Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

Nowa wersja platformy, zawierająca wyłącznie zasoby pełnotekstowe, jest już dostępna.
Przejdź na https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Ograniczanie wyników

1 2016

Znaleziono wyników: 2

Liczba wyników na stronie

Wyniki wyszukiwania

Wyszukiwano:
w słowach kluczowych: umyślność

Sortuj według:

Ogranicz wyniki do:

The principles of guilt – remarks on the background of the Polish penal code

100%

Komadowska A.

Roczniki Wydziału Nauk Prawnych i Ekonomicznych KUL

2014-2015

tom 10-11

nr 1: Prawo

115-125

Wina, oprócz karalności i karygodności, stanowi element definicji przestępstwa. Literatura fachowa szeroko opisuje problemy związane z istotą winy i tworzy jej definicje. Nie ma jednak w tym względzie zgody i przedstawiono kilka dalszych istotnych teorii winy. Kodeks z roku 1997 po raz pierwszy wprowadził przyznanie się do winy i rozwiązania dotyczące winy, które zasadniczo różnią się od poprzednich. Autorka niniejszego artykułu próbuje przyjrzeć się bliżej problemowi winy, jego istotności dla odpowiedzialności karnej, jak również stara się wskazać, które rozwiązania dotyczące winy sprawcy przestępstwa zostały przyjęte przez obowiązujący kodeks.

Guilt, besides punishability and culpability, constitutes an element of the definition of a crime. Scientific literature broadly describes problems pertaining to the essence of guilt and it creates its definitions. However, there is no agreement in this respect and a few more important theories of guilt have been put forward. The 1997 code for the first time introduced the declaration of guilt and the solutions about guilt which principally differ from the previous ones. The Author of the present paper makes an attempt to get a closer look at the problem of guilt, its importance for penal liability as well as trying to point out which solutions concerning the perpetrator’s guilt have been adopted in the present code.

Artykuł 28 § 1 k.k. po nowelizacji z dnia 20 lutego 2015 r. Uwagi na temat konieczności oddzielania strony podmiotowej czynu zabronionego od winy

100%

Jędrzejewski Z.

Studia Iuridica

2016

tom 65

25-40

The object of analysis is the amended art. 28 § 1 of the Penal Code, which stipulates that „whoever commits an act while being in justifiable error as to a circumstance constituting a feature of an prohibited act, shall not commit a crime”. The new regulation of 28 § 1 of the Penal Code is the next attempt to statutorily define the concept of an offence based on the methodology of a strict separation of the object of evaluation from the evaluation itself, that is, primarily a radical separation of mens rea of a prohibited act from guilt. Therefore, the authors of the change have consistently attempted to eliminate all normative attributes from the scope of „recklessness” and „negligence”. This is a result of the view that assumes a pure descriptive character of the set of criminal offence features (Ger. „Tatbestand”) including subjective features (offences of intentional and unintentional character). In this context, acts committed while being in justifiable error as to a circumstance constituting a feature of a prohibited act exclude guilt, however the fulfilment of the features of criminal acts of unintentional character is limited to the fulfilment of objective features (a consequence of the concept of the unintentional character of an offence as a plain negation of intent). The negative wording of art. 1 § 3 of the Penal Code, the objective and general interpretation of the term found in art. 9 § 2 „could have foreseen” (a transfer of the so-called objective foreseeability to the category of objective attribution) and the concept of committing an act while being in justifiable error as to a circumstance constituting a feature of a prohibited act excluding guilt lead, in the area of unintentional character of an offence, to the presumption of guilt on the basis of the fulfilling only the objective features of a criminal act. The author of the article demonstrates the inaccuracy of this argument for a strictly descriptive character of the features of a prohibited act, and in particular the features of intent (intentional character of an offence). The object of intent (a feature of a criminal offence) has a evaluative character (evaluation), therefore determining intent can generally constitute a premise for accepting guilt (intended), unless the circumstance of excluding guilt exceptionally occurs. In the case of an unintentional character of an act, such a relation does not occur, and the guarantee functions (the rule of positive establishment of the perpetrator’s guilt) thus require subjective (specific and individual evaluation) interpretation of the premise „could have foreseen” found in art. 9 § 2 of the Penal Code.