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

Results found: 9

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  nieletni przestępcy
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Wkład Aleksandra Mogilnickiego (1875–1956) w narodziny pedagogiki resocjalizacyjnej

100%
Kamińska J.
Wychowanie w Rodzinie
|
2022
|
vol. XXVI
|
issue (1/2022)
259-267
EN
Introduction. Pedagogy at the turn of the 19th century was preoccupied with the problem of how to care for neglected, and even delinquent, children. Many groups, including psychologists, doctors, sociologists, and lawyers, have voiced their opinions about how these children should be resocialised. One of the lawyers dealing with the topic was Aleksander Mogilnicki (1875-1956), who gave numerous presentations about possible care strategies for young delinquents. He also co-founded the International Organization for the Protection of Children (Association international pour la protection de l’enfance). Aim. This publication shows Mogilnicki’s approach to childcare. Materials and methods. The main texts analysed are his works: Dziecko i przestępstwo [Child and Crime] (1916), and Dziecko wobec prawa [Child and the Law] (1921), in which he showcased the contemporary legal situation and resocialization possibilities. Results. Aleksander Mogilnicki is one of the pioneers of rehabilitation pedagogy. He pointed out the role of the family in upbringing, as well as legal solutions and the tasks of educators with regard to criminal children.
PL
Wprowadzenie. Istotnym zagadnieniem pedagogiki na przełomie XIX i XX wieku był problem opieki nad dzieckiem zaniedbanym, w tym także przestępczym. W dyskusji na temat skutecznej resocjalizacji tych dzieci wypowiadali się przedstawiciele różnych dziedzin: psychologowie, lekarze, socjologowie, prawnicy. Jednym z prawników był Aleksander Mogilnicki (1875–1956), który podczas licznych wystąpień przedstawiał możliwości opieki nad nieletnimi przestępcami. Był on współtwórcą międzynarodowej organizacji służącej ochronie dzieci (Association international pour la protection de l’enfance). Cel. Niniejszy tekst ukazuje stanowisko A. Mogilnickiego na temat opieki nad dzieckiem. Materiały i metody. Głównymi źródłami są prace A. Mogilnickiego: Dziecko i przestępstwo (1916) i Dziecko wobec prawa (1921), w których autor przedstawił ówczesny stan prawny i możliwości resocjalizacyjne. Wyniki. Ten wybitny prawnik należy do prekursorów pedagogiki resocjalizacyjnej. Wskazał na rolę rodziny w wychowaniu, a także na rozwiązania prawne i zadania pedagogów wobec dzieci przestępczych.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Opieka nad dzieckiem przestępczym na ziemiach polskich w XIX wieku

100%
Szewczyk I.
Roczniki Nauk Społecznych
|
2005
|
vol. 33
|
issue 2
85-102
EN
Poland was under difficult circumstances in the 19th century. Both the legal procedure and care on juvenile delinquents was formed differently, irrespective of a tendency in the partitioner. The pace of foreign laws and first specialist institutions for juvenile delinquents in the three partitions was different and depended strictly on the partitioners' decisions. It was in the Polish Kingdom that the initiative to set up corrective centres was the fastest and most numerous. Following a charitable initiative three institutions were established and functioned there (the Mokotów Institute of Moral Improvement of Children, Agricultural-Craft ... in Studzień, and the School of Labour in Struga). In the Prussian and Austrian partitions the initiative to establish institutes for juvenile delinquents belonged to the state. In the Prussian partition there were two corrective centres: in Chojnice and Szubina, whereas in the Austrian partition the first institute started as late as the 20th century. All the above institutes did not play any important role in fighting delinquency because the number of places they offered were insufficient. Nevertheless they initiated of organised work with juvenile delinquents in the 20th century.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Rozmiary recydywy u nieletnich podsądnych sprawców kradzieży

94%
Strzembosz A.
Archiwum Kryminologii
|
1974
|
issue VI
140-155
EN
  The subject of this work are the findings of studies of the follow-up period intended to establish the further fate of 343 juvenile delinquents aged 10-16, who had been guilty of theft while still under 17. In 1961 detailed, criminological research was initiated in the Juvenile Court of Praga – one of the districts of Warsaw – (records were studied, interviews undertaken in the environs, homes and schools were conducted), which embraced all the 180 juvenile delinquents between 10-16 years, living in that district, who during the course of one year had been found guilty of theft. Further a study was made of the criminal records of 178 juvenile thieves from two other districts of Warsaw, all the juvenile delinquents who had been tried for theft by courts during the period from August 1961 to May 1962 being investigated in turn. In this way was obtained a total of 358 juvenile delinquents who had been found guilty of thefts. The idea was to find out how many of them were recidivists in the follow-up period. 33% of these juvenile delinquents were under 13 and 67% were between 13 and 16 years. The division into these two groups was justified because of the different approach of the Polish penal code to minors up to the age of 13: as regards such juvenile delinquents, the court may apply educational measures only: reprimand, supervision by parents, probation and placing in an educational institution. As regards delinquents between 14 and 16, the court may also apply correctional measures – i.e. approved schools. In the present work, the author accepts as basic criterion for defining the recidivist the fact that he has faced in a Juvenile Court a new charge of theft. The category of those not considered as recidivists includes only delinquents charged once with theft. Each juvenile delinquent who has been charged (usually by the police) a second or third time with theft already figures as a recidivist with 2, 3, 4 and more appearances in court. Moreover, it was possible during the investigations, combined with detailed interviews in the homes of the delinquents, additionally to qualify as recidivists such juvenile delinquents shown to have stolen though not brought before a court. Taking into account the variety of criteria applied to recidivists, they have been divided into the following categories: (a) first of all, formal criteria were applied: considered as recidivists were those concerning whom the court had previously applied educational and correctional measures. Here, the percentage of recidivists amounted to 37.7; (b) this percentage increased to 48.6 when considered as recidivists were all those who had been charged at least twice with theft, including those concerning whom the court had not considered it relevant to apply any new measures; (c) this percentage was still higher (61.2), when listed as recidivists were all those whom the court had found guilty of at least two thefts; (d) interviews in the environment conducted as regards 180 juvenile delinquents in a single district revealed in addition that these data too were not entirely reliable in defining recidivists. Data from interviews showed that the percentage of delinquents who had committed more than one theft amounted to as much as 78.5. It was also found that, when applying the first, formal criterion recidivists among the older delinquents (46%) were far greater in numbers than among the younger (20%). The second criterion – at least two thefts – showed that the difference between older and younger delinquents as regards