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

Results found: 13

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  life imprisonment
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The article is devoted to the consequences of the subsequent amendment of the Penal Code of 13 June 2019 for regulations in the Executive Penal Code. The author analyzes the adequacy of the purpose of executing the penalty of deprivation of liberty, as set out in Art. 67(1) of the Penal Code to the life sentence imprisonment introduced by the amendment without conditional early release from prison, as well as to raise the upper limit of the so-called ordinary imprisonment up to 30 years. In his view, the text of this provision should be changed. Its maintenance will deepen the already great legal chaos. However, the problem discussed in the article is how to change it, and whether it is possible to replace it with any other meaningful content after this amendment. In the end, the author concludes that social rehabilitation as the goal of penitentiary interactions after amendment will eventually become a dead concept.
EN
Paper discusses the project „Prisoners extremely long-term sentenced - the right to a second chance” conducted at the Institute of Social Prevention and Resocialization of the University of Warsaw in 2014–2016. The program was targeted at prisoners who were sentenced for 25 years in prison or life imprisonment. On the other hand, it was also aimed at students. They took part in prison workshops organized by the authors of the project. In this way, students had the opportunity to get to know the prison institution and work with prisoners. The implementation of the project clearly showed that cooperation between the academic environment and the Prison Service is not only possible but also very important.
EN
This article introduces the Hungarian Presidential pardon and new compulsory Presidential pardon system. It is based on research carried out in the Ministry of Justice at the Pardon Department, where several dozen petition pardons were analysed. In connection with the compulsory Presidential pardon the article examines the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, which has condemned Hungary for its adoption of real (whole) life imprisonment. Results from a study of petitions for pardon are given.
4
88%
The Lawyer Quarterly
|
2016
|
vol. 6
|
issue 3
181-188
EN
This article introduces the Hungarian Presidential pardon and new compulsory Presidential pardon system. It is based on research carried out in the Ministry of Justice at the Pardon Department, where several dozen petition pardons were analyzed. In connection with the compulsory presidential pardon the article examines the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, which has condemned Hungary for its adoption of real (whole) life imprisonment. Results from a study of petitions for pardon are given.
EN
This article focuses on the dilemmas of working in prisons with people serving the two most severe sentences, viz. 25 years imprisonment and life imprisonment. The author examines this from two angles. The first concerns the doctrinal and theoretical controversies surrounding the aims and purposes of serving long sentences. The author reviews the most prominent viewpoints in this area while pointing out the associated problems and dilemmas. The second is an attempt to relate the theoretical controversies surrounding the aims and purposes of the long prison sentences to the realities of prison practice, based as it is on three uniform systems of executing prison sentences, viz. standard (1 month to 15 years), 25 years and life. The author reports the results of his empirical research in this area. The author devotes special attention to the dilemmas that arise when a prisoner serving a very long sentence participates in a program of planned activities, some of which are ethical in nature. He keeps this in mind when attempting to evaluate prison practice. The fundamental question he poses should prompt a debate on the adequacy of this use of the rehabilitation model of executing a prison sentence and its consistency with the aims and purposes of this type of punishment, generally considered to be the best and most versatile. The author takes up the debate and examines the essence and the arguments of the controversy surrounding the purposes of long prison sentences. He considers which of the aims and purposes that appear in the prison literature are suitable for use in executing these sentences. The author consequently questions the purpose and moral acceptability of correctional activities. He points out that the main purpose of long sentences is to remove prisoners from society, which is difficult to reconcile with their corrective and rehabilitative functions. This illustrates the ethical ambiguity of correctional measures. The author later discusses the results of his own empirical studies, undertaken from this theoretical perspective. These focused on the following: 1. working with prisoners serving very long sentences in practice, and in particular, the sentencing regimen to which they are subjected; 2. the tasks and goals that prison staff set themselves in this connection; 3. whether and to what extent the designated ethical dilemmas are recognised in day-to-day prison work. This study comprised a diagnostic survey (a questionnaire and structured interviews), indirect observation (examining prison documents e.g. the personal files of prisoners serving very long sentences, prison work programs, prison regulations etc.). The questionnaire was completed by 71 prisoners serving the most severe sentences, including 15 life prisoners. Sixty two questionnaires were suitable for compilation. More than 5 interviews were conducted with life prisoners and 11 were conducted with prisoners serving 25-year sentences.
EN
Paper discusses the project „Prisoners extremely long-term sentenced - the right to a second chance” conducted at the Institute of Social Prevention and Resocialization of the University of Warsaw in 2014–2016. The program was targeted at prisoners who were sentenced for 25 years in prison or life imprisonment. On the other hand, it was also aimed at students. They took part in prison workshops organized by the authors of the project. In this way, students had the opportunity to get to know the prison institution and work with prisoners. The implementation of the project clearly showed that cooperation between the academic environment and the Prison Service is not only possible but also very important.
