Przedmiotem opracowania będzie środek karny w postaci zakazu zajmowania stanowiska, wykonywania zawodu lub pracy w organach i instytucjach państwowych i samorządu terytorialnego, a także w spółkach prawa handlowego. Jest to nowa instytucja, wprowadzona do porządku prawnego na mocy noweli k.k. z 14.10.2021 r. Podstawowym problemem badawczym będzie próba odpowiedzi na pytanie o zasadność jego wdrożenia do systemu środków penalnych oraz o poprawność ukształtowania przesłanek jego orzekania. Celem artykułu będzie weryfikacja hipotezy badawczej, że ustawodawca wprowadził do systemu prawa karnego środek karny, który obciążony jest licznymi mankamentami uniemożliwiającymi realizację jego funkcji.
Polski system prawny wyklucza pewne kategorie osób z grona posiadających czynne prawo wyborcze (a tym samym nie posiadają one również biernego prawa wyborczego). Konstytucja w art. 62 ust. 2 stanowi, że prawo wybierania nie przysługuje m.in. osobom pozbawionym praw publicznych prawomocnym orzeczeniem sądowym, czyli w wyniku zastosowania instytucji prawa karnego – jednego ze środków karnych. Ponadto prawo wybierania nie przysługuje osobom pozbawionym praw wyborczych przez prawomocne orzeczenie Trybunału Stanu. Jest to samoistne pozbawienie praw wyborczych (przy pozostawieniu innych praw publicznych), będące karą orzekaną przez Trybunał przy okazji rozstrzygania o odpowiedzialności prawnej osób zajmujących najwyższe stanowiska państwowe. Zaistnienie omawianego środka karnego czy kary traktowane jest w literaturze jako tzw. „klauzule negatywne”, gdyż powodują pozbawienie praw wyborczych. Ponadto wymienione powody ograniczenia zakresu tych praw uznawane są za „społecznie i moralnie uzasadnione”. W katalogu środków karnych zamieszczonym w art. 39 k.k. próżno szukać środka karnego w postaci pozbawienia czynnego prawa wyborczego do organów władzy publicznej. Zgodnie z treścią przepisu art. 40 § 2 k.k. jest ono tylko jednym z kilku elementów składających się na treść środka karnego pozbawienia praw publicznych. Poczynione rozważania dowodzą tego, iż pozbawienie praw publicznych jako środek karny oraz pozbawienie praw wyborczych jako kara nabierają doniosłego znaczenia dla praktycznej realizacji podmiotowych praw wyborczych a powyższe refleksje nie mają charakteru czysto teoretycznego.
EN
The Polish legal system excludes certain categories of persons from the group have the right to vote (and thus they do not have the right to be elected). The Constitution of the art. Paragraph 62. 2 provides that the right to vote is not entitled to such persons deprived of their civil rights by a final court judgment, or as a result of the institution of criminal law – one from the penalty. Moreover, the 0right to vote shall not be entitled persons deprived of their voting rights by a final judgment of the Court of State. It is a spontaneous deprivation of voting rights (while leaving other public rights), a penalty adjudicated by the Court in resolving the legal liability of persons holding the highest positions in the state. The existence of the measure or criminal penalties in the literature is treated as so. „Clauses negative” because the cause deprivation of electoral rights. Moreover, these reasons for limiting the scope of these rights are regarded as „socially and morally justified”. In the catalog of punitive measures set out in art. 39 k.k. vain to seek the penalty in the form of deprivation of voting rights for public authorities. According to the wording of art. 40 § 2 k.k. it is only one of several elements that make up the substance of a measure of criminal deprivation of civil rights. Considerations made this show that the deprivation of civil rights as a criminal and the deprivation of voting rights as a punishment take on major importance for the practical implementation of symptoms and the electoral rights of these reflections are not purely theoretical.
Środek karny w postaci zakazu wstępu do ośrodków gier i uczestnictwa w grach hazardowych nie występował w pierwotnej wersji kodeksu karnego z 1997 roku. Do katalogu środków określonych w art. 39 k.k. został wprowadzony ustawą z dnia 19 listopada 2009 roku o grach hazardowych. Cel Celem opracowania jest przede wszystkim przedstawienie zawartej w art. 41c kodeksu karnego regulacji tego środka karnego. Przeprowadzona analiza obejmuje uwagi dotyczące istoty wskazanego zakazu, w szczególności jego znaczenia, zakresu przedmiotowego, przesłanek stosowania, trybu orzekania, czasu trwania oraz wykonania. Ponadto wskazano przykładowe przestępstwa opisane w części szczególnej kodeksu karnego, których popełnienie może uzasadniać orzeczenie omawianego zakazu. Zwrócona została również uwaga na niemożność orzekania zakazu wstępu do ośrodków gier i uczestnictwa w grach hazardowych wobec sprawców przestępstw określonych w rozdziale 9 kodeksu karnego skarbowego. W związku z tym, w opracowaniu zawarto także propozycje de lege ferenda. Metoda badawcza Metodą badawczą zastosowaną w przygotowaniu opracowania jest głównie metoda dogmatyczna. Poczynione ustalenia mają charakter teoretyczny. Korzystano z materiału normatywnego, poglądów doktryny oraz orzecznictwa sądowego. Rezultaty W rezultacie rozważań, stwierdzono, że art. 41c k.k. jest nieprecyzyjny. Zawarte w nim sformułowania są niejednoznaczne i w związku z tym rodzą szereg wątpliwości interpretacyjnych, Zdaniem autorek, warto byłoby również przeprowadzić modyfikacje, które pozwalałyby na orzekanie owego zakazu także wobec sprawców przestępstw skarbowych przeciwko organizacji gier hazardowych. Taką możliwość dałaby zmiana lokalizacji systemowej tych czynów zabronionych. Utworzenie w ustawie o grach hazardowych rozdziału obejmującego przepisy karne, w tym określające wymienione powyżej przestępstwa doprowadziłoby między innymi do ich przekwalifikowania do kategorii przestępstw powszechnych, a to oznaczałoby możliwość orzekania wobec ich sprawców zakazu wstępu do ośrodków gier i uczestnictwa w grach hazardowych. Główny wniosek Podstawowy wniosek jaki nasuwa przeprowadzona analiza, sprowadza się do stwierdzenia, że wprowadzone ustawą z 19 listopada 2009 roku o grach hazardowych omawiane rozwiązania nie zostały do końca przemyślane. Tym samym nie dają one gwarancji kompleksowej realizacji podstawowego celu wprowadzenia przedmiotowego zakazu, tj. uniemożliwienia udziału w grach osobom, które popełniły przestępstwo związane z urządzaniem, bądź udziałem w grach.
