiture of the whole of property of the convicted person can be found once again in the Polish legislation, of independent Poland this time: in the Act of July 2, 1920 on controlling war usury where forfeiture was an optional additional penalty. At the same time, the act prohibited cumulation of repression affecting property (fine and forfeiture could not be imposed simultaneously). It originated from the special war conditions in Poland at the time. The ban on cumulation of repression affecting property is interesting from the viewpoint of criminal policy. The Polish penal code of 1932 did not provide for the penalty of forfeiture, and the Act on controlling war usury was quashed by that code’s introductory provisions. In the legislation of People’s Poland after World War II, forfeiture of property was re-established and had extensive application.

4

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.

5

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

100%

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.

6

Obraz przestępczości nieletnich w Polsce w badaniach kryminologicznych – przed i po transformacji

100%

Rzeplińska I.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

2006

|

issue XXVIII

331-343

EN

Patterns of offences committed by youth aged 13–16: in contemporary Poland and fifteen years earlier – in the 1980s. The limit is 1989, a year when major social and political changes in Poland begun. What was different and what was similar in offences between these two groups of youth.

7

Sprawcy i kara. Skazani w PRL na karę konfiskaty mienia

100%

Rzeplińska I.

Biuletyn Kryminologiczny

|

2017

|

issue 24

73-78

EN

Punishment of confiscation of estate, property, possessions - one of the oldest sanctions applied for committing crimes occurred. Punishment was applied in criminal justice systems of totalitarian states: Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, in socialistic countries also. In article, I present criminological research of persons convicted on punishment of confiscation in 80. of XX century in Poland. I analyse purpose of this punishment in specific political and economic system – socialistic system in Poland at 80. of XX c.

PL

Kara konfiskaty mienia jest jedną z najstarszych kar kryminalnych – pozbawia sprawcę przestępstwa całego, będącego jego własnością majątku. Stosowana w systemach prawnych państw totalitarnych: Niemiec hitlerowskich, Rosji Radzieckiej i ZSRR, państw demokracji ludowej, w tym PRL. W artykule prezentuję wyniki badań kryminologicznych nad sprawcami przestępstw skazanymi w latach 80. XX w. w Polsce na karę konfiskaty mienia. Analizuję celowość tak bezwzględnej represji ekonomicznej w określonym ustroju politycznym i gospodarczym. Punishment of confiscation of estate, property, possessions - one of the oldest sanctions applied for committing crimes occurred. Punishment was applied in criminal justice systems of totalitarian states: Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, in socialistic countries also. In article, I present criminological research of persons convicted on punishment of confiscation in 80. of XX century in Poland. I analyse purpose of this punishment in specific political and economic system – socialistic system in Poland at 80. of XX c.