PL
Artykuł prezentuje projekt „Więźniowie skrajnie długoterminowi – prawo do drugiej szansy”, który został zrealizowany przy udziale studentów i absolwentów Instytutu Profilaktyki Społecznej i Resocjalizacji Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego w latach 2014–2016. Projekt był skierowany do więźniów prawomocnie skazanych na karę dożywotniego pozbawienia wolności oraz skazanych na karę 25 lat pozbawienia wolności. Jest to grupa skazanych, dla której oferta Służby Więziennej jest ograniczona. Praca z nimi stanowi pole do podejmowania inicjatyw ze strony osób spoza zakładów karnych. Adresatami projektu byli ponadto studenci IPSiR UW. Udział w projekcie miał im stworzyć możliwość pracy z więźniami oraz wykorzystania wiedzy uzyskanej podczas wykładów i ćwiczeń w praktyce. Projekt składał się z trzech części: fakultetu „Więźniowie dożywotni - prawo do drugiej szansy” realizowanego ze studentami, cyklicznych warsztatów w zakładach karnych oraz pracy korespondencyjnej prowadzonej ze skazanymi uczestniczącymi w programie. Realizacja projektu pokazała wyraźnie, że współpraca między środowiskiem akademickim a Służbą Więzienną nie tylko jest możliwa, ale też bardzo potrzebna. Paper discusses the project „Prisoners extremely long-term sentenced - the right to a second chance” conducted at the Institute of Social Prevention and Resocialization of the University of Warsaw in 2014–2016. The program was targeted at prisoners who were sentenced for 25 years in prison or life imprisonment. On the other hand, it was also aimed at students. They took part in prison workshops organized by the authors of the project. In this way, students had the opportunity to get to know the prison institution and work with prisoners. The implementation of the project clearly showed that cooperation between the academic environment and the Prison Service is not only possible but also very important.
PL
W glosie autor krytycznie odnosi się do uzasadnienia wyroku Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 6 listopada 2012 r. (sygn. V KK 139/12). Sąd zmienił zaskarżony wyrok dożywotniego pozbawienia wolności poprzez wyznaczenie surowszego ograniczenia do skorzystania z warunkowego zwolnienia (dopiero po odbyciu 40 lat pozbawienia wolności). Zdaniem autora takie rozstrzygnięcie narusza regułę ne peius. Sąd błędnie zinterpretował art. 454 § 3 Kodeksu postępowania karnego poprzestając jedynie na jego językowej wykładni, bez odniesienia się do wartości leżących u jego podstaw.
EN
In this commentary the author criticizes the justification of the judgment of the Supreme Court of 6 November 2012 (ref. V KK 139/12). The Court changed the contested judgment of life imprisonment by imposing stricter restriction to be released on parole (after completing 40 years of imprisonment). According to the author such conclusion violates ne peius rule. The Court misinterpreted art. 454 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by limiting himself only to the linguistic interpretation, without reference to its underlying values.
|
2023
|
vol. 17
|
issue 4 ENG
91-107
PL
The Act of 7 July 2022, amending the Act – Criminal Code and certain other acts, introduced the possibility of imposing a sentence of life imprisonment without parole into the Criminal Code. The legislator provided for two grounds for the optional imposition of an irreducible life imprisonment sentence. The first (Article 77 § 3 of the Criminal Code) is based on formal grounds: a previous conviction for a specific type of crime (against life and health, freedom, sexual freedom, public security, or of a terrorist nature) to life imprisonment or imprisonment for a term of not less than 20 years. The second ground (Article 77 § 4 of the Criminal Code) operates on a substantive condition: the nature and circumstances of the act and the personal characteristics of the perpetrator indicate that the perpetrator’s remaining at liberty would pose a permanent danger to the life, health, freedom, or sexual freedom of others. This article posits that the provisions of Article 77 § 3 and 4 of the Criminal Code are incompatible with Article 3 of the ECHR, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. As a result of the introduction of this type of punishment in Polish law, we may unfortunately realistically expect other states to refuse to hand over individuals prosecuted for crimes punishable by such punishment or those already sentenced to such punishment.
EN
The article discusses the changes introduced to the Penal Code and the Executive Penal Code by the Act of 7 July 2022 within the scope of the institution of conditional release. The subject of this article are the regulations connected with formal conditions of adjudicating this measure, its appeal, the probation period as well as executory aspects concerning another petition for conditional release and placing a condemned person under supervision. The publication includes historical references as well as solutions for the future, in the legislative and organizational dimension for further development of this institution.