4
Dostęp do pełnego tekstu na zewnętrznej witrynie WWW
Glosowane postanowienie jest istotne nie tylko dla praktyki, ale równie dla każdego kierującego. Nie usuwa (bo nie może) istniejącej luki w prawie, które nie określa, w jaki sposób powinna być oceniona sytuacja wcześniejszej, niezawinionej przez kierującego, utraty prawa jazdy, a zgłoszonej organowi władzy publicznej, w przypadku orzeczenia środka karnego zakazu prowadzenia pojazdów mechanicznych w sytuacji niemożności oddania dokumentu organowi administracyjnemu. Wyłania się zatem problem, czy tego rodzaju niemożność zdeponowania prawa jazdy powinna automatycznie wydłużać faktyczny okres niemożności prowadzenia pojazdów mechanicznych, czy też okres ten powinien być liczony od daty uprawomocnienia się orzeczenia. Autor zawarł w glosie postulat de lege ferenda, proponujący zmianę przepisów, przewidującą tego rodzaju sytuację, co także może rzutować w istotny sposób na problem odpowiedzialności z art. 180a Kodeksu karnego.
EN
The decision in question is important not only for the practice but also for any driver. It does not (because it cannot) eliminate the existing gap in the law which does not stipulate the way of assessment of the case of driving licence withdrawal through no fault of the driver in a prior situation, reported to a public authority, in the case of a decision of penal measure of driving ban in a situation of not being able to return the document to an administrative authority. A problem therefore arises whether this type of inability to deposit the driving licence should automatically prolong the actual period of driving ban or whether this period should start with the date of the judgement becoming legally binding. In his commentary the author proposes de lege ferenda, suggesting to amend the provisions that would foresee this type of situation, which may also significantly affect the problem of liability under art. 180a of the Penal Code.
5
Dostęp do pełnego tekstu na zewnętrznej witrynie WWW
Celem opracowania jest szczegółowa analiza stosowania środka karnego zakazu prowadzenia pojazdów (art. 42 § 2 k.k.) wobec kierowców zawodowych, dopuszczających się przestępstwa z art. 178a § 1 k.k. W artykule przedstawiono zarówno poglądy doktryny, jak i rozbieżne stanowiska prezentowane w orzecznictwie sądów powszechnych. Autor formułuje tezę, że okoliczność wykonywania zawodu kierowcy powinna wpływać, w pierwszym rzędzie, na wymagania stawiane takim kierowcom, a także powinna być brana pod uwagę przez sąd na etapie wymierzania kary - a w szczególności orzekania środka karnego zakazu prowadzenia pojazdów. Autor wskazuje na konieczność wprowadzenia zmian w ustawie karnej, w tym wprowadzenia definicji legalnej kierowcy zawodowego.
EN
The aim of the study is to analyse the use of penal measure of driving disqualification (Art. 42 § 2 Polish Penal Code) applied to professional drivers who commit the crime provided for in Art. 178a § 1 of the Polish Penal Code. The author formulates a thesis that the fact that the accused is a professional driver should be taken into account firstly, at the level of requirements set before the driver, and secondly, when the court imposes a penalty, especially driving disqualification. The article shows divergent views pre¬sented in the jurisprudence of the common courts. The author indicates that changes in the criminal law are needed, including the introduction of a definition of professional driver.
Artykuł ma na celu przybliżenie zagadnień związanych z problematyką przestrzeganiem przepisów dotyczących ochrony zwierząt. Na potrzeby opracowania poddano analizie podstawowe pojęcia, tj. kontrola i nadzór, które często są mylnie ze sobą utożsamiane i traktowane zamiennie. Zasadniczą natomiast część opracowania poświęcono kompetencjom wybranych podmiotów realizujących zdania w obszarze ochrony, a także nadzoru nad przestrzeganiem praw zwierząt. W pierwszej kolejności dokonano analizy uprawnień i kompetencji powierzonych tzw. kontroli społecznej, które są porównywalne z kompetencjami organów administracji publicznej, a w niektórych przypadkach nawet je przewyższają. Kolejna część artykułu, dotyczy struktur organizacyjnych oraz zakresu zadań i kompetencji Inspekcji Weterynaryjnej jako organu ustawowo powołanego do kontroli nad przestrzeganiem przepisów o ochronie zwierząt. W dalszej kolejności scharakteryzowano uprawnienia i kompetencje organów wykonawczych gminy. Ostatnim z podmiotów, który poddano analizie pod kątem kompetencji w zakresie kontroli nad przestrzeganiem praw zwierząt w aspekcie ich ochrony humanitarnej, jest organ o najszerszych kompetencjach w obszarze szeroko pojętej kontroli. Mowa tu o Najwyższej Izbie Kontroli. Poza kompetencjami w przedmiotowym zakresie, przytoczono również zakres zrealizowanych przedsięwzięć kontrolnych, który pozwala na sformułowanie wniosku, iż problematyka ochrony zwierząt znajduje się w stałym zainteresowaniu tej instytucji.
