Search results

1

Włamania i kradzieże jako regulator relacji społecznych

100%

Krzyworzeka A.

Lud

|

2018

|

vol. 102

PL

Włamania do działkowych domków, których apogeum miało miejsce w latach 80 i 90 XX wieku, są ważnym zjawiskiem w relacjach łączących lokalnych mieszkańców miejscowości letniskowych z właścicielami tzw. drugich domów. W niniejszym artykule dokonuję próby interpretacji tego zjawiska z punktu widzenia antropologii ekonomicznej, pokazując jakie znaczenia przypisują owym włamaniom obie strony, jakie mogły być motywacje złodziei, jakie znaczenie miał kulturowy i społeczny kontekst tych zdarzeń. Proponuję interpretację, w której włamania i kradzieże stają się działaniami pozwalającymi na przebudowanie nierównych relacji społecznych, odbierając silniejszej grupie poczucie sprawczości i niezależności. Kradzieże zniknęły wraz ze zmianami społecznymi, które sprawiły, że działkowicze nie są już postrzegani jako elita, lepiej sytuowana, lepiej wykształcona i dysponująca bogatszym kapitałem społecznym.

2

Ofiary włamań mieszkaniowych (wyniki międzynarodowych badań porównawczych)

81%

Ostrihanska Z., Wójcik D., Mawby R. J., Walklate S., Görgenyi I.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

1998

|

issue XXIII-XXIV

75-113

EN

Burglary is a serious offense which particularly affects the victim. It often has more one victim, and its effects react on ihe entire family and broader community. For the victim, its important element is not only the loss of and possibly damage to property, but also violation of privacy and of the related feeling of safety. The survey discussed in the paper was conducted in 6 cities in the following countries: Germany - Monchengladbach; Poland - Warsaw and Lublin; Hungary - Miskolc; and United Kingdom - Plynouth and Salford. Discussed here will be mainly the findings obtained in Warsaw and Lublin, and data from the rest of the sample will be referred to on some issues only. The survey focused on the following issuess: 1/ circumstances of the offense and losses suffered by the victims; 2/ respondents’ attitudes to the police and appraisal of police work in their case; 3/ assistance received, self-organization, steps undertaken by the victims to prevent further burglaries; 4/ respondents’ feelings, their reactions to the offense and persistence of those reactions. The survey based on data from interviews with victims of burglary and on information obtained from the police (the questionnaire was developed by the designer and head of the project, Prof. R.I. Mawby and contained some questions from the British Crime Survey Questionnaire of 1984, 1988, and l992). Sampled in each city selected for the project were 400 reported cases of burglary; interviews were conducted in a half of those cases (200 burglaries) on two occassions, that is at least 6 to 8 weeks and 16 to 18 weeks after the date burglary was reported. As was shown by comparison of data on the socio-demographic situation of victims of burglary in different countries, variables such as age, structure of family, or material or housing situation significantly differentiate individual national samples (e.g. persons living alone were much fewer in Poland as compared to Hungary and the United Kingdom). The circumstances of burglary, losses suffered and anti-burglary protection measures shape differently in different countries. In the United Kingdom, the number of burglaries committed during the night while the victims were at home and asleep was twice as big as in Poland and Germany. On some points, however, no differences were found. About a half of respondents in all countries said that some of the objects stolen during the burglary were to them of sentimental value. Besides, property stolen most often throughout the sample was electronic equipment. Polish respondents were below the average as regards special protective measures. For example, a slight proportion only had alarm devices installed, and a mere one-third had taken out an insuranie policy. Due to high costs of insurance in Poland, the insurance sum was low as a rule and seldom corresponded with the actual value of equipment. As a result, Polish respondents could not get compensation from the insurance company; when compensation was paid, the loss actually suffered was hardly made up for. Interestingly, though, the taking out of insurance was related neither to respondent's level of education nor to his self-appraised material situation. Polish respondents' attitude to the police and opinion on police work tended to be more critical compared to the rest of the sample. Criticized were many aspects of police work in cases of burglary. Polish respondents stated more often that the police had arrived too late, ignored their suggestions as to possibly identity of the burglars, and failed to interrogate persons they indicated. A vast majority of Polish respondents believe that the police failed to inform them properly about the state of investigation. Fewer Polish victims of burglary are also satisfied with the way in which the police conducted the investigation in their case (about 20% compared to about 75% of British and Hungarian respondents). Policemen enjoy a lower prestige among Polish victims. Social perception of the police depends on their treatment of the victim but also on the national tradition, previous experiences with police forces being used by the authorities to perform political tasks, the image of the force created by the media etc. In view of the more critical opinion on the police found among Polish respondents, it is inieresting to find out whether such opinion has any objective grounds, that is whether the proportion of offenders detected in Polish cases was lower compared to the rest of the sample. The answer is no. In cases of burglary, detectability rate was low throughout the sample and Poland was by no means inferior in this respect. Polish victims' tendency to be the most critical of all towards police work may have a number of reasons. It may be related to actually greater shortages of the force (e.g. inferior equipment); to a greater pain involved in losses suffered by Polish victims; or to society’s critical attitude towards the police fixed under the past regime. On the grounds of our data, it would be difficult to select any of the above three explanations. Considering the reasons of Polish respondents' critical attitude towards the police, one can hardly ignore the fact that with a growth in both crime and thę social sense of threat in the country, also society's expectations and demands of the police have gone up. As we know, burglary causes not only material losses but also psychological effects which tend to persist for a long time in many victims. Inquired about in the survey were respondents' first reactions to burglary; the persistence of those reactions; reactions of their family members; and the aspect the victims considered the worst of all in their experience of burglary. As follows from the findings, the psychological effects of burglary suffered by the victims are similar in all countries in the sample. Most respondents felt depressed, and this frame of mind persisted in onefourth of the sample. The worst experience mentioned most often was material loss (which frequently amounted a loss of possessions that had taken a person's lifetime to amass); worsening of the living conditions; and in many cases the accompanying sense of harm and injustice. Another worst experience mentioned was invasion of privacy, a loss of trust in one's fellow men, and helplessness. Persons who consider themselves the most ,,affected” by burglary among Polish respondents are those calling themselves not too well-off, the not insured, and women rather than men. Compared to the rest of the sample, British respondents feel less affected by burglary; however, burglary was found to affect victims in a similar way irrespective of the country. Interestingly, the frequency of victims' psychological reactions followed the same pattern throughout the sample. Anger ranked first, followed by shock, anxiety, sleep disorders, and crying. Burglaries examined within the Polish sample affected a greater number of persons compared to those committed in the remaining countries: Polish households that were burgled were bigger. We also strove to find out whether respondents felt threatened with crime. Such sense of threat was more intense in Polish compared to Hungarian and British respondents. The system of assistance to victims was the best in terms of organization and functioning in United Kingdom followed by Germany, Hungary and Poland. The situation of Polish victims of burglary proved the most unfavorable as regards the possibility of getting both compensation for material losses and assistance from competent institutions. As opposed to the rest of the sample, Polish respondents were less often satisfied with the way in which the police handled their case and much more critical towards police work. The findings show that, in Poland in particular, the insurance system has to be reconsidered and differently regulated, and there is an urgent need for a systemic and coordinated program of comprehensive assistance to victims. The more critical opinion on police work found in Polish respondents also suggests that the treatment of victims by the police in Poland requires a thorough analysis.