the percentage of recidivism among them (82.2% 73.2%) was only slight. These data indicate that the formal criterion for recidivism, used by Juvenile Courts, does not reflect the actual extent of this phenomenon. This is the more important since, the latter, broader definition, was found to be the most satisfactory for prognostic purposes. It was established that during the two-year follow-up period a substantially larger number of juvenile delinquents previously listed, according to the first formal definition, as not being recidivists (47%), faced charges than was the case with those listed according to the second definition (17.6%). Criminological investigations – combined with interviews conducted in their families – of 180 juvenile delinquents from a single district, revealed that juvenile delinquents charged with theft are as a rule socially maladjusted children, showing the first symptoms of social maladjustment even in the first grades of primary school. With 62% symptoms of demoralization were recorded with children between 7 and 10 years of age. A typical phenomenon with these juveniles is a considerable lag in their school studies, found as regards 95% of older and 76% of younger juveniles. A lag of at least two years was found with 77% of the older and 37% of the younger individuals investigated. The majority of these systematically played truant; 37% of the younger and 70% of the older juveniles had run away from home. Only as regards 33% was it not found that they consumed alcohol; 26% drank at least once a week; 25% of the recidivists were heavy drinkers. On the basis of data obtained from mothers during interviews (and for 50% of the cases also from child guidance clinics, institutions etc.) it was possible with 60% of the older investigated delinquents to establish various types of personality disorders; 26% were suspected of having suffered organic disturbances of the central nervous system; data indicating such diseases in the past were more frequently found with recidivists (37%) than with those who were not recidivists (13%). Those investigated were for the most part brought up in an unsatisfactory family environment. It was found that in 46% of the families fathers or step-fathers systematically drank alcohol to excess; delinquency of fathers was noted in 31% of the families, and in 9% the mothers were suspected of prostitution. As many as 67% of the brothers revealed symptoms of demoralization and 47% had committed theft. Recidivists differed markedly from non-recidivists as regards such negative features, characterizing the family environment as: systematic abuse of alcohol, unhappy married life of the parents, children very poorly cared for. Of all the 358 thieves investigated, a mere one-third were as juveniles (under 17) charged only once: thus they were not recidivists according to the criteria accepted in the investigation; 21% had twice faced a court; 11% – three and 34% – four or more times had been charged before a Juvenile Court. The differentiated groups of the youngest and oldest among those we investigated did not differ markedly as regards the number of appearances in court while under age. Consideration was next given to further delinquency during the period when the investigated were young adults i.e., when they were between 17 and 20. New offences were noted during that period with 50% of the former defendants who, previously had been juveniles. It also emerged that the number of charges preferred while they were under age was of essential significance for recidivism during the period when those investigated were already young adults. Among those who had been charged only once as juveniles, only 27% were afterwards convicted between the age of 17 and 20; among those charged twice – 48%; beginning with 3 charges, the percentage of later recidivists amounted to 65.8, and with 4 and more charges – to as much as 78.7%. The number of convictions while juveniles indicates a correlation not only with the actual fact of recidivism when those concerned were still young adults, but also the intensification of recidivism between 17 and 20. The majority of those who while juveniles had only one case against them, were subsequently convicted only once. But of those who while juveniles were charged at least three times, the majority (64%) had multiple convictions between 17 and 20. Typical of offences committed by those who had been charged with theft as juveniles, continued to be theft; close on half of those investigated, however – and this should be emphasized – were convicted for offences against the person, officials or the authorities, and these as a rule were offences committed while intoxicated. One-third of the subjects spent in prison at least half of the four-year period, while they were young adults. In 1972, when the last follow-up period was studied, ten years had elapsed since the beginning of the investigation of the delinquents who had committed theft while juveniles. The younger among them were at that time 20 to 23 years old; the older – 24 to 27 (the average age being about 26 years). As regards these 243 older investigated individuals, it was possible to examine not only the period when they were young adults, but also the later period, after they were already 21 years old; this later period was in their case sufficiently to make it possible properly to evaluate whether during that time they had ceased committing offences or whether they continued to do so. Further delinquency of the older among those investigated during the period after 17 until their average age was about 26, was as follows: – It emerged that only 38% had not been convicted at all after the age of 17. The overwhelming majority of them (83%) had been charged only once or twice while under age. – 17% had been convicted only between 17 and 20, while 13% had been convicted only after 21. – 32% were convicted as young adults as weil as later after the age of 21. In this group, the majority (73%) had been charged before a court at least three times as juveniles. As regards the older among those investigated for the entire follow-up period, it was confirmed that the majority showed a correlation with what happened during their juvenility: further delinquency as well as persistent recidivism was found more frequently with those who were more frequently charged as juveniles. During the entire follow-up period, 19% of the older individuals were convicted only once, l3% – twice, and 30% – at least three times. The category with multiple convictions, recidivists convicted at least four times amounted to 20%, which certainly is a substantial figure, having regard to the relatively long prison sentences passed on those convicted two and three times. It should be added that though interviews in the environment during the follow-up period were lacking, making impossible a proper evaluation of the social adjustment of those investigated who during that period had no new convictions or were convicted only once, the data obtained enable the drawing of conclusions which are important for social policy. Note that even frorn among the investigated juveniles who were charged only once before a court, as many as 42% were later convicted after 17; this points to the necessity of a thorough examination of even apparently minor cases of theft involving those under age who previously had not been convicted. The extent of persistent recidivism revealed demonstrates the poor effectiveness of methods used as far in dealing with juvenile delinquents who revealed symptoms of marked social maladjustment.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Dalsze losy 100 chłopców mających sprawy o kradzieże w wieku 10-11 lat

94%
Żabczyńska E.
