Podstawowe dyrektywy wymiaru kary (w świetle dyskusji wokół art. 50 k.k.)
Loading...
Date
1989
Authors
Advisor
Editor
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Wydział Prawa i Administracji UAM
Title alternative
Basic directives of measurement of penalty (in the light of discussion on art. 50 of the penal code)
Abstract
The article presents the standpoints of Polish penal code writing with respect
to basic directives of measurement of penalty formulated on the basis of Penal
Code of 1969.
The first part presents three basic directives contained in Art. 50 § 1 of the
Penal Code of 1969, i.e. a) a directive of the degree of social danger of a criminal
act (identified by most authors with the justice-based rationalization); b) a directive
of social influence of penalty (corresponding with the principle of general
crime prevention); c) a directive of individual influence of penalty (corresponding
with the principle of individual crime prevention).
The interpretation of Art. 50 § 1 of the Penal Code does not indicate that the
legislator would treat any of these directives in a preferential way. It may mean
that each of them should be reflected in the individual measurement of penalty.
The Penal Code is also silent on the question of priority of one of these directives
in case of conflict between them, leaving the choice to the discretionary powers
of the court. Such an arrangement of basic directives of measurement of
penalty has since the early days of the Penal Code raised numerous controversies,
most of them focused around the problem of a so-called leading directive of
measurement of penalty. The second part of the article shows the course of a twenty-year-old discussion
on the conceptions of measurement of penalty. The first stage of that discussion
took place in years 1959 -1974. Three basic standpoints were represented in
legal writing at that time. Most writers supported the conception of equality of
directives provided for in Art. 50 § 1 of the Penal Code (among others I. Andrejew,
Z. Kaczmarek, Z. Kubec, J. Majewski, W. Swida, J. Sliwowski, Z. Sienkiewicz).
The second group of authors supported the conception of domination of
one of the preventive directives, mostly the one of individual crime prevention,
over the others (K. Buchała, A. Spotowski, A. Zoll, A. Krukowski). Finally, the
third view was for the conception of priority of the directive of social danger.
The problems of basic directives of measurement of penalty were again in
the focus of interest of legal writing in years 1981 -1982, in connection with amendements
to the Penal Code. Most authors were then for the leading role of individual
prevention modified by the needs of just requital, or for the equivalent
position of both directives (e.g. A. Spotowski, A. Marek, A. Zoll). Almost unanimous
was in legal writing the renouncement of the directive of general crime
prevention. The two projects of amendments to the Penal Code (a government
and a so-called social draft) incorporated the above proposals of changes of Art. 50
§ 1 of the Penal Code.
In 1988, The Commission for the Penal Law Reform appointed by the Minister
of Justice issued Guidelines on the Penal Law Reform. However, the Guidelines
were not clear as to the standpoint with respect to changes of Art. 50 of
the Penal Code.
The above Guidelines were also analysed by the Scientific Society of Penal Law.
The opinion of that organization stated that the measurement of penalty should
include two aims: the satisfaction of social sense of justice through the severity
of penalty commensurate with the degree of guilt, and individual crime prevention
directed towards resocialization. In case of conflict of those two directives,
priority should be given to individual crime prevention, with the exception
of fellonies.
The author is fully in support for the standpoint expressed in the Opinion of
the Scientific Society of Penal Law.
Description
Sponsor
Digitalizacja i deponowanie archiwalnych zeszytów RPEiS sfinansowane przez MNiSW w ramach realizacji umowy nr 541/P-DUN/2016
Keywords
Citation
Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny 51, 1989, z. 4, s. 89-105.
Seria
ISBN
ISSN
0035-9629