3

THE CRIME OF THEFT WITH BURGLARY

72%

Janik D.

International Journal of Legal Studies (IJOLS)

|

2017

|

issue 1(1)

51-77

PL

W artykule omówiono treść i zakres pojęcia włamania. Artykuł został wzbogacony, omówieniem przestępstwa włamania na przykładzie wybranych krajów Unii Europejskiej.

EN

The article discusses the content and scope of the concept of burglary. The article has been enriched, discussing burglary on the example of selected EU countries

4

Treść i zakres znamienia „włamanie” (art. 279 § 1 k.k.) – czy kradzież z włamaniem może nastąpić tylko z pomieszczenia zamkniętego?

72%

Tyburcy T.

Acta Iuris Stetinensis

|

2019

|

issue 25

153-177

PL

Można wyróżnić dwie teorie dotyczące charakteru zabezpieczenia rzeczy przed kradzieżą z włamaniem. Pierwsza nich (podmiotowa) wymaga wyłącznie, aby zabezpieczenie wyrażało wolę ochrony rzeczy przed kradzieżą. Natomiast według drugiej koncepcji (przedmiotowo-podmiotowej) powinno istnieć również realne zabezpieczenie przed kradzieżą, które powoduje względne trudności w jego pokonaniu. Odrzucenie teorii użycia znacznej siły fizycznej jako przesłanki włamania, którą należy uznać za archaiczną, wcale nie musi implikować opowiedzenia się za teorią podmiotową (zabezpieczenia). Można więc kwalifikować jako włamanie otwarcie zamka podrobionym lub oryginalnym (uzyskanym bezprawnie) kluczem, a nie kwalifikować tak pokonania jedynie symbolicznego zabezpieczenia (np. plomby lub suwaka w namiocie). Należy opowiedzieć się za możliwością kwalifikowania z art. 279 § 1 k.k. włamania do komputera (np. auta) w celu kradzieży rzeczy chronionej przez ten komputer przed kradzieżą.