7
Dostęp do pełnego tekstu na zewnętrznej witrynie WWW
Artykuł jest poświęcony zagadnieniom związanym z reakcją prawnokarną wobec sprawcy wypadku drogowego i ma charakter przeglądowy. Przeanalizowano katalog kar i środków karnych w odniesieniu do przestępstw z art. 177,178 oraz 178a k.k. oraz stan dyskusji wokół środków karnych jako najskuteczniejszego instrumentu prawnego ochrony bezpieczeństwa ruchu drogowego. Omówiono przesłanki zaostrzenia represji karnej oraz przedstawiono kształtowanie się polityki karnej państwa wobec sprawców wypadków drogowych. Omówiona została struktura przestępstwa przeciwko bezpieczeństwu w komunikacji, kontrowersje wokół zasad bezpieczeństwa, kwestie nieumyślności oraz zagadnienia związane z prowadzeniem pojazdu w stanie nietrzeźwości i pod wpływem środka odurzającego. Wskazano na pilną potrzebę opracowania metodyki badań kierowców na obecność środków odurzających, w konsekwencji dopracowania przez ustawodawcę koniecznej precyzji terminologicznej w tym zakresie.
EN
The paper focuses on issues connected with reaction in the area of penal law towards perpetrators of road accidents and provides an overview of the subject. A list of penalties and punitive measures applied in case of crimes specified in Articles 177,178 and 178a of the Penal Code as well as current deliberations regarding punitive measures as the most effective legal instrument aimed at safeguarding road traffic safety have been discussed. The paper touches upon premises which give grounds for aggravating penal punitive measures. It further presents penal policy pursued by the state towards perpetrators of road accidents. The article describes the structure of the crime against transport safety, controversies surrounding rules of safety, issues regarding inadvertence and matters pertaining to driving under the influence of alcohol and intoxicants. The work points to the urgent need of developing a methodology for testing drivers towards detection of intoxicants in their bodies, and as a result, to specifying in greater detail terminology used in the area.
8
Dostęp do pełnego tekstu na zewnętrznej witrynie WWW
W artykule przedstawiono wyniki analizy statystycznej informacji zawartych w orzeczonych przez krajowe sądy wyrokach dla osób prowadzących pojazdy pod wpływem alkoholu. Do analizy zastosowano różnego typu kryteria takie, jak struktura płci i wieku sprawcy, zawartość alkoholu w wydychanym powietrzu, rodzaj pojazdu, wahania liczby nietrzeźwych kierowców w wybranych okresach, jak również rodzaj i wymiar stosowanych przez sądy kar (zakres korzystania z dostępnych możliwości prawnych) oraz czas trwania postępowania procesowego, zwłaszcza w przypadkach winy oczywistej, co nie wymaga przeprowadzenia skomplikowanych czynności dowodowych.
EN
This article is devoted to statistical data analysis conducted with reference to previously generated database (all information required for that purpose was provided by judicial decisions concerning drunk drivers). Various criteria, such as age and gender structure, BrAC coefficient, vehicle type, fluctuations in the number of drunk drivers in selected periods of time as well as type and length of judgements delivered by polish courts or even duration of legal proceedings (especially those related to cases where guilt is certain and doesn't require long procedures) were applied to the database in order to maximize the accuracy of carried out analysis.
Artykuł ma charakter naukowo-badawczy, a jego przedmiotem jest analiza uchwał i postanowień Izby Karnej Sądu Najwyższego w zakresie prawa karnego materialnego, prawa karnego skarbowego i prawa wykroczeń wydanych w 2021 r., w wyniku rozpatrzenia tzw. pytań prawnych. Dotyczyły one: pojęcia przestępstwa z użyciem przemocy (art. 41a § 1 k.k.), odpowiedzialności za złożenie fałszywych zeznań z obawy przed grożącą odpowiedzialnością karną (art. 233 § 1a k.k.), charakteru losowego gry hazardowej (art. 2 ust. 3 i 5 ustawy z dnia 19 listopada 2009 r. o grach hazardowych), zamiany kary prawomocnie orzeczonej za przestępstwo w wypadku przekształcenia przestępstwa w wykroczenie (art. 2a§ 1 k.w.) oraz pojęcia „przeważająca działalność” gospodarcza, zawartego w art. 6 ust. 2 ustawy z dnia 10 stycznia 2018 r. o ograniczeniu handlu w niedziele i święta. Podstawowym celem naukowym była ocena zasadności dokonanych przez ten organ interpretacji przepisów regulujących zagadnienia prawne poddane Sądowi Najwyższemu do rozstrzygnięcia. Głównymi tezami badawczymi było wykazanie, że tzw. instytucja pytań prawnych kierowanych do Sądu Najwyższego spełnia ważną rolę w zapewnieniu jednolitości orzecznictwa sądów powszechnych i wojskowych, gdyż argumentacja stanowiska tego organu jest pogłębiona. Wyniki badania mają oryginalny charakter, ponieważ rozwijają twórczo interpretację zawartą w analizowanych rozstrzygnięciach. Badania mają przede w wszystkim zasięg krajowy. Artykuł ma istotne znaczenie dla nauki – zawiera pogłębioną analizę dogmatyczną oraz duży ładunek myśli teoretycznej, a także jest przydatny dla praktyki, wzbogacając argu-mentację Sądu Najwyższego lub przytaczając okoliczności uzasadniające poglądy odmienne.