Archiwum Kryminologii
|
1974
|
issue VI
128-139
EN
1. This work presents the results of follow-up studies of the subsequent fate of 100 boys who had committed theft and as 10‒11-year-olds had in 1966 become the subject of research into problems involved in offences committed in childhood ‒ and what led up to them. At that time these boys were examined at the Prophylactic Centre of the State Grzegorzewska Institute of Special Education in Warsaw. All 10‒11-year-old boys charged at the Warsaw Juvenile Court were in turn brought within the scope of the survey. During research conducted in 1966 it was found that the majority (59%) of the 10‒11-year old boys examined were not first offenders and that 11% had even appeared previously in the juvenile court for theft. As many as half of the 10‒11-year-olds were retarded as school pupils. Examination as to knowledge acquired in school revealed that their ability to write was much below the average for their age; as many as 36% were poor or very poor readers. The teachers designated 80% of the boys examined as difficult pupils; approximately half of them ‒ as distinctly over-excitable and aggressive. Not less than 75% played truant, 29% stole in school. 28% of  the boys investigated ran away from home. Having regard to the boys’ age, of significance is the relatively high percentage of them (24%) who were found to drink from time to time wine and even vodka. An intelligence test (WISC) revealed in the majority of cases (61%) a normal level of intelligence (with IQs above 90). 31% of them had IQs of 70-90, and in 8% the IQs below 70. The quite substantial percentage of dullness found in the children may be related to their school retardation, particularly in view of the significant dependence found between the lowered IQ and marked shortcomings in reading and writing. Of course, a lowered intellectual level may also have been caused, as environmental interviews showed, by considerable neglect of such children, a phenomenon with which we shall deal later. Psychiatric examination revealed neurotic disorders of personality in 47% ot the children examined. As many as 35% of them were brought up in broken families (semiorphans or divorced parents). 64% of the fathers were heavy drinkers and in addition 20% of the mothers of the same children indulged too freely in alcohol. In 62% of the families the relationship between the parents was unsatisfactory; 52% of the fathers were described by the mothers as “quicktempered and nervous”. In almost one-third of the families at least one member had committed offences and had been already convicted by acourt. It was found that 39% of the families had inadequate financial situation, unable to satisfy the child’s basic needs. In 23% of the families the children suffered from extreme neglect, and even the remaining families failed to give their children adequate care. Frequently, the children investigated (61%) were subjected to severe corporal punishment. It emerged that various negative factors, typical of the family atmosphere of the children examined, were more frequent in the case of those boys who had already stolen prior to their court appearance at the age of 10‒11. These factors included: being reared in broken families, excessive drinking by fathers, unsatisfactory relationship between parents, fathers irascible and nervous, court convictions against family members, extreme neglect of the children, subjection to severe corporal punishment. Those of the children examined who had already previously stolen also revealed more frequently than the others other disturbances in the process of socialization – they ran away from home and drank alcohol. In 1972, five years after the research outlined above, follow-up investigations were made with a view to establishing the subsequent progres of the 100 10–11-year-old boys studied, how they got on in school, whether they committed offences, and what was the atmosphere in their homes. After the next five years it was possible to divide the boys investigated into three groups: I – those not convicted during the period – only 30%; II – those who during the period had one or two court appearances (37%); and III – those who went most seriously astray, being convicted at least three times – as many as 33% of the total. (Boys charged on a further 6 occasions accounted for 12% of the total.) Juvenile thieves charged at the age of 10-11 reveal distinct tendencies to rapid recidivism. Although 29 of the boys were committed to educational institutions or approved schools, their school career showed further shortcomings. There was a marked increase in the percentage of retarded boys, one-third were at least two years behind, 40% did not complete primary school, although all of them should have done so (even allowing for a slight time lag). The process of demoralization is linked with intensified shortcornings as pupils – the most intensive shortcomings were observed in group III: those with the most convictions. At the end of the five years, crimes committed by the boys’ families were also found to have increased; the percentage of families in which fathers or brothers have been convicted was up to 44. Notable in the families of 50 boys was the developing incidence of crimes committed by brothers; in as many as 60% of these families brothers had been convicted, The type of crimes committed and the type of recidivism found among members of the family indicated that about one-third of the families belong to criminal environment. The boys from group III – those with the most convictions during the follow-up period – came much more often from such families and circles than those belonging to the remaining groups. The problem of youngsters charged in court at a very early age – 10-11 years old – is above all a problem of education and care. The fact that they were reared in unsatisfactory family environments favoured recidivism in these children during the five years of follow-up period, and an especially marked concentration of negative factors (excessive drinking on the part of the parents, offences committed by the father, absolute neglect of the children) was found in the families of the most severely demoralized lads of group III. Some symptoms of social maladjustment found already at the age of 10-11 were a significant prediction of further recidivism. Boys, who had already committed thefts prior to their arraignment at 10-11 years old were during the follow-up period much more frequently found among recidivists – notably among those of group III. These recidivists differed significantly from the remaining groups in having started to steal when very young. The repeated drinking of alcohol, already at the age of 10-11, was also significant for the prediction of further criminal conduct. Moreover, the recidivists, were more frequently found among those who at the age of 10-11 had run away from home. And among juvenile recidivists of group III, clearly indicated was a greater frequency than with the remainder of running away from home, even at so early age. It is of interest that the three groups of boys (I: without further convictions, II: with one or two court appearances and III: at least three times convicted) did not differ significantly in respect to the value of property stolen at the age of 10-11. But it emerged that recidivism was more frequent among boys investigated who at the age of 10-11 had been backward at school and among those in whom tests indicated an IQ below 90. Thus the problem of school teaching, the great gaps in knowledge and objective difficulties in learning are fundamental problems in early delinquency. This suggests the need for early identification of children experiencing various types of difficulties in school. Since the majority of the homes investigated were unable to guarantee the children conditions for normal development even during the pre-school period, and since the process of demoralization of the children examined had started very early, the present survey spot-lighted a category of families in which the appropriate child-care authorities simply must intervene at a very early stage. Such official intervention should be combined with detailed medical and psychiatric examinations of the children already during the pre-school period. The early spot-lighting of such homes is of fundamental significance in the prophylaxis of social maladjustment of youngsters
5

Dalsze losy nieletnich i młodocianych sprawców przestępstw

83%
Batawia S., Żabczyńska E., Strzembosz A., Szymanowski T.
Archiwum Kryminologii
|
1974
|
issue VI
126-127
EN
Three follow-up studies were published, dealing with juvenile delinquents and young adult offenders, based on a random sample and material on: ‒ 100 boys charged with larcency, who during the period of the investigation in 1966 were barely 10-11 years old. This research concentrated in turn on all the 10-11 year-old boys charged with larcency and brought before a Juvenile Court in Warsaw; the follow-up period embraced 5 years; ‒ 358 former juveniles (10-16 years old) charged with theft in three districts of Warsaw and brought before a Juvenile Court in 1961-1962, whose further fate was investigated during the period when they were 17-20 years old and from among the same 243 former juveniles 13-16 years old, who in 1972 were already 24-27 years old; ‒ 17-20 year-old young adults released from 40 prisons throughout the country, after having served their sentences for various offences and whose subsequent recidivism was established during the course of 10 years from their release from prison in 1961. Two works, discussing the further recidivism of the juvenile delinquents, convicted for larcency obviously differ markedly regarding the age and follow-up period. The first work deals with the investigated up to the age of 15-16 only, the second also embraces the time when the former juveniles are already approximately 26 years old. However, both works unanimously emphasize the fundamental significance of early initiation of social maladjustment and demoralization for the prognosing of the rapidity and extent of recidivism. They stress the necessity to make use in practice as the only criterion for recidivism of juveniles, each new charge brought before a court and the number of times theft has been committed, being the subject of a given trial. Simultaneously these works reveal unanimously, that the majority of the juvenile delinquents charged with larcency, are brought up in families, which are unable to guarantee them the proper conditions for normal development and that in these families also many brothers of the juvenile delinquents charged with larcency revealed symptoms of social maladjustment and committed offences. The results of the studies under discussion also are unanimous as to the fact that with the majority of the juveniles could be found personality disorders. The material under discussion deserves special attention as regards the juvenile delinquents of the younger age groups. It is of great significance that many of the investigated 10‒11-year-olds charged with larcency committed theft already before. Long years of research, conducted by the Department of Criminology, Institute of Legal Sciences, Polish Academy of Sciences, testify to the fact that the majority of the juvenile delinquents charged with larcency and brought before Juvenile Courts are boys who already previously committed larcency more than once. Disturbance of the socialization process with these juveniles, usually reaches back to their early childhood, requires early discovery and interference at the earliest possible time in the form of surrounding the parents, brothers and sisters of the juvenile delinquent with care and also of controlling them. The results yielded by follow-up studies of the recidivism during a period of 10 years of the 17-20 year-old young adult offenders, released from prison in 1961, concentrate on young people whose recidivism is undoubtedly connected with serious social maladjustment already during their juvenility. Obviously one cannot identify these young adults released from prison with all the 17‒20-year-old young adults convicted by courts who received various sentences. The results of the follow-up studies of the young adult prisoners should contribute to the initiation of systematic, individual research regarding young adults convicted and receiving various prison terms and to the change of certain guiding lines of the penal and penitentiary policy in regard to young adult offenders.