EN

The term “burglary” represents a certain concept specific for legal language and legal terminology, the sense of which may differ from the understanding of “burglary” in the common language. Two theories concerning the nature of theft protection and burglary protection can be distinguished. The first one (subjective) requires only the expressed will to protect a particular thing from theft. However, according to the second concept (subject/object), a real means of protection from theft (causing relative difficulties in overcoming them) should also exist. The rejection of the theory of the use of substantial physical force as a prerequisite for burglary, which should be considered archaic, does not necessarily imply opting for the subjective approach. Therefore, it is possible to qualify an act of opening a lock with a forged or original (unlawfully acquired) key as theft, and not to qualify as such an act of overcoming merely symbolic safeguards (such as a seal or slider in a tent).

5

Konstytucyjny standard określoności w aspekcie przestępstwa kradzieży z włamaniem

72%

Maleszyk A.

Przegląd Prawa Konstytucyjnego

|

2022

|

issue 5(69)

353-365

PL

Opracowanie dotyczy analizy art. 279 kodeksu karnego (przestępstwo kradzieży z włamaniem) z punktu widzenia konstytucyjnych standardów określoności prawa karnego wynikających z art. 42 ust. 1 Konstytucji RP. Analizie poddano w szczególności orzecznictwo Sądu Najwyższego, w którym przedmiotem interpretacji był art. 279 k.k. W orzecznictwie uwzględniono postęp techniczny i technologiczny, który ma znaczenie zwłaszcza dla wykładni pojęcia „włamanie”. Wykorzystano również definicje słownikowe tego pojęcia. Przeprowadzono ponadto interpretację zasady nullum crimen sine lege certa w świetle orzecznictwa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego. Na tym tle sformułowano konkluzję, że art. 279 k.k. nie narusza Konstytucji, a jego stosowanie – przy wykorzystaniu dynamicznej metody wykładni prawa – nie nasuwa zastrzeżeń. Przepis ten w odpowiedni sposób chroni dobra prawne, a jego treść umożliwia zrekonstruowanie znamion czynu zabronionego w sposób przewidywalny.

EN

The study relates to the analysis of Art. 279 of the Penal Code (theft with burglary) from the point of view of constitutional standards of clarity of criminal law (Art. 42 sec. 1 of the Constitution). The analysis concerns the case law of the Supreme Court. The jurisprudence takes into account technical and technological progress which is important for the interpretation of the notion “burglary”. Dictionary definitions of this notion were also used. Moreover, the principle of nullum crimen sine lege certa was interpreted in the light of the Constitutional Tribunal’s jurisprudence. Against this background, it was concluded that Art. 279 of the Penal Code does not infringe the Constitution and its application – with the use of a dynamic method of interpretation – does not raise any objections. This provision adequately protects legal goods and its content allows for the predictable reconstruction of the features of a prohibited act.