The article deals with the penalty measure of art. 41 § 1a of Polish Criminal Code. Remarks are based on the ground of the Highest Court verdict (1st October 2014, II KK 129/14). The measure from an art. 41 § 1a of Polish Criminal Code can be meted out only of a perpetrator violates sexual freedom of a victim. There are many doubts about this measure. The regulation had been added to the original text of Polish Criminal Code and it does not suit the whole system of penalty measures well. Controversial are its: duration (in general), optional or obligatory character, possibility to mete it out with conditional suspension of execution of imprisonment or penalty of imprisonment other than 1 month to 15 years, formal or material basis of the measure.
PL
Artykuł dotyczy środka karnego z art. 41 § 1a k.k. Pretekstem do rozważań jest wyrok SN z dnia 1 października 2014 roku, II KK 129/14. Omawiany środek może zostać orzeczony wyłącznie wtedy, gdy sprawca popełnia czyn przeciwko wolności seksualnej pokrzywdzonego. Konstrukcja tego środka budzi wiele wątpliwości. Przepis art. 41 § 1a został dodany do pierwotnej wersji Kodeksu karnego i nie został prawidłowo wkomponowany w istniejący system środków karnych. W szczególności wątpliwości związane są z czasem trwania tego środka, jego obligatoryjnym lub fakultatywnym charakterem, możliwością orzeczenia w przypadku warunkowego zawieszenia kary pozbawienia wolności oraz – obok kary pozbawienia wolności – innej niż terminowa, formalnymi lub materialnymi przesłankami jego orzekania.
The main scientific aim of the article is to present and analyse the amendment of 14 October2021 to the prerequisites of disfranchisement laid down in Article 40 § 2 CC. The initialconsiderations focus on the essence and significance of the aforementioned penal measure inthe system of penal measures determined in Criminal Code. The article presents the legal statebefore the amendment and the reasons for the amendment presented by the authors of the bill.As concerns the change of law within the scope of prerequisites of disfranchisement, the articletries to confront the mutual relationships of the present prerequisites. The considerations madeit possible to formulate a series of critical conclusions concerning the legislative changesintroduced and constituted and impulse to put forward a proposal de lege ferenda.
PL
Głównym celem naukowym niniejszego opracowania jest przedstawienie i analiza zmodyfikowanychprzez nowelę z 14 października 2021 r. przesłanek orzeczenia pozbawienia prawpublicznych zawartych aktualnie w art. 40 § 2 k.k. Rozważania wstępne koncentrują się naprzedstawieniu istoty i znaczenia wymienionego środka karnego w systemie środków karnychokreślonych w Kodeksie karnym. Zaprezentowano stan prawny w tym zakresie obowiązującyprzez nowelą i wskazane przez projektodawców przyczyny dokonanej modyfikacji ustawowej.W związku ze zmianą prawa w obrębie przesłanek orzeczenia pozbawienia praw publicznychpodjęto próbę skonfrontowania i wzajemnej relacji aktualnych przesłanek. Rozważania w tymobszarze pozwoliły na sformułowanie wielu wniosków krytycznych w odniesieniu do wprowadzonychzmian legislacyjnych i stanowiły asumpt do wysunięcia postulatu de lege ferenda.
The article is of scientific nature and undertakes research into the procedure of issuance of the European protection order by a Polish court or a public prosecutor, resulting in the execution of a protective, penal or probation measure by a competent judicial or equivalent authority in a Member State of the European Union, which requires refraining from staying in certain environments or places, and contacting or approaching certain people. The regulation concerning the execution of such an order by the competent authority of a Member State has been omitted herein. The aim of the main research theses is to show that this measure plays an important role as makes it possible to continue the protection of the aggrieved in another Member State. The research findings are original in character. They have primarily national range but can also be useful in other countries due to the fact that they relate to the EU instrument. The article analyses the essence of the European protection order, the requirements for its issuance, including the ruling on the measure of protection of the aggrieved, the necessity of the issuance of the European protection order to protect the rights of the aggrieved, the motion of the aggrieved, the European protection order issuance proceeding, in particular the authorities authorised to issue it, the form of the ruling, the forum for its issuance, the issuance mode, entitlement to appeal, the transmission of the European protection order, and information obligations. The paper is important for science because it contains an in-depth dogmatic analysis and a large load of theoretical thought, as well as for practice, as it indicates the direction of interpretation of the requirements for the application of this measure and the issuance procedure.
PL
Artykuł ma charakter naukowo-badawczy, a jego przedmiotem jest wydanie europejskiego nakazu ochrony przez polski sąd lub polskiego prokuratora, obejmującego wykonanie przez właściwy sąd lub inny organ państwa członkowskiego Unii Europejskiej środka zapobiegawczego, karnego i probacyjnego w zakresie powstrzymywania się od przebywania w określonych środowiskach lub miejscach, kontaktowania się z określonymi osobami lub zbliżania się do określonych osób. Pominięta została regulacja wykonania takiego nakazu przez właściwy organ państwa członkowskiego. Celem głównych tez badawczych było wykazanie, że środek ten spełnia istotną rolę, umożliwiając kontynuowanie ochrony pokrzywdzonego w innym państwie członkowskim. Wyniki badania mają oryginalny charakter. Mają one przede wszystkim zasięg krajowy, ale mogą być przydatne również w innych państwach ze względu na to, że dotyczą instrumentu unijnego. Analizie zostały poddane: istota europejskiego nakazu ochrony, przesłanki jego wydania, w tym orzeczenie środka ochrony pokrzywdzonego, niezbędność wydania europejskiego nakazu dla ochrony praw pokrzywdzonego, wniosek pokrzywdzonego, postępowanie w przedmiocie wydania europejskiego nakazu ochrony, w szczególności organy uprawnione do jego wydania, forma orzeczenia, forum jego wydania, tryb wydania, zaskarżalność, przekazanie europejskiego nakazu oraz obowiązki informacyjne. Opracowanie ma istotne znaczenie dla nauki, gdyż zawiera pogłębioną analizę dogmatyczną i duży ładunek myśli teoretycznej, a także dla praktyki, wskazuje bowiem kierunki interpretacji przesłanek stosowania tego środka oraz postępowania w przedmiocie jego wydania.
