Browsing by Author "Krajewski, Krzysztof"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Czy zalegalizować narkotyki (wokół debaty amerykańskiej)(Wydział Prawa i Administracji UAM, 1992) Krajewski, KrzysztofThe drugs legalization debate originated in the USA during the last decade, as current policies based on prohibition and broad criminalization became the target of increasing criticism, because of their ineffectiveness and many negative side effects. There is no doubt that proponents of such a move have many very strong and convincing arguments to support their position. But it is eually true that opponents are able to rise some very well grounded objections. The main Problem is, that both sides are unable to prove beyond any doubt their version of the consequences of abandoning prohibition, first of all with respect to eventual increases in the consumption of drugs. Because of this it seems that total legalization of all drugs may be currently too risky a step, Instead, an approach more permissive than current one should be recommended, first of all to avoid negative side effects of the strict prohibition so well described during the discussed here debate. This approach shall include experiments with step by step legalization of some drugs, first ofall soft ones. Also making possible legal access to drugs for the persons already addicted may be a wise step. Such approach was adopted vûth sucess by some European countries and should constitute the cornerstone of the drugs policies in Poland as well.Item Kryminologia konsensualna czy konfliktowa? Spór o koncepcję(Wydział Prawa i Administracji UAM, 1987) Krajewski, KrzysztofSince late sixties one can observe in criminological literature significant change of the assumptions about society and social order. This change may be described as the turn from the assumption of normative consensus towards the assumption of social conflict, which is of very significant consequences for sociological conceptions of crime and deviance. Because of this it is possible to speak about two paradigms within criminological thought: consensual and conflict ones. Consensual Paradigm assumes normative consensus as the main source of social order. Because of this, deviance is treated as an indicator of the lack of adjustment, product of individual or social pathology. Within conflict paradigm, which assumes that social order results from coercion, society is perceived as the aggregation of many social groups with different and conflicting cultures. In such situation deviance constitutes normal behavior of individuals acting in accordance with values and norms of the groups they belong to, which under certain conditions may be stigmatised as deviant or criminal. Sources of stigmatisation and criminalisation are main problems for contemporary conflict criminology. They are explained in terms of social conflict, where criminal law is perceived as the tool of power elites in subduing other groups. Because of this conflict, criminology abandones traditional etiological questions. Instead, it tries to develop critical sociology of criminal law and criminal justice. The main problem about this approach is whether it is really impossible to reconcile it with traditional consensus criminology. It seems that it is possible. Consensus and conflict constitute two aspects of every society. Which one prevails depends on circumstances. The main task is to ascertain in what situations which approach constitutes better and more adequate tool of describing deviant and criminal phenomena.Item Podstawowe tezy teorii naznaczania społecznego(Wydział Prawa i Administracji UAM, 1983) Krajewski, KrzysztofThe theory of social labelling has radically revaluated several propositions previously widely accepted in the sociology of deviations and in criminology. It is mostly a question of the departure from the deterministic approach giving preference to the etiology analysis of deviational and criminal phenomena combined with a stress on the role of social control understood as a factor being at the bottom of social order. The theory has also criticized discriminating deviational and criminal phenomena from other social facts on the grounds of their objective and qualitative differences, The proposition of "distinctness" of deviated persons or criminals from other people, which was in addition to account for deviational behaviour, was pronouncedly dismissed. A new way of defining the deviational phenomena was developed in the social labelling theory upon application of the behavioral criterion of reaction to a given type of behaviour in place of the previous formal criterion of a norm contravention. Simultaneously a, stress was laid on the role of an intragroup interaction in forming judgements and interpretations of other persons behaviour and in considering it to be deviated. Reflections on the negative effect of the institution of social control were extended by introducing a notion of the secondary deivation. Consequently it was suggested in the new trend to reevaluate the previous treatment of deviational and criminal phenomena and replacing the "correctional" attitude with the one of "understanding". That would imply a substantial change in methods and ways of treating phenomena of deviation and deviated persons themselves. To sum up: irrespective of the disputability of its several propositions, the social labelling theory can be considered as a particularly original attempt at creating a complimentary approach to the subject in relation to the previous theories of deviation and crime.