6

Analiza przestępczości wielokrotnych recydywistów

51%

Szelhaus S.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

1969

|

issue IV

11-58

EN

1. The first part of the paper deals with the data from criminal records, pertaining to the delinquency of all thb 440 prisoners recidivists who within a two-year period entered the Warsaw Central Prison and who corresponded to the previously mentioned criteria. 42% out of the total of these recidivists were aged between 26 and 30, 58% - between 31 and 35, their average age being about 31. Two-thirds lived in the Greater Warsaw area, 15% in small towns and settlements on the outskirts of Warsaw and 7% in nearby villages. The average number of convictions after 17, amounted to 6,7 in regard to 440 recidivists. 40% were convicted 4-5 times, 35 - 6-7 times, 25% - 8 times and more. As far as their stay in prison is concerned it can be stated, that 26%, of the recidivists stayed in prison only four times,44% - 5-6 times and 21% - 7 times and more. Investigating the age of recidivists at which they were first brought to courts after 17, it was established that 20% were first tried at the age of 17, 18% at 18 and 29% between 19 and 20. Only 33%, of recidivists were first convicted when they were 21 or older. The beginning of delinquency with respect to persistent recidivists was however much earlier; results of detailed investigations relating to 220 out of those 440 recidivists revealed a considerable percentage of subjects commiting thefts when they were not older than 17 (these data are quoted below together with the results of investigations on the 220 recidivists). Taking into account all the offences for which 440 recidivists were convicted and for the perpetration of which they were suspected (if they were remanded in custody awaiting trial), it can be asserted that 59%, out of 3,862 were offences against property of which thefts amount to as many as 75,6%. Offences against person constitute 15% ot the total of offences. Most of them did not involve any serious consequences for the victim, - minor assaults constituting 43%, light bodily injury 24%, maltreating his wife and children by an alcoholic recidivist - 17%. Assaults on public officers (nearly always committed in state of inebriety) constitute 12% of all the offences. Out of 3,862 offences only 201 (5%) may be classified as serious acts of aggression, 148 of which were robberies. Although 150 (34%) recidivists committed these 201 serious acts of aggression, the overwhelming majority were convicted only once for the perpetration of that type of offence. Only 41 recidivists (9%) committed two or more offences connected with aggression; out of those 41 offenders 23 were convicted for the perpetration of robberies. The 440 recidivists were divided into categories taking into account the kind of offences they committed; it appeared, that two-thirds of the recidivists were convicted for the perpetration of different offences. Only 24% were convicted for the perpetration of offences against property exclusively and only with 28% such offences distinctly outweighed any other offences. A category of recidivists (9%) convicted several times for offences against person exclusively and for insulting or attacking public officers (mostly policemen) is also worthy to be mentioned as well as such recidivists (16%) with whom these offences connected with aggression distinctly outweighed any other offences. By comparing the length of time during which, since they were 17, the persistent recidivists stayed in prison with that during which they were at liberty it has been established that about 30% of them stayed longer in prison than at liberty; nevertheless, about 32% stayed at liberty for at least three-fourths of the entire period after they were 17. The rate of recidivism is reflected in the data relating to the average stay at liberty of 440 recidivists. Almost half of them (46%) stayed at liberty for a relatively short time - less than a year - (with 13% it did not exceed 6 months). In 40% of cases the average stay at liberty lasted from one year at least to less than two years and only with 14% it lasted at least two years. Worthy of mentioning are also the following data on the longest stays at liberty, indicating that the rate of recidivism was formed in different ways. Only 12,5% of recidivists did not stay longer at liberty, between arrests, than 1 year while 23% stayed at liberty for 3-5 years at least once in their lifetime, counting from their release from prison until the new arrest. 10% stayed at least once at liberty for as long as 5 years. 2. The above data on delinquency of 440 recidivists, based exclusively on the information contained in registers, will be now completed by essential, additional data from judicial records, obtained during detailed investigations on 220 out of the 440 recidivists. In the beginning however, it is necessary to give the results of investigations concerning the origins of delinquency of recidivists when they were under 17. These results are based on data revealed in Juvenile Courts and on information received from the recidivists themselves and from their mothers. If only such cases are taken into account on which objective information could have been obtained from Juvenile Courts (136), it appears, that 63% of recidivists were found guilty by the courts already under 17 or else confessed to repeated perpetration of thefts for which they had not been tried. On the other hand, basing on the incomplete data on all the 220 recidivists it was ascertained that at least 57% committed offences (thefts) as juveniles, 37% were found guilty by the courts and 20% committed unrevealed thefts. The delinquency of 25% of recidivists began already under 13 (this percentage is in fact undoubtedly higher). Thus, the results obtained from investigations on persistent recidivists aged between 26 and 35 correspond to the results of previous investigations carried out on recidivists under 26, most of whom began committing offences also at the time of their juvenility On the basis of judicial records one may characterize the type of offences and the manner of committing them by the