PL
Artykuł omawia zmiany wprowadzone do Kodeksu karnego i Kodeksu karnego wykonawczego ustawą z dnia 7 lipca 2022 r. w zakresie instytucji warunkowego zwolnienia. Przedmiotem artykułu są regulacje związane z przesłankami formalnymi orzekania tego środka, jego odwołania, okresem próby, jak również aspekty wykonawcze dotyczące ponownego wniosku o warunkowe zwolnienie i objęcia skazanego dozorem. W publikacji przedstawiono wątki historyczne, a także rozwiązania na przyszłość, w wymiarze legislacyjnym i organizacyjnym dla dalszego rozwoju tej instytucji.
PL
Artykuł ukazuje karę dożywotniego pozbawienia wolności w polskim systemie prawnym z uwagi na fakt, iż jest ona integralną składową dyskusji dotyczącej polityki kryminalnej, sprawiedliwościowego bądź też nie jej charakteru. Tak jak pozostałe kary długoterminowe niesie za sobą wiele problemów teoretycznych jak i praktycznych, co w artykule starano się zaznaczyć, m.in. poprzez przedstawienie historyczne, kształtowanie się umiejscowienia tej kary w obecnie obowiązującym kodeksie karnym czy też ukazanie wyników przeprowadzanych badań.
EN
The paper presents the punishment of life imprisonment in the Polish legal system as an integral component of the discussion on criminal policy. Just like other long-term penalties, it entails many problems of theoretical and practical nature, as the paper attempts to highlight by presenting historical development of this penalty, discussing its place in the current penal code or showing the results of research.
PL
In the article we analysed how the introduction and application of life imprisonment in the period of transformation has impacted the development of the penitentiary system to date. We answered how and why the legislature eliminated the death penalty from the catalogue of penalties in the Polish Penal Code of 1997, and replaced it with life imprisonment. We took into account the statistics on life sentences passed in Poland. We present the evolution of the prison system, which for a quarter of a century had to cope with this difcult category of prisoners by fnding new legal solutions and applying international standards. We also discussed some conclusions of the scholarly study ‘Te best of the worst and the still evil: Prisoners serving life sentences’, which has been conducted since 2014 by our research team. Te study focuses on the management and application of this extreme punishment in Poland, the adaptation of prisoners with life sentences to the isolation and social dimension of imprisonment.   W artykule przeanalizowałyśmy wpływ wprowadzenia i wykonywania kary dożywotniego pozbawienia wolności w okresie transformacji na dotychczasowy rozwój systemu penitencjarnego. Przedstawiłyśmy to, jak i dlaczego ustawodawca usunął karę śmierci z katalogu kar w polskim kodeksie karnym z 1997 r. i zastąpił ją dożywotnim więzieniem. Przedstawiłyśmy analizę statystyki orzekania kary dożywotniego pozbawienia wolności w Polsce od daty jej wprowadzenia. Zaprezentowałyśmy ewolucję systemu więziennictwa, który przez ćwierć wieku musiał poradzić sobie z tą trudną kategorią skazanych poprzez sięganie po nowe rozwiązania prawne i standardy międzynarodowe. Omówiłyśmy także niektóre wnioski z badań naukowych „Najlepsi z najgorszych i źli stale. Więźniowie dożywotni” – prowadzonych od 2014 r. przez nasz zespół badawczy. Badania koncentrują się na zarządzaniu i wykonywaniu tej ekstremalnej kary w Polsce, przystosowaniu więźniów do izolacji i społecznym wymiarze więzienia.
EN
In the article we analysed how the introduction and application of life imprisonment in the period of transformation has impacted the development of the penitentiary system to date. We answered how and why the legislature eliminated the death penalty from the catalogue of penalties in the Polish Penal Code of 1997, and replaced it with life imprisonment. We took into account the statistics on life sentences passed in Poland. We present the evolution of the prison system, which for a quarter of a century had to cope with this difcult category of prisoners by fnding new legal solutions and applying international standards. We also discussed some conclusions of the scholarly study ‘Te best of the worst and the still evil: Prisoners serving life sentences’, which has been conducted since 2014 by our research team. Te study focuses on the management and application of this extreme punishment in Poland, the adaptation of prisoners with life sentences to the isolation and social dimension of imprisonment.