8

Profesor Zofia Ostrihanska

100%

Rzeplińska I.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

2008

|

issue XXIX-XXX

29-34

9

Zapobieganie przestępczości cudzoziemców w Polsce

100%

Rzeplińska I.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

2016

|

issue XXXVIII

5-13

EN

It has been for several decades now that criminological literature has addressed the issue of crime prevention in societies. Helena Kołakowska-Przełomiec argued in 1984: “While trying to formulate a definition of crime prevention, on no account should we disregard the fact that a criminal offence may be committed only by an individual who lives in a certain specific setting, in a society. Crime prevention can therefore be associated with the conditions of the external world in which a person lives, the constraints of social interactions, interpersonal relations, as well as with the person’s own identity, selfdevelopment, lifetime experience, attitudes, aspirations, and the scope of individual activities. Accordingly, crime prevention may be associated with all that effectively makes up the fabric of an outside world in which the person lives, with the overall diversity of human activity, groups of people, and individuals. Indeed, such activity may be closely linked to crime prevention, or only indirectly related to it, or it may also be very far removed from crime prevention. Crime prevention may also exist objectively, without any human activity linked to it whatsoever (e.g. in a mountainous area devoid of roads it is effectively impossible to commit traffic offences).” The author formulated the following definition: “crime prevention is construed as any and all actions which might lead, be that directly or indirectly, to inhibiting the incidence of criminality at large, of criminal offences, and the development of criminal phenomena all over the world.” Ten years later, another definition of crime prevention was proposed by Janina Czapska: “crime prevention should to be construed as all measures aimed at reducing the overall crime incidence and load, either by limiting the circumstances conducive to committing criminal offences, or by exerting an impact on a potential perpetrator, as well as on all members of a society.” In a document of 2002 promulgated by the UN Economic and Social Council, crime prevention is construed as a set of policies and measures that “seek to reduce the risk of crimes occurring, and their potential harmful effects on individuals and society, including the fear of crime.” Modern Europe is a world of people who keep migrating, moving between countries. The presence of foreign nationals (i.e. those who are not the nationals of a particular country) in each of the EU Member States is a natural phenomenon, as they are the EU citizens and the third-country nationals. Criminal offences committed by foreign nationals are also natural enough, from random offences to fully premeditated ones, from minor offences to serious crimes, from common offences to criminal offences specific to foreign nationals in a particular country and during a specific period, committed under certain social, economic and political conditions. In Poland, police crime statistics have taken due note of foreign nationals as suspects since 1984. The proportion of foreign nationals to suspects in total in the period spanning 1984–1988 ranged from 0.1% to 0.5%. This proportion increased throughout the 1990s, from 0.8 in 1991 to 1.8% in 1996, and then to 2.02% in 1997. A decrease in this proportion was noted – 1.6% in 1998, 1.3% in 2000, 0.67% in 2004, and 0.43% in 2012. Foreign nationals suspected of committing criminal offences in Poland in the first decade of the 21st century come from 61 countries. 30% of them are EU citizens. The most numerous are citizens of Germany, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic. Foreign nationals from non-EU countries constitute 70% of all foreign national suspects, among which the most numerous come from the neighbouring countries: Ukraine, Belarus, the Russian Federation and Armenia. In short, foreign nationals suspected of committing criminal offences in Poland originate from the neighbouring countries: Ukraine, Belarus, Germany, Lithuania, and Russia. The overall picture of criminal offences committed by foreign nationals in Poland in the first decade of the 21st century is as follows: a negligible share of foreign suspects in the human crime category, a high proportion in the specific offences category, i.e. driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, whereupon, in the absence of a natural person victim, the only ‘aggrieved’ party is public order, i.e. road traffic safety. The high share of foreign suspects in the offences against the credibility of documents means that foreign nationals who hold residence in Poland, or who enter Poland, make use of forged IDs or travel documents. The overall picture that emerges from the police crime statistics still needs to be supplemented by such rare events as terrorist crime, crime committed in organized groups, or hard to detect crimes, e.g. illegal cigarette or illicit drug manufacturing. In line with the definitions cited above, with regard to each particular type of criminal offence committed by foreign nationals, an appropriate strategy needs to be determined. In each individual case and for each type of crime a separate listing of crime risk factors should be compiled. Smuggling (duly registered by the Customs Service) seems one of the ‘favourite’ types of a criminal offence committed by foreign nationals in Poland (even though Polish nationals also perpetrate this kind of crime). Smuggling takes place both at border crossings and elsewhere, along usually rather desolate, woodland areas straddling a state border, not subject to heavy patrolling by border guard troops. Moving contraband across the border stands to bring substantial profits to all parties involved. In 96% of cases, the contraband commodity of choice are the tobacco products. Foreign nationals are also registered in Poland as the perpetrators of business-related crimes: criminal offences aimed at obtaining material benefits at the expense of other parties involved in business activity. Judicial statistics indicate that foreign nationals are convicted for breaching the Industrial Property Act, including its provisions pertaining to trademark protection, followed by offences under the Copyright and Related Rights Act; here, for the most part, crimes involve illicitly replicated software, music, and movies on the market. The perpetrators of these offences are mostly Bulgarian, Romanian, Ukrainian, Belarussian, Armenian, Slovakian, and Georgian citizens. In the area of business crime, organized criminal groups appear to dominate. As may be gleaned from the case records, most groups dealt with violations of the trademark protection provisions, copyright, money counterfeiting, capital fraud, including bank loan fraud, offences related to ATM cards and Internet accounts, followed by insurance fraud and the offences related to trading in liquid fuels. The groups comprised criminals from nearly 20 nationalities, mostly from Bulgaria, Lithuania, Romania, Ukraine, and Armenia, and less frequently the citizens of the UK, Vietnam, China, Moldova, and Georgia. In the period spanning 2015–2016, a brand-new type of crime was uncovered, i.e. professionally organized illicit manufacture of cigarettes in Poland. The report on the status of national security in Poland for 2014 draws attention to the involvement of foreign nationals in criminal activities. Tax fraud committed by foreign nationals from EU countries appears to be on the rise. Foreigners register business ventures in Poland and then proceed to abuse the Polish tax system with a view to benefiting from undue VAT refunds. Combating business crime, as referenced in the Report, requires fostering closer cooperation between various departments, authorities, and statutory bodies involved in preventing and combating crime. This approach has already spawned a government programme for the prevention and combating business crime for 2015–2020, in which the key principles of the actual action plan have been laid down. Research on organized crime groups, including those involving foreign nationals, reveals that all groups intended to profit from criminal activities, were managed by strong leaders, with ethnicity being of much lesser importance in their operations. They are mobile, moving both across the territory of Poland and beyond its borders. Organized crime groups involving foreign nationals are multi-disciplinary; they are involved in drug-related offences, business crime, and other types of criminal pursuits. Variability in the actual type of criminal activity pursued is always dictated by the principal objective – the achievement of material gain. Prevention and combating terrorist threats in Poland is provided for in the National Counter-Terrorism Programme for 2015–2019. There is no single system for preventing and combating crimes committed by foreign nationals, and hence we are not going to formulate its objectives here. Prevention, i.e. the identification of risk factors for criminal offences committed by foreigners, may be pursued in relation to a particular type of crime committed at any one time (types of criminal offences vary over time). Combating or controlling the criminal behaviours of foreign nationals, to express it in modern lingo, may be pursued through obtaining adequate insight into the actual aetiology of various kinds of criminal offences committed by foreign nationals, and an appropriate penal policy.

10

Kariery kryminalne nieletnich sprawców przestępstw

100%

Rzeplińska I.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

2013

|

issue XXXV

79-94

EN

Thirteen years ago, while conducting criminological research of juvenile delinquents within a research programme of the Ministry of Education “Juvenile delinquents in the past and today” I decided to research two groups of juvenile delinquents representative for Poland: 1. The first was juvenile delinquents tried in the courts between 1985 and 1988, the choice of files was made on the basis on their availability. According to assumptions I planned to research a representative group of cases of criminal deeds committed by juveniles and tried in criminal courts in 1980. It appeared to be impossible, files of juveniles from 1980 in 2000 when I organized research were, according to regulations, destroyed (hereinafter I use the term “80’s group”). 2. The second is a sample of a group of cases of criminal deeds committed by juveniles and tried in criminal courts in 2000 representative for Poland The main research assumption of the project of research of juvenile delinquents was to investigate and characterize juvenile crime and their social profiles. The research concerned contemporary juveniles – “2000 group” and juveniles in the past who were tried in courts between 1985 and 1989. I intended to investigate juvenile delinquents who belonged to the generation of the parents of those from “2000 group”. Yet a step backward by a generation was impossible (the files were destroyed). I decided that the object of the research will be the group of juvenile delinquents tried in juvenile courts in the 1980s. In 2010 I searched the National Criminal Registry for the records of both “1980s” and “2000 group”. Follow-up period for the latter group was 9 years. After they turned 17 (which is the age limit of legal responsibility under Polish law), from the “2000 group” tried in 2000 in juvenile courts 390 persons, that is 51,3%, were later convicted for crimes. This group, at the moment of record search, was between 20 and 28 and majority of perpetrators were between 24 and 28 – that is young adults in the period of the highest criminal activity. The group of juvenile delinquents from 1980s was 555 persons. The follow-up period was 22 to 22 years. In this group, according to National Criminal Registry information, 187 persons, that is 33,7% had a criminal record at the moment of file search, and they were be-tween 35 and 44. As far as this group is concerned, part of criminal records were erased so a part of convictions in this group remains unknown. Study of previous juvenile delinquents life histories, longitudinal study, criminal career study – these are the names of the same types of research in criminology whose main and common questions is: how many of previous juvenile delinquents commit crimes in adult life. More detailed questions are: - what is the type and significance of crime commited by previus juvenile dalinquents in their adult lives?