This study is devoted to the issue of the legal limitation of the entrepreneur’s ability to run a business. The study attempts to show what economic activity is, what is its scope and subject matter, and what may be the consequences of the prohibition of conducting business activity against an entrepreneur who is respectively: a natural person, a legal person or an organizational unit without legal personality, and having legal capacity. Depending on the legal status of the entrepreneur, the adjudicated ban on running a business (irrespective of its basis) may give rise to various consequences of an existential nature of the entrepreneur.
PL
Niniejszy artykuł dotyczy zagadnienia prawnej limitacji możliwości prowadzenia działalności gospodarczej przez przedsiębiorcę. W opracowaniu starano się przybliżyć, czym jest działalność gospodarcza, jaki jest jej zakres przedmiotowy i podmiotowy, a także jakie mogą być konsekwencje orzeczenia zakazu prowadzenia działalności gospodarczej względem przedsiębiorcy, który jest odpowiednio: osobą fizyczną, osobą prawną lub jednostką organizacyjną nieposiadającą osobowości prawnej, a mającą zdolność do czynności prawnej. W zależności od statusu prawnego przedsiębiorcy, orzeczony zakaz prowadzenia działalności gospodarczej (bez względu na jego podstawę zastosowania) może rodzić różne konsekwencje natury egzystencjalnej po stronie przedsiębiorcy.
We are now entering in Poland into the second decade of the new penal system in force. The period of time which has elapsed: since the introduction of this system is long enough to enable us to take a close look at the new legal institutions envisaged in the system, at the practical value of these institutions and trends observed in their application. This paper is devoted to the above considerations, or to be more exact, to the part played by the application of penal measures. In order to characterize roughly the guidelines underlying the above penal codifications it should first be stated that what the legislators had in mind was a need to treat serious and petty offences in a different way. Those who were guilty of serious crimes were to suffer from penalties of immediate deprivation of liberty, and, exceptionally, that of capital punishment. Some categories of offenders regarded as dangerous, repulsive or persistent were to meet augmented penal repressions. Among these were perpetrators of hooligan, type offences, and recidivists some of whom, after completing their sentences, were to be treated with special penal measures, such as protective supervision and/or placing in a social readaptation centre. At the same time various lenient penal measures were to be imposed against perpetrators of petty offences. Sometimes proceedings against such persons were to be discontinued. Besides, some petty offences became depenalized (for the first time in 1967 and then on a larger scale in 1971) by considering them to be transgressions and getting them transfered from the courts to the Penal Administrative Commissions. The Penal Code, the Penal Executive Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure have been in force since 1st January, 1970. However, it should be borne in mind that penal legislation is not confined to the above mentioned codes. It also embraces some statutes with two very important ones issued in the early seventies: the Code of Transgressions included in the set of acts of 20th May 1971 (Dz.U. no. 12, para 114- 118) making up a codified system of transgressions law and the Financial Penal Code of 26th Oct. 1971 (Dz.U. no. 28, para 260). It is only after the above acts had been passed the process of codification of the Polish penal legislation was completed. If one takes into consideration the need to have a minimum period of time necessary for learning how to make use of new regulations and the date when the previously mentioned acts came into force, as compared with the 1969 codes, one should take the year 1972 as a starting point for the analysis of the penal policy as determined by the new penal codification in the full form. The problems of the applications of penalties by courts arising from the 1969 penal code regulations are among the most complex ones and bear evidence of the fact that at this particular issue, the regulations of the present code are not exceptionally successful. For the purposes of our discussion we should try to introduce some order into this complex subject. Therefore, we shall distinguish three groups among the regulations of the imposition of the penalty by the courts. The first group will include the regulations from the special part of the penal code (and other penal acts), which describe the kind and limits of penal sanctions provided for the perpetrators of crimes envisaged in the regulations. The second group shall include the regulations from the general part of the Penal Code (or statutes with general part, such as the financial Penal Code or Chapter 37 of the military part of the Penal Code) which modify the norms found in the regulations belonging to the above first group. The above modifications concern the changes in the limits of sanctions, rules of the order of choice: among the alternative sanctions, or possibilities of application of penal measures which are not provided for a particular offence. The third group will encompass the regulations specifying the principles to be used by courts in choosing the kind and extent of penal measures against offenders. The essential feature of the above legal system is that it lacks rules which would provide one strictly defined penalty for an offender of a given offence. The court is always faced with the necessity of making a choice of a penalty: first of all, whether to apply any punishment at all, or to confine oneself to a conditional discontinuance of the proceedings (arid sometimes, if the statute makes it possible, to renounce the execution of the penalty). If a sentence is passed, what kind of penalty is to be imposed, whether it should be combined with another basic penalty, or additional penalties, punitive financial award or preventive means should be made use of. What then should be the directives for the court in making the choice? The answer to this question is provided by the Penal Code, above all in Art. 50. In this article three different directives are included for the court in imposing a penalty at its discretion: (1) the degree of social danger of the offence, (2) regard for the social effectiveness of the penalty, and (3) the preventive and educational effect on the person convicted. These directives, dressed as they are in a new wording, correspond, as it were, to the classical purposes of punishment. The first of these is to give justice, i.e. to mete out retribution for the "evil" done by the offender in the form of suffering proportional to this "evil". The second purpose is general prevention, i.e. a tendency to punish the offender in order to prevent others from committing offences. The third purpose of punishment is special prevention, i.e. the effect on the offenders themselves in order to prevent them from committing further criminal acts. The difficulties involved in the implementation of the principle of justice once it ceases to be understood literally as that of "eye for eye, tooth for tooth”, are well known and need not be mentioned here. One ought, however, to