investigated 220 recidivists, after their 17th year. As far as thefts are concerned the percentage of burglaries amounts to 40% while burglaries into shops and stores do not exceed 25% and into houses 23%. Among thefts perpetrated without burglaries a fair number constitute thefts committed in private houses, petty thefts in places of work and stealing from drunkards. Pocket thefts are only 5%. The value of stolen property did not exceed 500 zł in 3% of the thefts and 2,000 zł in 61% of cases. Losses exceeding 10,000 zł were stated only in 10% of the total of thefts according to the material under investigation. It should be emphasized that the analysis of judicial records and investigations of recidivists have shown that a large majority of them commit various types of thefts and cannot be classified as thieves with a definite specialization. Even among recidivists who committed several burglaries only 5 could be classified as offenders committing a definite type of theft. The number of recidivists convicted for three or more burglaries is after all very small as it amounts to 29 (scarcely 16% out of the total of the investigated recidivists). Investigating robberies committed by the recidivists it was first of all ascertained that only 23% were committed by sober offenders (besides, the victim was sober only in 45% of cases). 65% of robberies were committed in the streets (or in parks). Only 21% of robberies were planned and carefully prepared (robberies in houses of well-off persons). 32% constitute robberies in the streets, parks etc. on persons unknown to the offender. Victims of the remaining robberies were persons with whom offenders were drinking alcohol before (the victims were often previously convicted). It should be mentioned that 80% of victims did not sustain any bodily harm whatever. Examining offences against person, committed by the investigated recidivists (90% of which constitute offences of no serious consequences to the victims) it can be asserted that almost all offenders acted under the influence of alcohol and that nearly half of the offences (46%) were committed by two persons at least. Regarding motives of those offences, there were no motives at all in 35% of cases; hitting a passer-by in the street or beating him up was done by an inebriate offender for no reason. There were some insignificant reasons in the remaining cases but the reaction of the inebriate offender was distinctly inadequate to the circumstances of the incident. Similarly, insulting or attacking the policemen was perpetrated by inebriate recidivists only. For the most part (47%) these offences were connected with arrests of the recidivists for some misdemeanours (i.e. drunkenness, disorderly behaviour), rarely for committing an offence (30%). In 23% of cases assaults on policemen were connected with establishing the identity of an inebriate recidivist in the street. Already the analysis of the material contained in judicial records testifies to the fact that frequent alćoholization plays an important part in the etiology of the recidivism and that individłals abusing systematically of alcohol appear in large numbers among the recidivists. 3. An attempt to isolate definite categories of offenders from among 220 of investigated recidivists gave the following results: A. 70% out of the total number of recidivists constitute those recidivists, whose offences against property (thefts as a rule) outweigh considerably any other offences they ever committed. B. 29% of them constitute such recidivists who either did not commit any offences against property at all or committed them only exceptionally. The first category of recidivists (A) comprising 152 prisoners could be divided into two separate groups of recidivists: A1 - a group of recidivists (93) who could be defined as professional offenders, since their chief or only source of maintenance were gains from offences, and A2 - a group of recidivists (59) who perpetrating almost exclusively offences against property, nevertheless have also other sources of stable income. Group A1 - could be divided into two sub-groups (of a similar number of men) consisting of recidivists who commit serious thefts (and robberies) and recidivists who commit only petty thefts as a rule. Recidivist from both sub-groups classified as professional offenders, began committing offences as a rule already in their juvenility (over 80%). As many as 59% abused of alcohol in large quantities already under 21. The percentage of alcohol addicts amounts to 42% in the first sub-group. and up to 69%, in the second. The highest percentage of recidivists (75%) who spent the larger part of their life in prison, appeals among recidivists classified as professional offenders perpetrating serious offences. They are characterized by a more rapid recidivism as compared with other groups of recidivists since their average stay at liberty between subsequent arrests did not exceed six months in 41% of cases and in 85% of cases lasted less than a year. Already these data testify to the fact that although these recidivists were classified as professional offenders since as a rule they had no other sources of maintenance than gains from offences they committed, they nevertheless differ substantially from genuine professional offenders, who usually stay at liberty for long periods of time. Besides, they differ substantially from genuine professional offenders also in that that there are no such recidivists among them (with a few exceptions) who would possess a definite specialization in stealing and would perpetrate a definite sort of theft (pocket thefts, burglaries etc.). Although this sub-group of recidivists were isolated because of the serious thefts they had perpetrated, nevertheless a majority of the thefts did not cause any considerable losses. The second sub-group of recidivists, also defined by the term of professional offenders, in even smaller degree resembles the type of a genuine, professional offender. There is not even one recidivist among them who would commit thefts of a definite type; they commit petty thefts as a rule and some of them live on gambling, illegal trade or fencing. In contrast to the