11

Cudzoziemcy – sprawcy przestępstwa przekupstwa na terenie Polski

100%

Rzeplińska I.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

2016

|

issue XXXVIII

175-189

EN

By the end of 2013, some 60,0000 citizens of EU Member States, and 121,000 third- -country nationals, holders of Polish residence permits, were registered in Poland. The aggregate number of foreign nationals who currently reside in Poland amounts to 0.5% of the country’s own population. Among the EU citizens, the most numerous are German, Italian, French, British, Bulgarian, and Spanish nationals. Among the non-EU nationals, the largest proportion of residents comes from Ukraine, Vietnam, Russian Federation, Belarus, China, Armenia, Turkey, India, USA, and South Korea; the Ukrainians making up by far the most populous group among them (i.e. 31% of all third-country nationals residing in Poland). Crime rate among foreign residents in Poland as gleaned from the police statistics on foreign offenders spanning 2004–2012 makes it clear that foreign suspects constitute ca. 1% to 0.43% in 2012 of the total number of suspects investigated. In the course of nine years, these crime dynamics (i.e. officially disclosed crime rate among foreign nationals in Poland) appeared to decline. In total, foreign nationals suspected of committing crimes in Poland come from of 61 countries, with EU citizens accounting for 1/3 of them, the remaining 2/3 originating from the third countries. The overall picture of offences perpetrated by foreign nationals in Poland in the period spanning 2004–2012 reveals some telltale characteristics of their prevalent structure. Firstly, a negligible proportion of human crime offences, secondly, a high proportion of specific crimes, e.g. driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, whereupon, in the absence of a human victim, the only ‘aggravated’ party is the public order, and thirdly, a growing rate of foreigners suspected of having committed an offence against the credibility of documents. In the police statistics, foreign nationals suspected of committing offences under Articles 228, 229 and 230 of the Polish Penal Code make up 3.4% of all foreign suspects. Foreign nationals suspected of committing the offence of bribery under Article 229 of the Polish Penal Code, the actual subject matter of the study addressed in the paper, are foreign nationals convicted by Polish courts of law. Ninety-six criminal cases of bribery, originating in 2008–2013, which ended in convictions for foreign perpetrators, were randomly selected for the study. The issues of interest were as follows: the profiles of convicted foreigners, accompanying circumstances, general aetiology of the bribery offences committed by foreigners, the bribe recipients, convictions actually secured in a court of law against the perpetrators, and the types of punitive measures applied. Foreign nationals – perpetrators of bribery offences across Poland, originated from 17 countries. 81.3% of the studied population was made up of Ukrainians (41.7%), Belarussians (22.9%), Lithuanians (9.4%), and Russians (7.3%). Single cases were perpetrated by the citizens of Kazakhstan, Turkey, Sweden, Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia, China, Slovakia, Vietnam, Armenia, India, Czech Republic, and Germany. Men prevailed – ca. 10% of those convicted of bribery were women. The most numerous were perpetrators aged 32–40, while the remaining number of offenders was almost equally split amongst the following age brackets 41–50, 22–30, and 51–63 years; the oldest offenders being the least numerous. Two occupational groups clearly predominated: drivers and construction workers. Nonetheless, the perpetrators also included police officers, doctors, nurses, an office worker, and a teacher. The recipients of financial gains, i.e. those to whom the bribes were either handed out or offered, were police officers (48.9% of cases), border guards (31.3%), and customs service officers (15.6%). Individual cases comprise handing out a bribe to an official at the Registry Office (in connection with arranging for a fictitious marriage), public transport ticket inspector, and state railway security service officers. In the cases under study, two places for handing out bribes have been identified, i.e. border crossings (40.6% of cases) and public highways (51% of cases), where traffic police officers are offered material gain. In the vast majority of cases, it was money (amounts ranged from PLN 50.00 to over PLN 1,000.00). Every third perpetrator, a foreign national, was under the influence of alcohol when offering the bribe. The study of foreigners convicted of bribery in the years spanning 2008–2013 identifies two situations in which acts of corruption take place. The first one, driving under the influence of alcohol. Handing out material benefits to a traffic police officer, usually money, is intended to dissuade him from imposing a substantial fine, or from instigating criminal proceedings (prosecution), and consequently from an imposition of a ban on driving motor vehicles by a court of law. The other one, handing out financial benefits to Border Guard or Customs Service officers. When analysing the explanations provided by the perpetrators of bribery, how they tried to rationalise their attempts to corrupt public officials (the police, border guards, customs service officers), the investigators found that it all seemed to stem from a different legal culture in the societies they come from, i.e. a culture of open disregard for the law, public morality in which everything can be ‘sorted out,’ even if it means that the perpetrator effectively evades criminal liability. A public morality in which both parties, a public official and a citizen, conspire to circumvent the law. I am therefore inclined to brand the social background of origin of the 80% of foreign nationals convicted of bribery in Poland as ‘corruption-spawning communities,’ where in the relationship between a citizen and a government agency official it is perfectly natural to offer/accept a consideration for ‘sorting things out.’ Foreign nationals charged with bribery, except for a single case of conditional discontinuance of the proceedings in progress, were sentenced to fines and other punitive measures. A conditionally suspended term of imprisonment prevailed, followed closely by a fine. Apart from the actual penalties, the courts also applied selected punitive measures, such as driving bans, cash considerations, forfeiture of items originating directly from the offence, forfeiture of items actually used, or intended for use in the perpetration of an offence. Immediate custodial sentence was imposed in three cases, i.e. in convictions for several offences, such as bribery, driving under the influence of alcohol, and assaulting a public official.