PL
Publikacja posiada następującą strukturę: Wstęp I. Ewa Żabczyńska: Dalsze losy 100 chłopców mających sprawy o kradzieże w wieku 10-11 lat II. Adam Strzembosz: Rozmiary recydywy u nieletnich podsądnych sprawców krażeży III. Teodor Szymanowski: Rozmiary recydywy u młodocianych więźniów po upływie 10 lat od ich zwolnienia z zakładów karnych
6
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Granice nieletniości w polskim prawie karnym

83%
Rdzanek-Piwowar G.
Archiwum Kryminologii
|
1993
|
issue XIX
191-231
EN
The entering into force on 13 May l983 of the Act on the treatment of juveniles of 26 October 1982 ended the period of over fifty years of validity of provisions of the penal code of 1932 (Chapter XI) and code of criminal procedure of 1928 (Chapter II of Book XI) which regulated the principles of responsibility of juvenile perpetrators of “acts prohibited under penalty”. Authors of the pre-war legislation, at the first stage of its preparation in particular, intended to make it specific and educational in nature through omission in the treatment of juveniles of the elements of responsibility and punishment. The finally adopted solution was a compromise: responsibility of juveniles have been related to age, discernment, and type of measures applied. With respect to undiscerning juvenile perpetrators of acts prohibited under penalty under the age of 13, and also to those aged 13–17, only educational  measures could be applied (admonition; supervision by the parents, former guardians, or a probation officer; placement in an educational institution) Juveniles aged 13–17 who discerned the meaning of their act were to be placed in a correction al institution; educational measures were to be applied in their cases if the circumstances, the juvenile’s personality or his living conditions made such placement inexpedient. Thus the legislation concerning juveniles remained part of the system of penal law in spite of the special features it started to acquire. That was also the direction, after the war in particular, of interpretation of the legal provisions. As a result, the measures applied to juveniles were given an explicitly educational character. This was done through the relation of those imeasures  to the perpetrator’s personality and not to the act, and through abolition of the institution of discernment. Since discernment. Since mid–1950s, the juvenile courts followed instructions which  changed the legal status of a juvenile. The age limit of penal responsibility of juveniles was set initially at ten and then at 13 years; younger children were not to be brought before the courts unless the case concerned guardianship. Many changes in the post-war provisions were also introduced by means of statutes. They concerned organization and functioning of the system of treatment of juveniles  (strengthening of the role of judge, introduction of the so-called family courts, increased number of probation officers). This way, a socially desirable continuation of the legal tradition was secured by means of reforms which were evolutionary and dictated by the current needs, and without liquidation of the existing structures, tested in the practice of many decades. The new statute adopted many of those changes more or less directly. Setting the upper age limit of juveniles, the post-war penal code of 1969 preserved the principle according to which criminal responsibility is conditioned upon the offender’s age of at least 17 (Art. 9). At the same time, though, Art. 9 made it possible to apply to offenders aged 17 the measures normally designed for juveniles, and to sentence juveniles aged 16 guilty of the most serious crimes to the ordinary but extraordinarily mitigated penalties. The final shape of the Act on the treatment of juveniles of 26 October 1982 was influenced both by the intent to preserve the developed and tested solutions, and by the discussion that preceded its introduction when optional conceptions of the treatment of juveniles were submitted. The following stages of the thirty-two years’ period of legislative works can be distinguished: – the years 1950–1956; long works on a new penal code were in progress and attempts were made at aggravating the responsibility of juveniles through the introduction of penalties (according to a draft of 1950, penalties were to be imposed on juveniles starting from the age of 12); – the years 1956–1960; in 1956, it was decided to work on a separate statute on juvenil and not within the preparation of a new penal code; a special team of the Codification Commission failed to agree upon a draft of the statute; – the years 1961–65;  no legislative works were formally in progres but two different conceptions were discussed: of inclusion of prevention in the act (which would thus apply to the socially maladjusted juveniles as well) and of introduction of social courts; – the years 1966–1971; attempts were made at partly realizing those conceptions in a succession of draft statutes; – the years 1972–76; the works were conducted by the Ministry of Education which tried to include the problems of prevention of juvenile delinquency and treatment of juveniles in a broader statute called the young generation code; – the years 1977–82 when the works on a statute were again taken over by the Ministry of Justice and a succession of versions of the draft were prepared. The Act of 26 October 1982 on the treatment of juveniles changed the scope of the notion of “juvenile”. According to the statutory definition, juveniles are: 1) persons with respect to whom provisions of  the act apply in the sphere of prevention and control of demoralization; the upper age limit in this category is 18 years, and the lower limit is not specified; 2) persons with respect to whom provisions of the statute apply in the sphere of proceedings in cases of punishable acts; such proceedings can be instituted towards persons who have been aged over 13 but under 17 while committing a punishable act; 3) persons with respect to whom provisions of the statute apply in connection with the carrying out of educational or corrective measures; the upper age limit of this category is 21 years. Tlerefore, the statute goes beyond the sphere traditionally reserved for penal