|
2023
|
vol. 17
|
issue 4
95-111
EN
The Act of 7 July 2022 amending the Act – Criminal Code and certain other acts introduced into the Criminal Code the possibility of imposing a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. The legislator provided for two grounds for the optional imposition of an irreducible life imprisonment sentence. The first of them (Article 77 § 3 of the Criminal Code) is based on formal grounds: previous conviction for a specific type of crime (against life and health, freedom, sexual freedom, public security or of a terrorist nature) to life imprisonment or imprisonment for a term of not less than 20 years. The second ground (Article 77 § 4 of the Criminal Code) operates on a substantive condition: that the nature and circumstances of the act and the personal characteristics of the perpetrator indicate that the perpetrator’s remaining at liberty will cause a permanent danger to the life, health, freedom or sexual freedom of others. The thesis of this article is that the provisions of Article 77 § 3 and 4 of the Criminal Code are incompatible with Article 3 of the ECHR, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and that, as a result of the introduction of this type of punishment in Polish law, we may unfortunately realistically expect the refusal of other states to hand over those prosecuted for crimes punishable by such punishment or sentenced to such punishment.
PL
Ustawa z dnia 7 lipca 2022 r. o zmianie ustawy – Kodeks karny oraz niektórych innych ustaw wprowadziła do Kodeksu karnego możliwość wymierzenia kary dożywotniego pozbawienia wolności z zakazem ubiegania się o warunkowe przedterminowe zwolnienie. Ustawodawca przewidział dwie podstawy do fakultatywnego orzeczenia kary nieredukowalnego dożywotniego pozbawienia wolności. Pierwsza z nich (art. 77 § 3 k.k.) opiera się na przesłankach formalnych, tj. uprzednim skazaniu za określony rodzaj przestępstwa (przeciwko życiu i zdrowiu, wolności, wolności seksualnej, bezpieczeństwu powszechnemu lub o charakterze terrorystycznym) na karę dożywotniego pozbawienia wolności lub karę pozbawienia wolności na czas nie krótszy niż 20 lat. Natomiast druga podstawa (art. 77 § 4 k.k.) operuje warunkiem materialnym, tj. stwierdzeniem, że charakter i okoliczności czynu oraz właściwości osobiste sprawcy wskazują, iż pozostawanie sprawcy na wolności spowoduje trwałe niebezpieczeństwo dla życia, zdrowia, wolności lub wolności seksualnej innych osób. Tezą niniejszego artykułu jest, że w wyniku wprowadzenia przepisów art. 77 § 3 i 4 k.k. możemy, niestety, realnie spodziewać się odmów wydawania przez inne państwa ściganych za przestępstwa zagrożone taką karą albo skazanych na takie kary.
|
2023
|
vol. 33
|
issue 2
123-152
EN
The Act of 7 July 2022 amending the Act – Criminal Code and certain other acts introduced into the Criminal Code the possibility for the court to impose the sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole (Article 77 § 3 and 4 of the Criminal Code), which constitutes a novelty in Polish criminal law and is widely criticised by the legal community. The legislator has provided two grounds for the optional imposition of life imprisonment without possibility of parole. The article discusses Article 77 § 3 of the Criminal Code is based on formal grounds: a previous final conviction for a specific type of crime (against life and health, freedom, sexual liberty, public security or of a terrorist nature) for life imprisonment or imprisonment for a period of not less than 20 years. It introduces a new form of juridical (legal, special) one-time recidivism. Fulfilment of its prerequisites, however, does not tighten the limits of life imprisonment, but the possibility of imposing it with the prohibition of conditional release.
PL
Ustawa z dnia 7 lipca 2022 r. o zmianie ustawy – Kodeks karny oraz niektórych innych ustaw wprowadziła do Kodeksu karnego możliwość wymierzenia przez sąd kary nieredukowalnego dożywotniego pozbawienia wolności, czyli z zakazem warunkowego przedterminowego zwolnienia (art. 77 § 3 i 4 k.k.), co stanowi novum w polskim prawie karnym i jest powszechnie krytykowane przez środowisko prawnicze. Ustawodawca przewidział dwie podstawy do fakultatywnego orzeczenia kary nieredukowalnego dożywotniego pozbawienia wolności. Artykuł omawia art. 77 § 3 k.k., który opiera się na przesłankach formalnych, tj. uprzednim prawomocnym skazaniu za określony rodzaj przestępstwa (przeciwko życiu i zdrowiu, wolności, wolności seksualnej, bezpieczeństwu powszechnemu lub o charakterze terrorystycznym) na karę dożywotniego pozbawienia wolności lub karę pozbawienia wolności na czas nie krótszy niż 20 lat. Wprowadza nową postać recydywy jurydycznej (prawnej, specjalnej) jednokrotnej. Spełnienie jej przesłanek nie powoduje jednak obostrzenia granic kary dożywotniego pozbawienia wolności, lecz możliwość wymierzenia jej z zakazem warunkowego zwolnienia.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.