12

Wspomnienie o prof. Zofii Ostrihanskiej

75%

Rzeplińska I.

Biuletyn Kryminologiczny

|

2017

|

issue 24

7-8

13

Przestępczość cudzoziemców w Polsce na podstawie danych policyjnej statystyki przestępczości za lata 2013–2016

63%

Rzeplińska I., Włodarczyk-Madejska J.

Studia Prawnicze

|

2018

|

issue 4 (216)

137-163

EN

The article presents an analysis of the foreigners population suspected of commited crimes in Poland in 2013–2016 years, on the basic of police crime statistics. We analyze the citizenship and sex of suspected foreigners, structure the crime they committed but also place where the crime was commited (divided into voivodships). We refer to the analysis in the set of crime police statistics forthe 2004–2012 years. Suspected foreigners in Poland, in 2013–2016 years, was 1% of the total population of suspects.

PL

W artykule prezentujemy analizę zbiorowości cudzoziemców podejrzanych o popełnienie przestępstwa w Polsce w latach 2013–2016, na podstawie policyjnej statystyki przestępczości. Analizujemy obywatelstwo podejrzanych cudzoziemców, płeć, strukturę ich przestępczości, miejsce popełnienia przestępstwa w podziale na województwa. Odwołujemy się do analizy zbioru danych w policyjnych statystykach przestępczości za lata 2004–2012. Podejrzani cudzoziemcy w Polsce, w latach 2013–2016 to 1% zbiorowości podejrzanych ogółem.

14

Funkcjonowanie ustawy o postępowaniu wobec osób uchylających się od pracy - wyniki badań

63%

Ostrihanska Z., Rzeplińska I.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