point out that there is no "objective" or "invariable" scale of translating the degree of "evil" committed by the offender into the suffering caused to him, This scale is arbitrary and variable. Its variability can be seen both when the degrees of penalties imposed for the same offences at various times are compared, and, what is even more significant, when the comparison is made of penalties for the offences against various values protected by the law. It is thus clear that various penal policies can be pursued based on the principle of just retribution within the framework of the same legal system. The fact that § 1, Art. 50 of the Penal Code makes a mention of the social effect of a penalty rather than of general prevention was not accidental. However, from the argumentation included in the Introduction to the draft of the Penal Code it can easily be seen that what the authors of the draft really had in mind was that social effect meant instilling fear for the punishment in the prospective offenders. In the statements concerning special prevention only two forms of such effect on the convicted persons were distinguished, i.e. prevention and education. The first term refers, as may be judged from the argumentation in the Introduction to the draft of the Penal Code, to making it impossible for the convicted person to pursue crime by physically isolating him from the society in a penal institution or to ultimate exclusion from the society by the application of capital punishment. The second term is self-explanatory: education means that the attitudes and motivation of a convicted person are to be transformed in such a way that he will comply with the requirements of the law in the future. An essential draw back in Art. 50 of the Penal Code is that it includes three separate recommendations as to the court’s decisions on the way of dealing with the offender on the assumption that each of these recommendations would lead to the same result without any collisions between them. Had such a possibility come to the notice of the legislator at the proper time, the above directives would have been classified according to some order of importance or a regulation would have been introduced to solve any collision between them. As the main interest in this work is centered on the penal policy of the courts, of particular importance are the statements made by the Supreme Court concerning the content and interpretation of § 1 Art. 50 of the Penal Code rather than the opinions formulated in the doctrine of the law. Initially, the Supreme Court’s position was that the directives of § 1 Art. 50 of the Penal Code were all equal. But in 1975 for offenders convicted for the misappropriation of social property of high value the Supreme Court recommended the use of the directive of retaliation and general deterrence without mentioning the special prevention directive, thus making some distinction between them. Finally, in 1977 it became clear that the Supreme Court had accepted "just retaliation" as a priority directive in imposing penalties. Within the directive of "just retaliation" (social danger of the act) some shift in the emphasis can be noticed. At first the social danger of the act was regarded to be a synthesis of objective and subjective elements, and finally, the main importance was stressed of one of the objective elements, i.e. the extent of the damage caused or the benefit gained by the perpetrator. Thus a problem arises what value should be attached to these modifications in the positions taken by the Supreme Court. In anticipating further conclusions one is tempted to say now that these modifications were associated by significant augmentation of the penalties imposed by the courts. At least two explanations may be offered here. One is that the reason for the stiffening of the penal policy can be traced to the courts' making a greater use of the "retaliation" directive in the imposition of penalties. This may have an additional support in the fact that the penalties became more severe at the very time when the shift occurred in the emphasis from recommending the taking into consideration of all the three directives of Art. 50 of the Penal Code to "retaliation". Simultaneously special stress was to be put on making the responsibility more objective in the form of close relationship between the fine and the extent of the damage caused. In the second explanation both the above mentioned reasons, i.e. emphasis on retaliation and stiffening of penalties, would be regarded as caused by a third party. They can arbitrarily be called a process of making the legal values more rigid in the circles providing directives for the criminal justice system apparatus. The rigidity would manifest itself either in regarding the offences committed in this country to become more socially dangerous or the offenders to deserve a more severe treatment. It should, therefore, be noted that none of the directives mentioned in the Art. 50 of the Penal Code is unequivocally leading to a lenient or to a stiff criminal policy. Uniter the banners of either of the directives some offenders, some offences, may be considered as calling for lenient penal measures, whereas other offenders, other offences - may be thought of as deserving severe penalties. Thus, the final shape of the penal policy depends on how the line is drawn between those "calling for" lenient treatment and those "deserving" punitive reaction. Taking all the above into consideration the present author thinks of the second explanation as more probable than the first. It should be noted that only the penal measures imposed for offences dealt with by public prosecutor are analysed. Thus the analysis will not include a decreasingly small number of convictions for offences prosecuted by the complainant himself (about 8 thousand in 1972 and 3 thousand in 1980). Although the capital punishment, as seen from Table 1, is imposed in a few cases only, its very existence in the Polish criminal law is strongly criticized by some lawyers and criminologists. Among penal measures used by common courts the penalty of immediate deprivation of liberty takes the second place after the capital punishment on the scale of severity. It is imposed in months and years (Art. 32 §2) and may range from 3 months to 15 years (art. 32 §1) and 25 years. If one analyses information on the duration of the above penalties, four characteristic elements have to be noted: (1) In 1980 for only one in 11 persons the immediate deprivation of liberty was shorter than one year (in 1975 - one in nine and one in four or five in 1972); (2) the immediate deprivation of liberty was most often imposed for the period between one and two years: over 40 per cent and in some years nearly 50 per cent of all persons had such a penalty imposed on them; (3) a long-term penalty (i.e. 3 years and more) was imposed on one person in five over the period 1975- 80 (in 1972 it was one in seven); (4) the absolute number of most severe sentences (over 10 to 15 and 25 years) was on the increase systematically till 1976. It should be particularly emphasized as from 1975 a decrease has been observed in the total number of imposing the penalty of immediate deprivation of liberty. The most commonly used penal measure was deprivation of liberty with conditional suspension of the execution (Art. 73 of the Penal