law. The aim at making the statute educational in nature is manifested above all by the principle that the commission by a juvenile of a punishable act is not the only condition of the institution of proceedings in the case of that juvenile. The statute sanctions the need for intervention in the early stage of social maladjustment not only in cases where that maladjustment manifests itself in a punishable act. If a juvenile does commit an act of this  kind, his offence is not examined in the categories of guilt and responsibility. This is manifested by the abolition of the criteria of discernment, by the term “punishable act” used to designate an  offence committed by a juvenile, and by the absence of the term “responsibility of juveniles” in the name and provisions of the statute discussed. The statute bases on the assumption of education; its basic notion is demoralization. In its first meaning in which it has been used by the legislator, “demoralization'” is treated as a prerequisite of initiation of proceedings. Were the educational assumptions adopted to the full, commission of a punishable act could and should be treated as one of the symptoms of demoralization, not different in any way from the other symptoms. Assumed in the statute, however, is a special treatment of the juveniles with respecr to whom provisions of the statute apply in the sphere of prevention of demoralization, and in the sphere of control of demoralization. With respect to the latter, provisions of  the statute on  proceedings in cases of punishable acts apply, and with respect to the former – provisions on civil proceedings. The differentiation introduced by the statute (which is not consistent for that matter) results from a specific compromise: a combination of the ideas of prevention and  education with the approach typical of penal law where the legal response is conditioned upon the gravity of the act.  A conflict of the tendencies which clash nowadays all over the world – to preserve the model of treatment of juveniles within the institutions of penal law on the one hand, and to give the statute an educational character on the other  hand – can be noticed in other provisions of the statute discussed as well. In the classical system, the age limits of juveniles were clear and had just as clearly defined functions – they marked out the age of the so-called conditional criminal responsibility, provided discernment could be ascertained. Today, the upper limit of the age of juveniles is usually also the limit of full criminal responsibility, although many legislations provide for an exceptional possibility of imposition of penalties upon the oldest juveniles who commit a crime or a serious offence. The problem of the lower limit is more entangled , the modern legislations adopting several age limits here which results usually from the need to determine different scopes of intervention of the legal provisions in the sphere of juvenile law. Therefore, what still remains an important issue  is for the juvenile law to define an age limit below which provisions of penal law never apply, not even as auxiliaries.
7
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Do children have the capacity to commit a crime? The question of minimum age of criminal responsibility

67%
Balogh Á.
Family Forum
|
2014
|
issue 4
259-273
EN
The article investigates the question of minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR). A child under the age of criminal responsibility lacks the capacity to commit a crime. This means they are immune from criminal prosecution – they cannot be formally charged by authorities with an offence nor be subjected to any criminal law procedures or measures. Numerous international treaties and agreements set standards concerning the ways in which children in conflict with the law should be dealt with. A wide range of minimum ages of criminal responsibility worldwide, ranging from a very low level of age 7 or 8 to the commendable high level of age 14 or 16. On 1st July 2013 a new criminal code, the Act of 2012 entered into force in Hungary, which lowered the MACR from the age of 14 to 12. According to the Official Comments the main reason for lowering is the fact that nowadays the biological development of children speeded up, they reach maturity earlier than ever. Another argument is that children are exposed to more social influences because of the information technology revolution. The Comments states that among children between 12 and 14 years of age violence is used as a tool to enforce their interests. The article takes a critical look at these arguments by examining criminal statistics and insights of psychological research.
PL
Opracowanie podejmuje kwestię dolnej granicy wieku odpowiedzialności za dopuszczenie się czynu zabronionego przez nieletnich (MACR). Młodsze dziecko nie odpowiada karnie, co oznacza, że dzieci są nietykalne w materii postępowania karnego – nie mogą być formalnie oskarżone przez władze za wykroczenie ani też nie mogą podlegać żadnym postępowaniom, ani środkom karnym. Liczne międzynarodowe traktaty i porozumienia ustalają standardy dotyczące sposobów postępowania z dziećmi będącymi w konflikcie z prawem. Na cały świecie różnie kształtuje się dolna granica wieku nieletnich, gdy chodzi o dopuszczalność ich odpowiedzialności karnej: poczynając od bardzo niskiego wieku 7 lub 8 lat po wysoki 14 czy 16 lat. Na Węgrzech 1 lipca 2013 r. wszedł w życie nowy kodeks karny, zgodnie z którym został obniżony wiek odpowiedzialności karnej MACR z 14 do 12 lat. Według uzasadnienia ustawy głównym powodem obniżenia wieku stał się fakt, że rozwój biologiczny dzieci jest obecnie przyspieszony: osiągają one dojrzałość wcześniej niż kiedyś. Po drugie, dzieci są narażone na większe wpływy społeczne, związane z rozwojem technologii informacyjnej. Uzasadnienie stwierdza, że wśród dzieci w wieku pomiędzy 12 i 14 lat przemoc staje się narzędziem egzekwowania interesów. Artykuł krytycznie analizuje oba argumenty w perspektywie statystyki przestępstw oraz wiedzy psychologicznej.
8
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Losy życiowe młodych mężczyzn, którzy w nieletniości popełnili co najmniej jedno przestępstwo pod wpływem alkoholu

60%
Krawczyk J.