recidivists of the first subgroup (professional offenders committing serious thefts), the recidivists committing petty offences against property stayed at liberty for a much longer time - only 36% stayed in prison for more than half the period of time which elapsed since they were 17. The rate of their recidivism is much slower as only in one-fourth of cases the average stay at liberty between subsequent arrests did not exceed 6 months (in the former group as many as 41%). Finally it should be mentioned that recidivists classified as professional offenders (from both sub-groups) committed, besides the offences against property, also offences against person and police when under the influence of alcohol. Offences against property amount to 75/" of the total of perpetrated offences in the first sub-group, while in the second they amount only to 59% The A2 recidivists committing offences against property, which does not constitute their main source of maintenance, do not form a uniform population of offenders. There are recidivists among thęm who work more or lęss systematically and who committed thefts not connected with the abuse of alcohol, as well as recidivists (and they constitute a majority among the A2 recidivists) who commit petty thefts connected with their alcoholism (the percentage of alcohol addicts in this group is the highest and amounts to 80%). With regard to these recidivists the beginning of their abuse of alcohol preceded the beginning of perpetration of offences and a considerable percentage of thefts is committed in state of inebriety. 56% ot these recidivists began abusing of alcohol already under 17. An altogether separate category of recidivists constitute offenders isolated as recidivists B (29% of the total of investigated recidivists) who committed offences mostly with the use of aggression (against total strangers as a rule), qualified as hooligan offences. Thefts, which they commit very rarely, constitute rather a secondary or even episodical phenomenon in their life, and are usually perpetrated occasionally, without any definite plans. The category of recidivists B now under consideration, contains a small (23) group of recidivists who committed several thefts (3,3 per person); almost all (83%) began committing offences and abusing of alcohol as juveniles (81% of them abused of alcohol already under 19). In general, their way of life could be defined as parasitic. The percentage of alcohol addicts amounts tp to 73%. Other recidivists belonging to the same category of offenders persistently committing aggressive offences (qualified as hooligan offences), against person or police, perpetrated almost exclusively offences of that sort (the average number of thefts per person amounting only to 1,5). They began committing offences much later (hardly 19% committed them as juveniles), and as many as 50% were first tried at 21 or later. The percentage of alcohol addicts amounts in this category to 50%. Almost all of them began abusing of alcohol early, only 32% started at 19 or later. This group contains recidivists with the smallest number of convictions - half of them were convicted only 4 - 5 times. Some 60% worked rather systematically. In this way, persistent recidivists constitute a vęry varied population of offenders. Recidivists committing exclusively offences against property do not exceed 27%. It is also significant that as many as 25 recidivists, committing thefts exclusively, can be found in 4 different groups of recidivists. A typical occurrence is the perpetration, under the influence of alcohol, of offences against person, not involving any serious consequences for the injured. Similarly, very significant is the fact that among the investigated persistent recidivists there are virtually no representatives of the type of a genuine, professional offender; most offences against property involved only trifle losses. Considering the intensity and rapidity of thę recidivism one is confronted with following questions: why penalties inflicted on the persistent offenders have proved ineffective; did recidivism occur as rapidly after short penalties as after the long ones; was long imprisonment inflicted on thęm also at the beginning of their delinquency, etc. This work could not dwęll at length on the above problems. We may merely content ourselves with quoting the following essential results of investigations concerning penalties inflicted on 400 recidivists. An analysis of their stays at liberty after they had served all the sentences which amounted up to 6 months, from 7 to 11 months, from 1 year to less than 2 years, from 2 years to less than 3 years and from 3 years upwards - revealed, that a long prison term of at least 3 years has not proved more effective than a short one up to 6 months. Moreover, it appeared that long prison terms are followed by shorter, on the average, stays at liberty than the short ones. Even in case whęn high penaities involving 2-3 year imprisonment were inflicted at the first, the second or the third trial, results were not any better than in case of short-term penalties. The analysis of penalties inflicted on 44 recidivists, classified as professional offenders committing serious offences against property, revealed, that although nearly half of them were sentenced, at least once, to 5 years or more, the rate of their recidivism did not prove less rapid than after much shorter prison terms. It should be recalled, that only 25% of these recidivists stayed longer at liberty than in prison after they were aged 17. Thus, the results of investigations confirm the experience of many other countries indicating, that with regard to those recidivists who were seriously maladjusted and anti-social since their juvenility, mere imprisonment which is usually resorted to, irrespective of its length, has proved as a rule disappointing.

Refine search results

2 Archiwum Kryminologii

1 Acta Iuris Stetinensis

1 International Journal of Legal Studies (IJOLS)

1 Lud

1 Przegląd Prawa Konstytucyjnego

1 2022

1 2019

1 2018

1 2017

1 1998

1 1969

1 Görgenyi I.

1 Janik D.

1 Krzyworzeka A.

1 Maleszyk A.

1 Mawby R. J.

1 Ostrihanska Z.

1 Szelhaus S.

1 Tyburcy T.