1988

|

issue XV

95-152

EN

The Act on the treatment of persons evading work was passed on November 26, 1982 and entered into force on January 1, 1983. The passing of the Act was preceded by a period of heated discussions during which the need for this regulation or objections against it were justified by various social, economic, political legal as well as philosophical reasons. The Act bound all men aged 18-45 (with the exception of some clearly defined categories) who neither work nor learn for a period of at least 3 month and who are not registered in employment agencies as looking for a job to report at the local state administrative agencies and explain the reasons of this state of affairs. Such persons can be recognized as not working for justified reasons (in this case, they should get help if needed) or for unjustified reasons (to such persons the possibilities of taking the job should be pointed out; they should also get help if needed). Man who persistently evade work and whose sources of maintenance cannot be revealed or prove to be contradictory to the principles of social existence, are included in a list of persons who persistently evade work. The law provides for the following legal consequences towards persons who fall under its provisions: a failure in the duty to report is a transgression for which there is a penalty of limitation of liberty of up to three months; the same penalty is provided for the registered person’s failure to appear when summoned by the local administrative agency: a failure of a registered person in the duty to appear when summoned in order to make a statement concerning his sources of maintenances is an offence for which a penalty of limitation of liberty or a fine is provided; the persons who have been included in the list may be obligated to perform the work for public purposes in cases of force majeure or natural calamity that constitutes a serious threat for the normal conditions of the people’s existence; a failure in this duty is an offence for which a statutory penalty is that of limitation of liberty up two years or a fine. The Act deals with only one of the many and varied problems that result from the broad and multifarious issue of work: the situation of not being formally employed. Employment is connected with the actual policy in this respect, the labour market, and with many economic problems. The passing of the Act and the period of its functioning discussed in the present paper fell in Poland on the days of a profound socio-economic crisis which influences the problems related to employment. In our study, however, we have taken no account of the above broader issues, focusing on the functioning of the Act: the nation of ,,evasion of work’’ and ,,a person evading work’’ it introduced, the extent of the population that falls under the Act, characterization of the population mentioned the institutions and persons involved in realization of the Act, ways of dealing with the persons evading work, conformability of the conduct of the Act’s addresses with the model of conduct it includes, appraisal of the degree to which the aims of the Act, as set before it by the legislator have been reached, and the social effects of the law. The study concerned the functioning of the Act in the capital city of Warsaw. The basic source of information were index cards of all man evading work that had been registered in this territory in the period from January 1, 1983, till April 30, 1984. Moreover, district constables of the police were interviewed about these men; data concerning their criminal records were obtained from the Central Criminal Register and information about their detention in the Warsaw sobering-up station was obtained from the station's files. Two years later, additional data were gathered in order to check which of the registered men worked for at least 6 month after having been registered; the course of work for public purposes done by the examined persons was also checked with enterprises that organized such work. In the period included in the study, 2,195 men evading work were registered in Warsaw. The size of this population seems susceptible of various interpretations, depending on the adepted point of view. This number however seems insignificant as compared with that of situations vacant reported at the employment agency which for instance exceeded 18 thousand jobs for men on December 31, 1983. As shown by the analysis of the course of registration in the entire examined period, and of the differences in the sizes of the registered populations in the separate Warsaw districts, the sizes in question vary greatly and depend on administrative steps that influence the revealing of men who answer the statutory definition. The term "person evading work" designates various persons whose various circumstances - whether socially accepted or not – justify their lack of permanent employment, and who find themselves in various situations. They are e.g. persons waiting to be called up, those who help their families with farming, alcoholics who find it impossible to keep any permanent job, men supported by their familes and looking after a family member, those who are preparing for examination to enter the university, those taking a rest after release from prison, and those who actually do work (there were about 1/4 of them): casually, seasonally or in private firms, but fail to settle their situation formally. According to the police data, as few as every tenth of the examined persons had among others, though not exclusively, illegal sources of maintenance such as offences or illicit trade. In general, the men registered as evading work did not differ from the entire population of men aged 18-45 who lived in Warsaw at that time as regards the age structure. There were among them relatively few married men. Their level of education was somewhat lower as compared with men employed at that time in Warsaw in the socialized economy; yet two-thirds of them were trained in some profession. According to the police inquiries, and to the information from index cards and from sobering-up station, three-fourth of the examined persons drank extensively; one-third of them were detained in the station, with the majority being detained repeatedly which arouses suspicion as to their dependence. 79 per cent of the registered persons were known to the police who had to intervene in their cases comparatively often and the company they kept was appraised negatively by the police 45 per cent had criminal records (with offences against property predominating) their effence however did not provide them money enough to replace employee’s wages. The first stage of introduction of the Act was to reveal persons liableto registration. The performance of the duty of registration met with most serious problems. Persons who reported themselves to be registered constituted less than a half of the total of those registered, this situation remaining unchanged even one year after the Act had entered into force. Even after that period, over a half of those newly registered were persons who had not been working for over a year and who thus should have been registered much earlier Some of those who reported themselves did it only because they needed a certificate of registration to settle some important personal matter A rather numerous category nearly one- third of the examined men consisted of those registered after having been punished by a transgresion board for failure in the duty of registration, and those reported by the police or public prosecutor' s office Therefore, the police were explicitly involved in the process of picking out persons evading work. Also the realization of the entire second stage of dealing with the above persons - that of classification - arouses serious doubts. Index cards of a great number of persons lacked information essential for the realization of the Act, i.e. concerning certain facts about the registered person and the history of this previous employment. Among the vital decisions taken in relation to the registered persons is the recognition of the reason of their unemployment as justified or unjustified. A tendency became pronounced in these decisions to treat illness and prolonged formal transactions related to future work as valid excuses for not working and out to excuse working without formal employment. It appeared also that officials deciding in these matters enjoyed a certain degree of discretion when appraising the reasons of unemployment. The actions taken toward the registered persons assumed first of all the character unemploying: they consisted in obligating these persons to report again and inform about employment, or in referring them; therefore these actions failed to bring about any considerable effects; had the persons in question reported directly at the employment agency, the effects would have been identical. One-forth of the registered persons were directed to do work for public purposes. As many as two- thirds of them never even appeared to get the adress of the enterprise which such organized work, and 15 per cent reported at the workplace but failed to fulfil their duties. Thus directing to work for public purposes was of a trifle importance only; out of proportion with the effort put in the organizing of such work. Thoroughout the period included in the study, the names of 152 (7 per cent) of the registered men were entered in the list of persons who persistently evaded work. Punishment for infringement of the disscused Act was moved for in one third of cases. As shown by the picture of realization of the Act, the officials who apply it often face the registered men's most complex life problems, that are difficult to appraise explicitly and to decide upon beyond dispute; besides, methods of successful circumvention or evasion of the provisions of the Act appear to have emerged. The appraisal of the functioning of the discussed Act has been done on two planes: both the realization of the legislator's intentions and the social effects of its introduction other than intended have been analyzed. The legislator's intentions are defined as coming to the assistance of those out of work and out of school who want work, and inducing to work those who fail to express this wish. In the statements of the Minister of Justice and of the deputy reporter during the parliamentary discussion, also such aims were formulated as: drawing up a record of persons evading work and thus getting knowledge as to the extent of this phenomenon; providing hands in cases of their shortage; and soothing the indignant public opinion which demanded radical measures to fight the phenomenon of the so-called social parasitism. The above intentions have been realized but to a slight degree. Cases of getting help from administrative agency were extremely rare, the agency playing but the role of an agent who directs clients on to the employment or medical agencies. After registration 44.5 per cent of the examined persons took a job and 37.6 per cent continued to work incessanuy for 6 months which is the condition of their names being stroken off from the register. The latter group proved to be "better" as regards selected social traits. According to our appraisal, these persons had greater chances and possibilities of and performing a job as compared with the remaining group; what's more "inducing" them to work was frequently absolutely unnecessary. Registration failed to provide knowledge as to the size of the phenomenon of evasion of work, inconstancy being among its characteristics. The examined persons are often temporarily unemployed, this situation far from being permanent. Registration failed to improve the situation in the labour market: not only the number of those who found a job but also the total of those registered was too small as compared with the needs. Whether the public opinion has been soothed and satisfied by the introduction of the Act, we do not know. What we do know, is that among those registered there were hardly any persons whose unemployment particularly irritated the public opinion (e.g. black market and foreign currency dealers). A number of persons "evad.ing work" can always be" found, and the reasons for which some of them fail to take a job would hardly meet with social desapproval. Apart from the intended effects of any legal regulation, there are also those unintended which in the case of the discussed Act can be found in the following spheres: 1) the legal system: in the labour law (limitation of the principle of freedom of work), and in the penal law (the range of penalized acts has been broadened to include transgressions and offences provided in the Act; moreover, a penal law sanction was used as an instrument to solve a problem that belongs to the sphere of social an economic policy exclusively; 2) the sphere of political an social activities: an additional bureaucratic cell in labour exchange has been created in the case of alcoholics, intervention of the Act is but a seeming action, leaving the essence of the problem out of account; in the case of ex-convicts, the Act doubles the activity of other institutions (such person can obtain help in employment agencies or from their probation officers, and they are ,,induced" to take a job by their life situation or by the conditions on which they have been released from prison); 3) the sphere of social attitudes towards the law: failure to collect subpoenas and to appear when summoned could be observed among the registered persons which means that mechanisms of circumventing the Act emerged. In our opinion, the Act on the treatment of persons evading work is unnecessary. A separate and independent problem of persons who evade work does not exist. Instead, there is a number of various, partly overlapping problems: demand for labour, social frustrations of the crisis period, as well as alcoholism, delinquency disturbed socialization of the youth, failure to insure employes without setting the required formalities, problem of employment of the disabled. Also favourable phenomena and traits can be found here such e.g. the energy and initiative of those who want to work more effectively and to be paid better As shown by our study, ,,social parasitism ,, i.e. the actual staying out of work and living at the expense of others, can be found in a tiny percentage of registered persons.

15

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

63%

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.