Archiwum Kryminologii
|
1993
|
issue XIX
17-26
EN
A study of two 100-person groups of juvenile delinquents born in 1959 was conducted in the years 1981‒1985 at the Department of Criminology, Institute of Legal Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences. The first (experimental) group consisted of boys randomly selected from the total of 225 juveniles born in 1959 who had committed at least on offence while intoxicated. The other (control) group were 100 randomly juveniles selected from the entire population of 8196 juvenile delinquents born in 1959. None of the juveniles selected for the experimental group happened to find themselves in the control group as well. As shown by the findings, the juveniles who had committed at least one offence while intoxicated were much more demoralized as a group than the whole of juvenile delinquents. It seemed interesting, therefore, to follow the further fates of both groups as adults. The follow-up period was 7 years; until that time, all of the examined persons reached the age of 25 when the average Polish man be- comes stabilized to some extent, having graduated from university, worked for several or a dozen years (upon completion of secondary or elementary education respectively), and frequently having also established a family.  Data on the life situation of the young men from both examined groups on their 25th birthday were obtained from the following four sources: ‒ the Central Register of Convicted Persons kept  by the Ministry of Justice, and the Register of Convicted and Detained Persons where criminal records of the entire sample were checked; ‒ files of criminal cases of all men with criminal records (47.0% of the experimental and 35.0% of the control group); the files concerned criminal proceedings before common courts for offences committed after coming of age; ‒ questionnaire survey of 63.0% of the experimental and 66.0% of the control group; ‒ inquiry submitted to the sobering-up stations concerning the entire sample. As shown by the findings, 24.0% of the experimental and 13.0% of the control group established their own families before the age of 25. The proportions are high, as regards the experimental group in particular: erly in the 1980s, the newly married constituted about 10% of the total male population aged 20‒24 in Poland. The mean educational level was higher in the control compared to the experimental group; this concerns first  and foremost  cases of education higher than the elmementary technical (of which there were two in the experimental compared to ten in the control group). Moreover, no cases of illiteracy could be found in the control group, compared to one such case in the experimental group. Of all the men of the experimental group concerning whom data could be obtained, 80.4% had a regular job, and 19.6% stayed out of job or worked casually. Of the control group, 80.0% had a regular job (33% combining job with school), 18.3% stayed out of job or worked casually, and one person had entered university. The number of convicted persons in the experimental group (47) was larger compared to the control group (35) by 12.0%, the difference being significant. Also relapse into crime was higher in the expenmental group (l5 vs. 11 cases). The first offence committed by those convicted as young adults was mainly one against property: 35 cases in the experimental group (66.0% of all those convicted) and 28 cases in the control group (80.0%). The second most frequent offence of members of the experimental group was an aggressive act: against life and health, freedom, personal dignity and inviolability (10 persons, i.e. 18.8% of all those convicted). The offences of this type included: bodily injury (Art. 156 of the penal code – 3 persons, i.e. 6.4%); participation in a brawl or beating (Art. 158 and 159 – 1 person, i.e. 2.1%); infringement of bodily inviolability (Art. 182 – 3 persons, i.e. 6.4%); assault against a public functionary (Art. 233 and 234 – 1 person, i.e. 2.1%); insult against  a public functionary (Art. 236 – 1 person, i.e. 2.1%). In the control group, 6 cases of such offences could be found (9.1% of all those convicted);  yet the only offence under Art. 148 1 of the penal code, that is homicide, had been committed by a member of that goup.The other discussed figures and proportions were respectively: Art. l58, 159 – 3 persons, i.e. 8.6%; Art. 182 – 1 person (2.9%); Art. 233, 234 – 1 person (2.9%); and Art. 236 – 1   person (29%). Beside offences, the two groups manifested also other synptoms of social maladjustment. The symptoms found most often in both groups were: “contacts with persons known to the police as delinquent” and stays at the sobering-up station. As regards the experimental group, the third frequent symptom were brawls in the place of residence followed by bad opinion with neighbors, hooliganism, and avoidance of work. In the control group, avoidance of work ranked third, followed by bad opinion with neighbors, hooliganism, and brawls at the place of residence. This ranking of frequency of the symptoms of social maladjustment points to a greater aggressiveness of the young men from the experimental group. On the 63 young men from the experimental group concerning whom data  could be obtained, 62 (98.0%) drank alcohol. In the control group 59 (89.0%) of the 66 concerning whom data could be obtained were drinkers. The group of drinkers included all those who had drunk several times a week already  as juveniles, and 70% of those who had drunk once a week. In the control group, drinkers included 91.7% of those who had drunk as juvoniles (11 of 12 cases). Of those who had drunk as juveniles in the control group, 66.7% (8 cases) were convicted as adults. As shown by the discussed data, young men from the experimental group – those who committed as juveniles at least one offence while intoxicated prove much inferior in terms of the social situation  to other men who also committed offences as juveniles but did not drink alcohol. Therefore, early alcohol consumption among juvenile delinquents is an important factor of a negative prognosis as to the further fates of such persons. A number of postulates have been formulated, addressed at the prosecuting agencies, criminal justice, and institutions designed to assist persons in extraordinary situation. With respect to the present sample, all such postulates acquire special importance and must be met without fail.
PL
A study of two 100-person groups of juvenile delinquents born in 1959 was conducted in the years 1981‒1985 at the Department of Criminology, Institute of Legal Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences. The first (experimental) group consisted of boys randomly selected from the total of 225 juveniles born in 1959 who had committed at least on offence while intoxicated. The other (control) group were 100 randomly juveniles selected from the entire population of 8196 juvenile delinquents born in 1959. None of the juveniles selected for the experimental group happened to find themselves in the control group as well. As shown by the findings, the juveniles who had committed at least one offence while intoxicated were much more demoralized as a group than the whole of juvenile delinquents. It seemed interesting, therefore, to follow the further fates of both groups as adults. The follow-up period was 7 years; until that time, all of the examined persons reached the age of 25 when the average Polish man be- comes stabilized to some extent, having graduated from university, worked for several or a dozen years (upon completion of secondary or elementary education respectively), and frequently having also established a family.  Data on the life situation of the young men from both examined groups on their 25th birthday were obtained from the following four sources: ‒ the Central Register of Convicted Persons kept  by the Ministry of Justice, and the Register of Convicted and Detained Persons where criminal records of the entire sample were checked; ‒ files of criminal cases of all men with criminal records (47.0% of the experimental and 35.0% of the control group); the files concerned criminal proceedings before common courts for offences committed after coming of age; ‒ questionnaire survey of 63.0% of the experimental and 66.0% of the control group; ‒ inquiry submitted to the sobering-up stations concerning the entire sample. As shown by the findings, 24.0% of the experimental and 13.0% of the control group established their own families before the age of 25. The proportions are high, as regards the experimental group in particular: erly in the 1980s, the newly married constituted about 10% of the total male population aged 20‒24 in Poland. The mean educational level was higher in the control compared to the experimental group; this concerns first  and foremost  cases of education higher than the elmementary technical (of which there were two in the experimental compared to ten in the control group). Moreover, no cases of illiteracy could be found in the control group, compared to one such case in the experimental group. Of all the men of the experimental group concerning whom data