Code). According to Art. 75 of the Penal Code the court when suspending the execution of the penalty of deprivation of liberty can, among other things, impose one or more obligations provided for in the above article. These obligations were imposed on the persons sentenced to the penalty of deprivation of liberty more and more frequently. The courts most often obliged the sentenced persons "to refrain from abusing alcohol", "to perform specified works or render specified contributions for social purposes" and "to perform remunerated work, to pursue education or prepare himself for an occupation". What is also interesting is that the courts have ordered more and more obligations, or to put it differently, they have less and less often confined themselves to ordering one obligation only. Thus the court’s action in this respect has been intensified. Irrespective of ordering the above obligations the court suspending the execution of penalty of deprivation of liberty may, for the test period, "place the sentenced person under the supervision of a designated person, institution or social organization" (Art. 76 § 2). The fraction of those placed under supervision in the totals of liberty was stable in the early seventies (30- 31 per cent), it began to rise in 1974 and reached nearly 40 per cent in 1980. The court may conditionally suspend the execution of a penalty of deprivation of liberty of up to 2 years when sentencing for an intentional offence and of up to 3 years when sentencing for an unintentional offence. (Art. 73 §1). Over the period 1972-80 certain changes were also observed in the extent of these penalties. They were similar to those of the extent in the penalties of immediate deprivation of liberty. They can be summarized as follows: (1) a very significant fall occurred in the fraction of penalties below 1 year (from 45.7 to 12.3 per cent); (2) the most often suspended penalty of deprivation of liberty was that of 1 year (36.6 to 44 per cent); (3) the percentage of suspended penalties over 1 year and up to 2 years increased markedly (from 17.7 to 44.1 per cent). The imposition of a penalty of deprivation of liberty, both immediate and conditionally suspended, is associated with the possibility (and in some cases - an obligation) of imposing a fine in an amount from 500 to 1 000 000 zlotys (Art. 36 §2 - 4. Unfortunately, the judicial statistics do not distinguish (except for some offences) whether the fine is imposed together with immediate or suspended sentence of deprivation of liberty. It turns out that the persons sentenced for the above penalties suffered from a fine quite often and this additional burden became more and more frequent: in 1972 the percentage of penalties of unconditional or suspended deprivation of liberty was 61.1, and in 1980 - 68.1. In the period of only 8 years 1972 - 80 almost no fines were imposed up to 1 000 zlotys, their number having decreased from 13.6 thousand to 82 and the respective contributions from 15.0 to 0.1 per cent. The penalty of limitation of liberty is among the new penal measures which after some hesitation have become accepted in practice. In the period under discussion the contribution made by sentences of this penalty increased threefold: in 1980 they amounted to 18.0 per cent of all sentences. In other words, one in six persons sentenced in cases initiated by public prosecutor is punished by limitation of liberty. This penalty imposes some limitations on a person sentenced, e.g. he may not change his place of abode (Art. 33 §1), and can take three forms. One of them is an obligation of "performing unremunerated supervised work for public purposes from 20 do 50 hours per month" (Art. 34 §1). The penalty of limitation of liberty in this form was applied to 41.4 per cent of sentenced persons in 1980 as compared with 38.1 per cent in 1972. The second form is applicable only to persons employed in a socialized work establishment and consists in deducing 10 to 25 per cent of the remuneration for work for the benefit of the State Treasury (Art. 34 §2). It was applied to 46,4 per cent of sentenced persons in 1980 as compared with 58.8 per cent in 1972. The third form - most seldom applied - is used when the court directs a person not being in an employment relation to an appropriate socialized work establishment for the purpose of performing work there and deduces from 10 do 25 per cent of the remuneration for work (Art. 34 §3). It was, however, applied in 12.2 per cent of cases in 1980 as compared with 3.1 per cent in 1972. Although the penalty of limitation of liberty may be not less than 3 months and not more than 2 years (Art. 33 §1), its minimum duration of 3 months has lately been imposed in 1.1- 1.3 per cent of sentenced persons as compared with 5.2 per cent in 1972. The most commonly imposed duration was over 6 month to 1 year. In 1980 nearly one person sentenced in 3 had it imposed on for a period from 1 to 2 years while in 1972 this happened to one person in 25. Again, like the penalty of unconditional deprivation of liberty, deprivation of liberty with suspension, fine imposed together with deprivation of liberty, the penalty of limitation of liberty shows an ever marked tendency to be imposed most infrequently in its lower extent and most often in its high and highest extent. The same applies to the fine (Art. 36 §1). It can be adjudged in an amount from 500 to 25 000 zlotys, i.e. within much narrower limits than that imposed together with a penalty of deprivation of liberty. The changes which took place in the years 1972- 80 as regards the extent of the fine, resemble those which occurred in the case of a fine adjudged together with deprivation of liberty (Table 1). We shall finish our discussion of basic penalties with two pieces pf information. The imposition of the supplementary penalty only (Art. 55) was confiscation of property in 90 per cent of cases, and prohibition of operating motor driven vehicles in the remaining 10 percent. Educational and corrective measures applied (Art. 9 §3) consisted in placing in a borstal in some dozen percent of cases, which is a kind of deprivation of liberty. The largest group, about half of all on whom these measures were imposed, was placed under the supervision of a probation officer. We shall now try to formulate some general conclusions drawn from the date on the structure an extent of penal measures. We shall use four groups of indexes to present the conclusions in most concise form (Table 2). These indexes will describe the most important statistically determined aspects of Poland's penal system. The first group of indexes refers to the extent of crime known to the police. Traditionally the penal measures applied are thought of as a response to this crime. Therefore, if one wants to understand their evolution one has to look into the nature of the evolution of crime. The determination of the extent of crimes known to the police can be carried out in several ways. It can be based on the data on the offences (taken from the police and public prosecutor’s statistics) or on the data on the offenders supplied as a rule by the judicial, statistics. The data on the serious offences known to the police encompass acts chosen in an arbitrary way limited by the extent of those published in the Statistical Year Books for the years 1971- 80. The number of sentences can be