16

Praca mężczyzn nadużywających alkoholu (przyczynek do dyskusji nad ustawą o postępowaniu wobec osób uchylających się od pracy)

63%

Ostrihanska Z., Rzeplińska I.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

1987

|

issue XIV

115-150

EN

The article presents the findings of a study on the problems of alcoholism related to the Act of 26 October 1982 on dealing with persons evading work. The Act defines the phenomenon of the so-called social parasitism as evading socially useful work and having sources of maintenance contradictory to the law or principles of social coexistence. Men aged 18-45 who have not been employed for at least 3 months, who do not attend any school and are not registered in an employment agency as looking for a job, are obliged to report at the local State administrative agency and to explain the reasons of their unemployment or failure to learn. A nonfulfillment of this duty is a transgression for which a penalty of limitation of liberty of up to 3 months or a fine of up to 50,000 zlotys is provided. There are certain categories of persons who are not liable to this duty: among others, these are the retired or disabled persons, those who receive allowances from the social security fund etc. The reported men are entered in a record of persons evading work. In the case of their further persistent evasion of work, they are liable to further proceedings and various sanctions. They may also be recognized as unemployed for socially grounded reasons. Towards such persons, the Act provides no further special duties, and the administrative agency is obligated to come to their assistance if necessary. In the present paper, the important problem of whether the legal regulation of the problems connected with the so-called social parasitism is justified, has not been discussed. We have focused on the relation between unemployment and excessive drinking and on the problems and disturbances in employment among excessively drinking men. The study was aimed at answering the following questions: What is the number of persons with alcohol problems, repeatedly detained in the sobering-up station, among the men registered in District Offices in Warsaw as "evading work"? What is the number of unemployed persons aged 18-45 among those repeatedly detained in the sobering-up station? What is the relation between employment and work on the one hand, and excessive drinking and the entire life situation on the other hand among the above-mentioned men? The following three groups of men have been included in the study: A. In order to obtain the answer to the first question. records of 2,195 men were examined who had been registered in the seven District Offices in Warsaw within the period from January 1. 1983 till April 30. 1984 as evading work, and their detentions in the sobering-up station were checked. B. The second group of the examined persons consisted of all men aged 18-45 who had been detained in the sobering-up station for at least, the second time on randomly selected days in October and November of 1984 and in January of 1985 (576 persons). Information concerning their employment was obtained from the .records of the sobering-up station based either on their own statements or on entries in their identity cards. C. The third group consisted of 56 patients of the sobering-up station aged 18-45 who had repeatedly been detained; they were examined individually in the period from October 1984 till January 1985. The examination consisted in a free interview based on a specially constructed questionnaire. The aim of the interview was to obtain information concerning the course of employment and the drinking habits of the examined persons. their possible symptoms of dependence and withdrawal treatments they underwent, family situation and state of health. From among 2,195 men registered as evading work. one-third had been detained in the sobering-up station at least once. As many as two-thirds of them had been detained repeatedly. A part of the registered men (6.9 per cent) were included at a later date in the list of persons who persistently evade work. Persons detained in the sobering-up station constitute 37 per, cent of those included in the record. Employment of patients of the sobering-up station was examined in the second of the above-mentioned groups: the 576 men aged 18-45 repeatedly detained in the Warsaw sobering-up station. Among those patients men aged at least 30 predominated (76.9 per cent). Those detained at least four times were the most numerous (45.5 per cent); there were 20.6 and 33.9 per cent of those detained three and two times respectively. According to expectations, older patients had been detained in the station more frequently than the younger ones. At the moment of detention in the station, the majority of the repeatedly detained persons (60.6 per cent) were employed at State enterprises; 10 per cent worked for private employers, and 1.4 per cent in their own workshops or farms. 5 per cent were pensioners, 8:3 per cent worked casually, and 14.6 per cent were not employed at all. Therefore, the category of persons who did not work or who worked only casually constituted 22.9 per cent of the examined group, which seems rather a high percentage. It grows still if the category of pensioners is added. amounting then to 27.9 per cent of men aged 18-45 repeatedly detained in the station and to as many as 34.7 per cent of those detained over three times. 56 persons were examined individually. They were somewhat older than the above-mentioned group of 576 patients of the sobering-up station and had been detained there for a smaller number of times. The essential problem in our study was their drinking of alcohol. 36 per cent of the examined persons stated they had started drinking at the age of 16 at most, while in the case of 33.3 per cent the respective self-reported age was 17-18. As many as two-thirds admitted usually dinking half a litre or more vodka on one occasion. 34.8 per cent admitted drinking daily. It was most difficult to find out whether the examined persons were already alcohol dependent. There were question included in the questionnaire and asked during the interview, that served this purpose. Some of the examined persons were afraid even to admit they drank excessively which was due to the type of work they performed in which abuse of alcohol is not tolerated (first of all in the driver’s profession). Symptoms indicative of dependence were found in 24 of the examined persons (42.9 per cent). A part of them had already started withdrawal treatment in the past, yet they frequently gave it up after as few as several visits. The detention in the station and talks conducted with the patient on release were noticed to be an opportunity for initiating a change in his attitude towards treatment. It seems that the sobering-up station may and should be an important link in the alcohol dependence treatment system. Basing on the appraisal of the entire course of employment, the examined group could be divided into two categories: A. those in the case of whom undisturbed performance of work and its regularity was found according to the information obtained (22 persons); B. those who had been unemployed for long periods of time, worked irregularly, at intervals, and failed to perform work properly (31 persons). In the category A, two subgroups were distinguished: a. men who usually did not drink excessively or who abused alcohol but to a slight degree, who worked regularly and were relatively well socially adjusted. Their repeated detentions in the sobering-up station seemed to result from various chance situations and from their poor tolerance of alcohol; b. men who regularly abused alcohol or who could have been dependent on it, in whom however this situation did not influence their performance of work. In the category B, it was not possible to distinguish any subgroups. In individual cases, joint occurrence of some of the following overlapping problems was found: a. poor performance of work related to excessive drinking, yet without the symptoms of professional degradation; b. professional degradation connected with alcohol dependence; c. poor performance of work and excessive drinking connected with and resulting from an early social maladjustment; d. unemployment accompanied by a declared reluctance to work in the future which was connected rather with the examined person’s personality traits than with his excessive drinking; e. unemployment due to disability resulting from an accident or illness which made it impossible to perform the former job. Such a situation could have been brought about by excessive drinking, and the present unemployment is a factor that increases these persons alcohol dependence. Among 2,195 men registered in the Warsaw District offices as evading work, there were 708 patients of the sobering-up station of whom two-thirds had been detained repeatedly. As shown by an analysis of their statements made at the District offices, the reasons of their unemployment varied greatly. An observation seems justified that the majority of them do work, though irregularly. Among then, 115 were recognized to be unemployed for justified reasons; a very small part of them (20 per cent) asked for assistance of the administrative agency in finding a job through the Employment Department. The group of 708 patients of the sobering-up station consists of men who may at least be assumed to drink excessively However, the officials who keep the records were poorly informed as to this problem. Further, despite registration and activities of the department for unemployed persons to compel these persons to work' as many as two-thirds of men in this group failed to take a job. Any action undertaken towards this specific group of men (who were repeatedly detained in the sobering-up stations and were excessive drinkers), proved entirely ineffective, both at the stage of compelling them to work regularly and at that of having them perform public works. From among 708 men – 26.1 per cent were directed to public works; about three-fourths of them never even reported at work. The intervention undertaken by means of the Act of dealing with persons evading work seems futile. Some of these persons may perhaps need referring to an alcohol dependence treatment unit, some others - counselling as to the choice and finding of an adequate job; still another part will probably constitute a regular group that is characteristic of any society: u group of persons who constitute a social fringe and live in a way that departs from the norms of conduct accepted in the society.