could be obtained, 80.4% had a regular job, and 19.6% stayed out of job or worked casually. Of the control group, 80.0% had a regular job (33% combining job with school), 18.3% stayed out of job or worked casually, and one person had entered university. The number of convicted persons in the experimental group (47) was larger compared to the control group (35) by 12.0%, the difference being significant. Also relapse into crime was higher in the expenmental group (l5 vs. 11 cases). The first offence committed by those convicted as young adults was mainly one against property: 35 cases in the experimental group (66.0% of all those convicted) and 28 cases in the control group (80.0%). The second most frequent offence of members of the experimental group was an aggressive act: against life and health, freedom, personal dignity and inviolability (10 persons, i.e. 18.8% of all those convicted). The offences of this type included: bodily injury (Art. 156 of the penal code – 3 persons, i.e. 6.4%); participation in a brawl or beating (Art. 158 and 159 – 1 person, i.e. 2.1%); infringement of bodily inviolability (Art. 182 – 3 persons, i.e. 6.4%); assault against a public functionary (Art. 233 and 234 – 1 person, i.e. 2.1%); insult against  a public functionary (Art. 236 – 1 person, i.e. 2.1%). In the control group, 6 cases of such offences could be found (9.1% of all those convicted);  yet the only offence under Art. 148 1 of the penal code, that is homicide, had been committed by a member of that goup.The other discussed figures and proportions were respectively: Art. l58, 159 – 3 persons, i.e. 8.6%; Art. 182 – 1 person (2.9%); Art. 233, 234 – 1 person (2.9%); and Art. 236 – 1   person (29%). Beside offences, the two groups manifested also other synptoms of social maladjustment. The symptoms found most often in both groups were: “contacts with persons known to the police as delinquent” and stays at the sobering-up station. As regards the experimental group, the third frequent symptom were brawls in the place of residence followed by bad opinion with neighbors, hooliganism, and avoidance of work. In the control group, avoidance of work ranked third, followed by bad opinion with neighbors, hooliganism, and brawls at the place of residence. This ranking of frequency of the symptoms of social maladjustment points to a greater aggressiveness of the young men from the experimental group. On the 63 young men from the experimental group concerning whom data  could be obtained, 62 (98.0%) drank alcohol. In the control group 59 (89.0%) of the 66 concerning whom data could be obtained were drinkers. The group of drinkers included all those who had drunk several times a week already  as juveniles, and 70% of those who had drunk once a week. In the control group, drinkers included 91.7% of those who had drunk as juvoniles (11 of 12 cases). Of those who had drunk as juveniles in the control group, 66.7% (8 cases) were convicted as adults. As shown by the discussed data, young men from the experimental group – those who committed as juveniles at least one offence while intoxicated prove much inferior in terms of the social situation  to other men who also committed offences as juveniles but did not drink alcohol. Therefore, early alcohol consumption among juvenile delinquents is an important factor of a negative prognosis as to the further fates of such persons. A number of postulates have been formulated, addressed at the prosecuting agencies, criminal justice, and institutions designed to assist persons in extraordinary situation. With respect to the present sample, all such postulates acquire special importance and must be met without fail.   Niniejszy artykuł stanowi kontynuację opracowania: Nieletni sprawcy przestępstw popełnionych pod wpływem alkoholu, „Archiwum Kryminologii” 1991, t. XVIII.
9
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Grupy nieletnich przestępców

60%
Pawełczyńska A.
Archiwum Kryminologii
|
1960
|
issue I
113-163
EN
In the years 1953 to 1955 the Department of Criminology of the Institute of Legal Sciences carried out research on gangs of juvenile delinquents; it was a matter of the offences committed by three or more boys aged up to 17 who formed gangs of offenders. At the Warsaw Juvenile Court the records of 716 juveniles who had, during the period in question; participated in 181 crime-committing gangs, have been investigated. Out of this material detailed investigation has been carried out on 50 groups, comprising 215 juveniles. Such detailed investigation comprised environment interviews in the family home, comprehensive conversations with the mothers, interviews at the schools, psychological examination of the minors themselves (part of them were also examined by a physician) and talks with the juveniles, who were investigated in detail from the point of view of the problem of gangs. Apart from the research carried out in Warsaw, 74 gangs comprising 309 juvenile offenders were investigated at the Juvenile Courts in the following provincial cities: Łódź, Katowice, Cracow, and Bialystok. The research dealt with all the gangs of juvenile offenders whose cases came before the above-mentioned four Juvenile Courts in the first six months of 1954. Such research has been carried out by the Judges of the Juvenile courts themselves, according to a special questionnaire; and consisted in the juveniles giving detailed evidence concerning circumstances such as participation in the gangs, in talks with the mothers, and environment interviews (with part of the cases also psychological examination was carried out). The basic material for the present, contribution are the 50 Warsaw and the 74 provincial gangs, all of them investigated in detail. 1. Out of a total of 255 gangs investigated (181 gangs investigated on the basis of judicial record and 124 gangs investigated in detail) there were: a) 113 gangs systematically committing thefts. b) 36 gangs committing either thefts or else deeds consisting in aggressively accosting or beating up (whether boys of their own age or older persons), in destroying property and in disturbing public peace. These are so-called acts of hooliganism. c) 24 gangs committing only acts of a hooligan character mentioned above. Finally, out of the 255 gangs investigated 82 gangs were selected which had committed only one theft, and the majority of which cannot be considered to be offender gangs because of the lack of any real bond between the members of such gangs. The age of the members of the offender gangs was as follows: 17.3 per cent of the boys were under 10 years of age. 34.6 per cent were from 11 to 12. 31 per cent were from 13 to 14. 17.1 per cent were from 15 to 17. The percentages in the several types of gangs are, in principle, rather similar. In the gangs which systematically committed thefts a bigger span between the ages of the members was found than in the other types of gangs. While in the remaining types of gangs the juveniles are usually of the same age, or else the difference of age between them amounts to from one to two years, in the gangs which systematically commit thefts, in 37 per cent of the cases the difference of age amounts to more than three years. As far as the number of members of whom a gang was composed is concerned, detailed investigation has established the fact that gangs numbering from three to four members amounted merely to 16 per cent, while gangs composed of six and more members were as many as 64 per cent (gangs of ten and more members were 22 per cent), It ought to be stressed that the actual number of members of a gang was not known to the Court; in the records the number of members of such an offender gang was, as a rule, considerably smaller. 2. The data concerning the home environment of the members of the gangs under investigation, their way of life and personality look more or less similarly as those concerning juvenile recidivists whose cases are discussed in the same volume of the Archives, and this is why we do not discuss these data in detail here. It is worth noting that a bad material situation of the families was more frequent in the case of the juveniles belonging to the gangs which went in for systematic thefts than with the other types of gangs: there were 60 per cent of such cases, while e.g. with the members of hooligan gangs the same situation was found in a mere 21 per cent. In the gangs which went in for systematic thefts there were more juveniles who hailed from homes where the family life had altogether gone to pieces. They were families in which an accumulation of such factors as the alcoholism of the fathers, continual brawls in the home, delinquency, etc., was found. In 66.6 per cent of the gangs which went in for systematical stealing all their members came just from such families, while e.g. in 45 per cent of the hooligan gangs all their members carne from families in which no decay of the family was found. Similarly, the number of children deprived of parental control at home was the largest among the members of the gangs which went in for systematic stealing. On the other hand, a bad attitude of the parents towards their child was more frequently