New Penal Measures in the Polish System - Experience and Results

• NCJ Number: 73950
• Journal: Revue de science criminelle et de droit penal compare Issue: 3 Dated: (July-September 1980) Pages: 625-639
• Author(s): S Walczak
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 15 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Language: French
• Country: France
• Note: Paper read at the Criminal Science section of the Second Conference of the Institute of the University of Paris and at the Center for Research in Criminal Policy on February 22, 1980.

Annotation

The results of introducing new forms of penalties in the Polish criminal code of 1969 are assessed.

Abstract

The major new penalty types are restrictions on liberty combined with social service, conditional dismissal of charges, social defense measures such as protective supervision, and placement in a special center for social re-adjustment. The penalty of restrictions on liberty was imposed in 20 percent of the total convictions by 1977. Convicted offenders receiving a sentence of restricted liberty may continue working at government enterprises, keeping part of their own salary; may be forced to work in a government establishment; or may be obliged to work without pay in a community service job. The penalty has an educative effect on petty offenders and can successfully replace short-term prison sentences, but the principles for executing the penalty are in need of revision. The recidivism rate for offenders undergoing this process is generally between 9.8 and 14 percent. Conditional dismissal of charges may be effected by the prosecutor prior to the trial or by the tribunal after the bill of indictment is transferred. In most cases dismissal is linked to bail in the form of money or social service. In 1977, 14,793 cases were handled in this manner. The penalty proves ineffective in about 16.9 percent of the cases. Protective supervision and placement in a social adjustment center are sentences reserved for offenders who continue committing the same type of crimes after their first conviction (about 11 percent of convicted offenders). The difference between the two measures is the degree of limitation of individual freedom. Of 14,591 eligible recidivists in 1978, 8,207 individuals received sentences of protective supervision, and 547 individuals were placed in the social readaptation center. The number of such sentences imposed has dropped somewhat since 1975. Since 1970, the number of convictions has shown a slight downward trend, probably because of the protective and preventive effects of these two measures. It can be concluded that the reform measures have been only partially effective, as convictions have remained at a relatively high level. Conditional dismissal has been particularly effective in realizing the new criminal policy, and the effectiveness of limitation of liberty has been satisfactory in diminishing the number of short-term prison sentences. Although the sentences of protective supervision and placement in social readaptation centers have positive effects, execution of such measures is beset with difficulties. In these cases, contradictions exist between the legislative directives and the actual practice. Notes are supplied.