CONVICTION UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF ARTICLE 65 1 AND 2 OF THE PENAL CODE AS A NEGATIVE PREREQUISITE FOR THE USE OF THE ELECTRONIC TAGGING SYSTEM INTERPRETATIVE DOUBTS

Probacja Pub Date : 2023-03-31 DOI:10.5604/01.3001.0016.2853
Dariusz Kuberski
{"title":"CONVICTION UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF ARTICLE 65 1 AND 2 OF THE PENAL CODE AS A NEGATIVE PREREQUISITE FOR THE USE OF THE ELECTRONIC TAGGING SYSTEM INTERPRETATIVE DOUBTS","authors":"Dariusz Kuberski","doi":"10.5604/01.3001.0016.2853","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article regards the legal prerequisites for excluding the use of the electronic tagging system, in particular the relationship between the provisions of Article 431a 1 (1) of the Penal Enforcement Code and the provisions of Article 65 1 and 2 of the Penal Code. The article draws attention to the increasing use of the electronic tagging system in Poland and the benefits resulting from this fact. The publication contains an analysis of the problem of whether a conviction for a crime from the commission of which the offender has made a regular source of income or committed a crime acting in an organized group or association aimed at committing a crime and for a crime of a terrorist nature - constitute a negative premise for the use of the electronic tagging system. The article draws attention to the practical aspect of the problem raised in connection with the divergent interpretation of the above-mentioned provisions, which leads to a situation in which, in the same factual and legal situations, common courts issue divergent rulings. The author, assessing the relationship between the provisions of the Penal Enforcement Code and the Penal Code, notes that the provisions of the Penal Code are applicable in executive proceedings only in the event that the Penal Enforcement Code contains a direct reference to them. The author finally comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the offender for crimes listed in Article 65 1 and 2 of the Penal Code does not constitute a legal obstacle to the issuance of a ruling allowing the offender to serve his sentence in the electronic tagging system. The position expressed in the work has been supported by views presented in the literature and case law.","PeriodicalId":34028,"journal":{"name":"Probacja","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Probacja","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0016.2853","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article regards the legal prerequisites for excluding the use of the electronic tagging system, in particular the relationship between the provisions of Article 431a 1 (1) of the Penal Enforcement Code and the provisions of Article 65 1 and 2 of the Penal Code. The article draws attention to the increasing use of the electronic tagging system in Poland and the benefits resulting from this fact. The publication contains an analysis of the problem of whether a conviction for a crime from the commission of which the offender has made a regular source of income or committed a crime acting in an organized group or association aimed at committing a crime and for a crime of a terrorist nature - constitute a negative premise for the use of the electronic tagging system. The article draws attention to the practical aspect of the problem raised in connection with the divergent interpretation of the above-mentioned provisions, which leads to a situation in which, in the same factual and legal situations, common courts issue divergent rulings. The author, assessing the relationship between the provisions of the Penal Enforcement Code and the Penal Code, notes that the provisions of the Penal Code are applicable in executive proceedings only in the event that the Penal Enforcement Code contains a direct reference to them. The author finally comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the offender for crimes listed in Article 65 1 and 2 of the Penal Code does not constitute a legal obstacle to the issuance of a ruling allowing the offender to serve his sentence in the electronic tagging system. The position expressed in the work has been supported by views presented in the literature and case law.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
根据《刑法》第65条第1款和第2款的规定定罪,作为使用电子标签系统的消极先决条件
该条涉及排除使用电子标签系统的法律先决条件,特别是《刑事执行法》第431a条第1款第(1)项的规定与《刑法典》第65条第1和第2款的规定之间的关系。这篇文章提请注意波兰越来越多地使用电子标签系统,以及这一事实带来的好处。该出版物分析了一个问题,即对罪犯作为常规收入来源所犯罪行或在有组织团体或协会中犯罪的定罪,以及对恐怖主义性质的犯罪的定罪是否构成使用电子标签系统的不利前提。该条提请注意与对上述条款的不同解释有关的问题的实际方面,这导致了在相同的事实和法律情况下,普通法院作出不同裁决的情况。提交人在评估《刑事执行法》和《刑法典》条款之间的关系时指出,只有在《刑事执行法典》直接提及《刑事执行准则》的情况下,《刑法典”条款才适用于行政诉讼。提交人最后得出的结论是,对犯下《刑法典》第65条第1款和第2款所列罪行的罪犯定罪并不构成发布允许罪犯在电子标签系统中服刑的裁决的法律障碍。该作品中表达的立场得到了文献和判例法中提出的观点的支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
The relationship between attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and criminal behavior: a psychological profile of convicts serving custodial sentences. Pilot studies Basics of improving special protection for convicted persons – critical remarks Firmant and the problem of identifying a taxpayer in an organized criminal group Criminal law protection of religious freedom amid contemporary challenges and threats Forfission of an enterprise and the burd of proof in criminal process
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1