found among the members of hooligan gangs than in the other types of gangs. The percentage of fathers who treated their children brutally was also highest here. 3. With offender gangs it is a matter of great importance whether the members of such gangs had committed criminal offences prior to their starting criminal their activities in gangs. In the areas of the several Juvenile Courts the percentage of juveniles who had previously been committing offences amounted to from 30.3 per cent to 52.6 per cent. The largest number of juveniles who had been committing crimes before, and consequently brought a considerable degree of depravation with them into the gangs belongs to the hooligan-and-stealing gangs (62.4 per cent) and to the gangs which go in for systematic thefts (42.4 per cent). On the other hand, the percentage of recidivists is low in the hooligan gangs and in those gangs which committed theft but once. Thefts constitute 76.7 per cent of the total of the offences committed previously, thefts together with hooligan acts - 14 per cent, and hooligan offences alone - only 9.3 per cent. Prior to their joining the gang, the boys stole mostly small sums of money, and' in the next place, food and sweets. Thefts of intoxicating liquor appear more frequently than with other types with those juveniles who later on joined hooligan gangs. At the time of making our investigations, the juveniles who acted in delinquent gangs had already gone astray considerably, and their way of life was almost entirely disorganized. 4. The data concerning the origin of the gangs show that: 40 per cent of the gangs arose owing to contacts between boys who lived in the neighborhood; 32 per cent of them arose partly owing to neighbourly contacts, and partly owing to acquaintance struck at school; 15 per cent of the gangs arose as a result of boys meeting in the street, in public parks, at the cinema, in various places of public entertainment; 9 per cent of the groups were composed of boys who had met only at school; 4 per cent of the gangs were composed of boys who had come near each other during escapes from home or a correctional institution. The large majority of the gangs which arose owing to neighborhood and school contacts consists of stealing gangs. The picture is altogether different in the case of gangs which arose in places of common entertainment. Here the majority consists of hooligan gangs mostly formed by older boys. The period of activity of such a gang down to the moment of it committing its first offence is mostly very brief. The mechanism of the formation of such criminal gangs also varied: the boys, as a rule, at first formed groups just with the view to having good time. The transformation of ordinary neighborhood groups for purposes of play into criminal gangs was fostered by the family conditions of the members of such groups; by the lack of adequate care and of proper bonds between the boy and his family home, as well as by the harmful influence of the social environment at large. School becomes, under certain circumstances, an additional factor favorable for the creation of gangs. Part of the members of such gangs consist of children who are excitable, nervous, retarded in development, and encountering great difficulties in adapting themselves to study at school and to the requirements set by the school. Such children easily become alienated from the pupils community, forming a peculiar social margin within the school. 5. From the point of view of organizational structure we can distinguish, in the material under investigation, loose gangs, gangs with certain elements of organization, and organized gangs. Loose gangs amounted to 52.4 per cent. Their composition varied, they lacked elements of an organization altogether, they had no leader and no ,,den" of their own. Organized gangs, with a leader and a crystallized division of roles within the gang, amounted to 23.4 per cent. Gangs with but some elements of organization amounted to 24.2 per cent. Organized gangs occur more frequently among the gangs which go in for systematic stealing (35 per cent) than among other types of gangs, while, on the other hand, loose gangs are typical, of hooligan gangs (91 per cent). There exists a very essential difference between the gangs which go in for systematic stealing and those of a hooligan character. While the former are offender gangs the prime purpose of which is to commit thefts, the gangs which go in for hooligan offences are really groups for purposes of play, with whom the offence is closely connected with perverted play. 6. With the gangs which committed thefts the object of such thefts were mostly things of very small material value - food in 31 per cent of the cases, sums of money, mostly very small, in 10 per cent, sports and technical articles in 10.1 per cent, sweets in 9.1 per cent, alcoholic liquors in 8.5 per cent, building materials in 7 per cent, clothing in 6,4 per cent, while bicycles accounted for only 1.1 per cent, and watches and jewelry - for 0.8 per cent. A comparison between the objects stolen by the hooligan-cum-stealing gangs with those stolen by the stealing ones shows obvious differences in accordance with the type of the gang. In the gangs which went in for stealing only, the most frequent object of theft is food (37 per cent), then sport and technical articles (12.9 per cent), sweets (11.8 per cent), clothing are (8.3 per cent). Alcoholic liquors one of the most infrequent objects of theft (0.8 per cent). On the other hand, with the hooligan-cum-stealing gangs, it is precisely alcohol that constitutes the most frequent object of theft !34.5 per cent); the next place is occupied by money (22.3 per cent), while the remaining objects of theft appear much more seldom; they are mostly such objects as can be sold (e.g. building materials account for 12.6 pe cent). In a definite majority of the investigated gangs the value of the stolen object is the outcome of mere chance, and it is dependent on the opportunity of theft which has arisen. The largest number of theft committed by the gangs investigated took place in shops (70.3 per cent). Specialization as to the mode of performing theft is an extremely rare phenomenon with the gangs investigated. The investigated boys who belonged to hooligan and hooligan-cum-stealing gangs have committed the following acts of a hooligan character: Aggressive accosting and beating up 41.6 per cent. Destruction of property (breaking window-panes, street-lamps ect.) 37.6 pe cent. Disturbance of public peace and order 19.1 per cent. Others 1.7 per cent. The character of the hooligan acts perpetrated is closely connected with the age of the investigated. For the younger age groups the characteristic offences are destruction of property (44.4 per cent) and disturbance of public peace (39.5 per cent). 66 per cent of the offences committed by older boys consist of more serious offences - accosting and beating up. Along with the age of the boys and the length of time a gang has existed the number of frequency of hooligan acts perpetrated by them also increases. Hooligan offences were mostly committed by them at school (68.1 per cent) and in the streets and gardens (27 per cent). 7. In the investigation concerning the 50 Warsaw gangs follow-up studies have been carried out, from two to four years after the trial and the following was stated: In this period only 42 per cent of the gangs underwent complete decay, while 58 per cent of them continued to go in to their criminal activities, including 38 per cent, the numerical strength of which had even increased. Nearly all the groups which had committed theft but once underwent a complete decay; so did one half of the gangs which went in for systematic stealing, and one about one-fourth of the hooligan and hooligan-cum-stealing gangs. In the light of our investigation it appears that the gangs composed of younger boys (9 to 12 years) are much more permanent than the gangs composed of older boys. As far as the individual destinies of the several members of the gangs are concerned, the follow-up studies which have been carried out have shown that only 28 per cent of the investigated have completely mended their ways. One half of the investigated have been declared to be recidivists, while with 22 per cent further symptoms of serious demoralization were found, in spite of lack of data concerning the commission of any criminal offences by them. Improvement took place mostly in the case of the less demoralized boys, those who played but a marginal role in the gang. The improvement with younger boys was much more infrequent than that with the older ones (more than 70 per cent of the members of the hooligan-cum-stealing and systematically stealing gangs, aged up to 12, have proved to be incorrigible). The lack of improvement was also related to the length of the period of a juvenile offender's association with his gang. The longer they had participated in the offences committed by the gang, the more difficult it was for them to mend their ways, even after having severed any contacts between themselves and the gang.
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.