determined more simply from the number of sentences for acts regarded as the most serious ones by the legislator (Art. 5 of the Penal Code). All this information is presented in the form of rates per 100 000 total population (data on the offences known to the police) or per 100 000 adult population (data on sentences). By comparing the changes in these rates two conclusions can be drawn. First, the number of serious crimes known to the police as well as that of the crime perpetrators brought to trial during the seventies was at a similar level although it showed some variations. The general rate of offences known to the police was measured in three different ways, namely the rate of crimes known to the police, the persons found guilty and the sentenced ones. It proves the relevance of two well known observations: the first one is that when the criminal case passes along the subsequent links in the chain of the justice system (police, public prosecutor’s office, court) the size of the crime known to the police becomes smaller. The second observation is that serious crimes are less susceptible to such fluctuations. The second conclusion drawn from the comparison of crime rates introduced above is that it he statement about the stable extent of crime first of all, that of most serious crime, is of greatest importance for further discussion. This statement warrants the opinion that the observed changes in the structure and intensity of penal measures cannot be accounted for by the corresponding changes in the extent and character of the crime known to the police. The reasons of these changes should be traced to changes in legal values, i.e. in the evolution of the opinions as to what kind of penal reactions form the "proper" response to definite offences against the law, what penalty is "adequate" to the amount of social danger involved in the offence and, the belief in the general deterrent effect of severe penalties. The data on the application of preliminary detention show that about one in four persons at the time of being convicted had experienced deprivation of liberty. As expected, this experience was specially common among the persons on which the court had subsequently imposed the penalty of immediate deprivation of liberty. The data collected in the third part of Table 2 on the structure of the penal measures imposed provide a remainder of the changes in these measures. Among them one can observe a certain limitation of sentencing to immediate deprivation of liberty, and a much more marked decrease in the number of sentences to a suspended deprivation of liberty. The former change may be regarded as a symptom of what is so much needed in the Polish criminal justice system, i.e. of eliminating penalties associated with deprivation of liberty and the ever increasing application of penalties without deprivation of liberty in the sentencing practice, not only in verbal statements. As for the latter change it is difficult to take an unequivocal attitude. It is because one should remember that period 1972 - 80 was not only characterized by a fall in the per cent contribution of sentences of suspended deprivation of liberty but also by a rise in the per cent contribution of placing under supervision, ordering obligations, increasing the number of such obligations, imposing fines together with deprivation of liberty, the extent of which is also increasing. We shall now consider the indexes to determine the rate of the application of penal measures. Table 2 shows two such groups chosen out of a variety of others. One group is made up of the numbers of persons sentenced to deprivation of liberty per 100 thousand adult population. The second group constitutes the mean values of various penalties. The above indexes help us to focus our attention on two contradictory, in the author’s opinion, trends. One trend, to limit the imposition of the penalty of immediate deprivation of liberty, is best seen in the fall in the number of sentences to this penalty (per 100 000 adult population) from 272,7 in 1972 to 172,1 in 1980, i.e. by 37 per cent. The other trend, in the opposite direction, is seen in the ’"rates" of sentences to long penalties of deprivation of liberty, i.e. 3 and over years, and particularly, 5 and over years. During only 4 years the mean penalty of immediate deprivation of liberty became longer by nearly 6 months from 19 months in 1972 to over 25 month in 1976. The tendency to augment the penalties has also manifested itself in the rise by as much as 25 per cent of the mean penalty of suspended deprivation of liberty: from about 12 months ip 1972 to about 15 months in 1980. This augmentation seems quite Irrational as it is a well-known fact that for a large majority of such penalties there is no need to have them executed. At the same time there is no evidence that the penalties imposed in the previous extent were ineffective or their lengthening had led to higher effectiveness. The next pair of mean values given in Table 2 provide information about the extent of both kinds of fine. These values must be analysed in close relation with significant devaluation of money in Poland in the seventies. Therefore, the table contains information about the mean monthly salary in the socialized economy in this country (the last line). During the period 1972- 80 the salaries increased more than twofold, but the fines increased fivefold. As early as in 1972 the mean value of either of the above fines was equal to a little over one month salary, in 1980 the fine was equal to more than a two-month salary, and the other fine amounted almost to a three-month salary; the repressiveness of the above penal measures increased markedly. We shall complete our discussion of Table 2 with one general remark. When observing the evolution of penal policy in Poland in the span of the last 25 years, two features may be distinguished. One constant tendency, though not without some hesitations and obstructions, to augment the impact of individual penal measures based almost exclusively on imposing one type of punishment. The second feature is a tendency to combine these effects by simultaneously using various kinds of punishment imposed on a sentenced person. This tendency was noticeable in the sixties, but it became more marked in the light of the present-day regulations which have opened up new and greater possibilities in this respect. The tendencies like the above in the penal policy raise some doubts as to their effectiveness and moral validity. They seem to convey impression that the penal measures in Poland have been undergoing a process of accelerated devaluation. It looks as if in order to attain the same aims of penal policy simultaneous application of the ever increasing measures in ever increasing doses should be resorted to. It is most doubtful whether such a devaluation really takes place as similar results were obtained earlier by means of less severe penal measures. One cannot escape the impression that the present penal policy in Poland is characterised by a certain extravagancy manifesting itself in the above accumulation of various forms of repressiveness instead of making an attempt to use them in an alternative way. The future development of Polish penal policy calls for a fundamental analysis and gradual reorientation.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.