17

Zachowania dewiacyjne młodzieży w Warszawie w 1993 r. (badania typu self-report)

51%

Kossowska A., Krawczyk J., Rzeplińska I.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

1995

|

issue XXI

81-103

EN

1. The findings discussed in the paper have been obtained within an international research project aimed at comparing the extent of self-reported deviant behavior of youth 11 West-European countries (Finland, England, Nord Ireland the Netherland, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, portugal, Greece, Spain and Italy), the United States and New Zealand. The questionnaire ultimately used in all countries participating in the project resulted from long negotiations and was in fact a compromise. It contained questions about both the respondents’ deviant behavior and their social situation with consideration to variables of importance from the viewpoint of the theory of social control. Deviant behavior was divided into the following six groups: l) behavior manifesting social maladjustment (as.e.g. truancy or stealing rides); 2) destruction of objects (vandalism); 3) appropriation of another person’s property; 4) aggressive behavior; 5) alcohol consumption; and 6) drug taking and selling. Examined were young people from Warsaw, born in the years 197l‒1978; the sample consisted of 701 persons aged 14‒21 at the time of the survey. At the moment of the interview, 80.5 % of respondents either had a job or went to school. Most respondents (65.9%) stated they were on good terms with their father. Even a greater proportion of 88.5% were on good terms with their mother. Ten percent of the sample had no contacts whatever with their father, and a much smaller proportion (2.3%) ‒ with their mother. Apart from 42 persons, respondents stated they had real friends; over a half had one to three such friends. The rest mentioned larger groups as their friends. Forty-seven percent had a girl- or boyfriend; two-thirds would like the relationship to last. Of the examined 363 boys, 84.8% had played truant from school at least once for one day. The proportion tended to grow bigger with respondents’ age. It showed a regular upward trend from 50% among the14-year-olds to 100% among boys of 23. Of the examined 383 girls, played truant, with the proportion reaching its peak value of l00% among the 2l-year-olds, and showing an upward trend from 33.3% among the 14-year-olds to 97.4% among girls of 19. Another widespread phenomenon was stealing rides on city buses, trolley buses, or trams. Those who had stolen a ride at least once constituted 95.9% of the boys and 89.3% of the girls. Stealing rides on trains or intercity buses was much less widespread. It was admitted by 35.8% of the boys and 22% of the girls. Driving a car or motorcycle without a license or a motorbike without a bicycle permit was admitted by 52.6% of the boys and 29.9% of the girls. A further act we inquired about was painting or spraying walls, buses, bus seats and stops, etc. Such acts were admitted by 22.9% of the boys and 12.7% of the girls. Still another group of acts qualified as vandalism includes acts that result in destruction of or damage to property. The largest group of both boyg and girls tend to vandalise school furniture (22.3% of the boys and 13% of the girls), as well as trees, bushes and flowers in parks and squares (18.2 and 10.1% respectively). Asked whether they had ever carried any weapon, such as a knife, club, knuckle-duster, or gas pistol, 43.3% of the boys and 26.6% of the girls answered in the affirmative. Relatively large were the proportions of boys (25.9%) and girls (10.7%) who had ever participated in brawls or group disturbances in a public place. A proportion of 7.2% of the boys and 1.8% of the girls admitted having beaten a stranger. Cases of beating a family member were occasional: they were admitted by 1.4% of the boys and 0.6% of the girls. Also a small proportion of 3.3% of the boys and 1.3% of the girls admitted having wounded another person with a knife, club or another weapon. Intentional arson was admitted by 5.5% of the boys and 1.2% of the girls. Offenses against property or acts consisting in appropriation of property without the knowledge or consent of its owner were related frequent in the sample. Of the 702 young persons, 55.1% had committed at least one of the listed fourteen categories of acts. This proportion is rather big the fact considered that average young people were examined. Of the 14 categories of acts against property consisting in its appropriation, the youth most often admitted shoplifting, purchasing stolen property, breaking and entering, and thefts at school. Questions relating to drugs concerned two points: the taking of drugs and their selling by respondents. The drugs inquired about were divided into two categories, each of them asked about separately: marihuana and hashish (the first category); and home-made poppy straw brew, heroin, cocaine and LSD (the second category). A proportion of 16.5% admitted having ever taken marihuana or hashish. Boys admitted this behawior more often than girls (with proportions of boys and girls balanced in the sample): every fifth boy and every eighth girl had experiences with this category of drugs. A much smaller proportion of 2% admitted having ever taken the second category of drugs. Answers stating that the respondent had ever taken marihuana or hashish were evenly distributed in the sample and tended to become more frequent with age. The declared use of the second category of drugs was very rare and evenly distributed in age groups from 16 to 21. Ten persons, among them 9 boys, admitted having sold marihuana or hashish. Most were aged 16‒18, that is still went to school. They stated that the police had never learned about their doings. Four persons admitted having sold the second category of drugs. They had sold amphetamine, cocaine, or psychedelic drugs in their neighborhood. None had been caught at the act. Asked, “Have you ever drunk beer, wine, vodka or another alcoholic beverage?”, nearly the entire sample (95.9% of the boys and 94.7% of the girls) answered in the affirmative. Asked about the age of their first contact with alcohol, 3.7% mentioned the age of under ten; 19.8% ‒10‒14; 48.3% ‒ 14‒16; and 17.l% ‒ 17‒21. The proportion of respondents who had happened to get drunk at least once was 56.3%. Asked about drinking during the year preceding the survey, 93.6% said they had drunk in that period; 50.3% admitted having drunk on up to 10 occasions, 18.1% ‒ on ll‒24 occasions, 10.6% ‒ on 25‒50 occasions, and 20.9% ‒ on over 50 occasions. The last time before the survey, the respondents drank: beer (43.8%), vodka (35.6%), wine (27.6%), and long drinks (10%). A majority of 86.5% drank in the company of others; under 10% had one companion, two-thirds of the rest drank in a group of 2‒10 persons, and the remaining ‒ in a larger company. In the international survey, national samples were examined in four countries (Switzerland, England and Wales, Portugal, and the Netherlands). In Spain, the survey concerned a large national urban sample. Examined in further two countries (Germany and North Ireland) were random samples from specific cities (Mannheim and Belfast respectively). Four other countries decided to examine a random sample of school youth from a specific city (Helsinki; three ltalian cities: Genova, Messina and Siena; Liege). The United States and New Zealand were left out from comparisons. Thus in principle the findings to be compared were not necessarily comparable. Yet it seems advisable to discuss the general trends shown in national surveys. What, therefore, are the similarities and dissimilarities between Poland and Western Europe? As regards the incidence of delinquency, considerable similarities can be noticed between findings of all national surveys but the English one. In surveys of city samples (those of school youth included), significant similarity can be noticed in the extent of delinquent acts “ever committed” by the young of Warsaw, Helsinki, and Athens. As regards the extent of acts committed “during last year”, the findings obtained in Warsaw are highly similar to those for Helsinki. In Athens, instead, the greatest extent of juvenile delinquency of all examined cities was found. A comparison of acts committed “during last year” indicates a similar intensity of offenses against property among the youth of Warsaw, Belfast, and Liege; as compared to Warsaw, a much greater extent of there offences is found in Helsinki and of Swiss youth, and a decidedly smaller one - in the English and Italian sample. Submitting offenses against property to a closer analysis, one notices that the Polish youth relatively more often commit acts consisting in “breaking and entering” as compared c.g. to young people in England, the Netherlands, or Finland: this type of act was committed at least once by 20.7% of the Polish sample, by 14.9% of the youth of Helsinki, by 3.4% of the English youth, and by 6.9% of the young Dutch. The extent of acts related to drugs (taking and trafficking), among Warsaw youth is similar to that among the young of Portugal and Helsinki, somewhat lower than among the Dutch and Spanish youth, much lower than among the English, Swiss, and Belfast young people, but higher than among the youth of Mannheim, Liege, Athens and the three Italian cities.

