Pokaż uproszczony rekord

dc.contributor.authorPietruszka, Renata
dc.date.accessioned2015-09-11T07:31:54Z
dc.date.available2015-09-11T07:31:54Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifier.issn0208-6069
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11089/11765
dc.description.abstractThe subject of this paper is an issue of the conditional cumulative sentence under art. 89 of the penal code (p.c.) particularly focusing on amendments to this provision introduced by the statute of 5 November 2009 which came into force on 8 June 2010. In the paper an effort has been made to show that amendments to art. 89 (p.c) had not removed a lot of unclear issues and interpretation ambiguities and in some cases they had created new problems. As long as it clearly results from provisions of art. 89 (p.c.) that in a cumulative sentence it is possible to join sentences of the same kind of which at least one is passed but is conditionally suspended and deprivation of liberty sentences, it is still not clear if it is possible to join sentences of restricting liberty or fines, conditionally suspended. The same doubt concerns sentences of various types both when they are compiled as “absolute sentences and conditionally suspended” and when they all have been passed as conditionally suspended. It is true that it has been accepted that only one-type sentences or liberty deprivation sentences together with sentences of restricting liberty of which at least one is conditionally suspended are subject to the cumulating of the sentences whose service may be conditionally suspended ( arg. ex art. 87 p.c.). But it is still ambiguous and not clear. It has not either been decided unambiguously if in case of enforcement means of reaction to a crime in combinations mentioned directly in § 1 and 1a art. 89 p.c. as well as in those admitted when applying a maiori ad minus reasoning their cumulating is a duty of the court or its right which it can exercise e.g. when conditions to suspend a sentence are satisfied (specified in art. 69) and the passing of a cumulative sentence will not aggravate a convict’s situation. Though the legislator has resolved that in case of liberty deprivation sentence conditionally suspended the court may pass an absolute sentence it is still not certain if the conditional cumulative sentence is only a possibility (or perhaps a duty of the court) when there is a different combination of enforcement means. There is also an issue of a conditional cumulative sentence when all individual sentences are absolute. A question arises if a possibility of applying this institution may be admitted under art. 89 p.c. and if not, then perhaps under general provisions. In the paper it has been decided that neither the first nor the second solution is correct. The issue of the conditional sentence has still not been decided in a situation of ruling at the same time as of all crimes that are in real concurrence. In this issue the “November amendment” which restricted the provision under art.89 p.c. to the cumulative sentence only caused a return to times when the previous codes had been in force and which had not absolutely referred to the issues in question and opposing solutions had been being accepted (both in literature and in judicature) – (i.e. applying the institution of the conditional sentence either at the stage of passing individual sentences or at the stage of passing the cumulative sentence) of which every one now poses quite serious practical problems.pl_PL
dc.language.isoplpl_PL
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegopl_PL
dc.relation.ispartofseriesActa Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Iuridica;71
dc.titleWarunkowe zawieszenie wykonania kary łącznej po nowelizacji z 2009 rokupl_PL
dc.title.alternativeConditional cumulative sentence after introduction of the amendment in 2009pl_PL
dc.typeArticlepl_PL
dc.rights.holder© Copyright by Uniwersytet Łódzki – Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego 2012pl_PL
dc.page.number[65]-83pl_PL
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationKatedra Prawa Karnego, Uniwersytet Łódzki.pl_PL
dc.referencesUzasadnienie rządowego projektu kodeksu karnego. W Nowe kodeksy karne – z 1997r. z uzasadnieniami. Kodeks karny. Kodeks postępowania karnego. Kodeks karny wykonawczy. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Prawnicze Sp. z.o.o.
dc.referencesBieńkowska Ewa, Kunicka-Michalska Barbara, Rejman Genowefa, Wojciechowska Janina. 1999. Kodeks karny. Część ogólna. Komentarz. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck
dc.referencesBogdan Grzegorz, Ćwiąkalski Zbigniew, Kardas Piotr, Majewski Jarosław, Raglewski Janusz, Szewczyk Maria, Wróbel Włodzimierz, Zoll Andrzej. 2004. Komentarz do art. 89 k.k. W Kodeks karny. Część ogólna. Komentarz. Tom I. Kraków: Wolters Kluwer SA.
dc.referencesBuchała Kazimierz, Zoll Andrzej. 1998. Kodeks karny. Część ogólna. Komentarz, Kraków: Zakamycze.
dc.referencesCieślak Marian. 1990. Polskie prawo karne. Zarys systemowego ujęcia. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
dc.referencesGajewski Marcin. 2001. „Glosa do uchwały SN z 27.03.2001 r. (I KZP 2/01)”. Monitor Prawniczy 18 : 940.
dc.referencesGramza Łukasz. 2001. „Glosa do uchwały SN z 25.10.2000 r. (I KZP 28/2000)”. Orzecznictwo Sądów Polskich 9 (124).
dc.referencesGóral Roman. 1998. Kodeks karny. Praktyczny komentarz. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Zrzeszenia Prawników Polskich.
dc.referencesGrzegorczyk Kazimierz. 2001. „Glosa do uchwały SN z 27.03.2001 r. (I KZP 2/01)”. WPP 2 : 150.
dc.referencesKalitowski Michał, Sienkiewicz Zofia, Szumski Jerzy, Tyszkiewicz Leon, Wąsek Andrzej. 2000. Kodeks karny. Komentarz, Tom II, Gdańsk: Arche.
dc.referencesMarek Andrzej. 1999. Komentarz do kodeksu karnego. Część ogólna. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Prawnicze.
dc.referencesMisztal-Konecka Joanna. 2001. „Glosa do uchwały SN z 25.10.2000 r. (I KZP 28/00)”. Przegląd Sądowy 7–8 : 126.
dc.referencesPietruszka Renata. 2004. „Warunkowe zawieszenie wykonania kary łącznej”. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Iuridica 67.
dc.referencesSiwek Marek. 2001. „Glosa do wyroku SA w Lublinie z 9 .11. 2000 r. (II AKa 213/00)”. Prokuratura i Prawo 9 : 112.
dc.referencesStefański Ryszard. 2002. „Przegląd uchwał Izby Karnej Sądu Najwyższego w zakresie prawa karnego materialnego, prawa karnego wykonawczego i prawa wykroczeń za 2001 r.”. Wojskowy Przegląd Prawniczy 1 : 113.
dc.referencesWojciechowski Janusz. 1998. Kodeks karny. Komentarz. Orzecznictwo. Warszawa: Librata.
dc.referencesWysocki Dariusz. 2001. „Glosa do uchwały SN z 25.10.2000 r. (IKZP 28/00)”. Orzecznictwo Sądów Polskich 3 (49) : 158–160.
dc.referencesZabłocki Stanisław. 2001. „Przegląd orzecznictwa Sądu Najwyższego – Izba Karna”. Palestra 1–2 : 201.
dc.referencesZwolak Paweł. 2002. „Glosa do uchwały SN z 25.10. 2000 r. (I KZP 28/00)”. Przegląd Sądowy 4 : 114.


Pliki tej pozycji

Thumbnail

Pozycja umieszczona jest w następujących kolekcjach

Pokaż uproszczony rekord