18

Profesor Zofia Ostrihanska (22.02.1926–24.11.2017)

33%

Buczkowski K., Czarnecka-Dzialuk B., Klaus W., Kossowska A., Rzeplińska I., Szulecka M., Włodarczyk-Madejska J., Wiktorska P., Woźniakowska-Fajst D., Wójcik D.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

2018

|

issue XL

5-9

19

Profesor Anna Kossowska (7.03.1943–4.06.2019)

33%

Buczkowski K., Czarnecka-Dzialuk B., Klaus W., Rzeplińska I., Szulecka M., Włodarczyk-Madejska J., Wiktorska P., Woźniakowska-Fajst D., Wójcik D., Wzorek D.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

2019

|

issue XLI/2

7-14

Refine search results

Sprawcy i kara. Skazani w PRL na karę konfiskaty mienia

Sylwetki społeczne nieletnich – późniejszych dorosłych sprawców przestępstw

Kara konfiskaty mienia w prawie polskim i obowiązującym na ziemiach polskich oraz w praktyce jego stosowania

Polityka stosowania kary konfiskaty mienia w PRL

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

Obraz przestępczości nieletnich w Polsce w badaniach kryminologicznych – przed i po transformacji

Sprawcy i kara. Skazani w PRL na karę konfiskaty mienia

Profesor Zofia Ostrihanska

Zapobieganie przestępczości cudzoziemców w Polsce

Kariery kryminalne nieletnich sprawców przestępstw

Cudzoziemcy – sprawcy przestępstwa przekupstwa na terenie Polski

Wspomnienie o prof. Zofii Ostrihanskiej

Przestępczość cudzoziemców w Polsce na podstawie danych policyjnej statystyki przestępczości za lata 2013–2016

Funkcjonowanie ustawy o postępowaniu wobec osób uchylających się od pracy - wyniki badań

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

Praca mężczyzn nadużywających alkoholu (przyczynek do dyskusji nad ustawą o postępowaniu wobec osób uchylających się od pracy)

Zachowania dewiacyjne młodzieży w Warszawie w 1993 r. (badania typu self-report)

Profesor Zofia Ostrihanska (22.02.1926–24.11.2017)

Profesor Anna Kossowska (7.03.1943–4.06.2019)