Celowość i indywidualizacja kary w ujęciu Aleksandra Mogilnickiego

• Autorzy: Agata Grudzińska

Warianty tytułu

The Appropriateness and Individualisation of Punishment from Perspective of Alexander Mogilnicki

• Języki publikacji: PL

Abstrakty

Na gruncie polskiej teorii prawa karnego na początku XX w. przedstawicielami kierunku socjologicznego byli m.in. J. Makarewicz, W. Makowski, S. Wróblewski oraz A. Mogilnicki. (...) Temat niniejszego opracowania to: pojęcie kary, jej cel, indywidualizacja, zasady orzekania. Stanowiło to przedmiot zainteresowań Mogilnickiego w ciągu wielu lat pracy naukowej. W związku z dużą ilością materiałów źródłowych niniejsze opracowanie dotyczyć będzie okresu od 1897 r. do 1919 r., kiedy to Mogielnicki został powołany w skład Komisji Kodyfikacyjnej II RP. (fragment tekstu)

EN

The Italian positive and sociological school appeared in criminal law at the end of the 19th century. Those schools appeared as a result of the increase of crime in Europe, which was connected with urbanization and rapid development of industry. The influence of, particularly, sociological school could be seen in Poland at the turn of the 19th century. Among others, J. Makarewicz, W. Makowski, A. Mogilnicki were the representatives of the sociological trend on the ground of the Polish theory of criminal law. Alexander Mogilnicki's views on punishment are, as a whole, included in the sociological trend of the Polish criminal thought. It should be stressed that Mogilnicki was one of the first to introduce the assumptions of the sociological trend into Poland. An individual offender became the centre of consideration. Due to the fact that the rule of the appropriateness of punishment came to the force, Mogilnicki divided offenders into three groups. The first group comprises habitual criminals (criminals from habit). They grow up in the environment where crimes are the ordinary nature of life, while imprisonment teaches them new techniques of committing crimes. However, if this young criminal changed his environment, he could give up committing crimes and start leading an honest life. The second group includes people living in a healthy environment. A criminal offence is an isolated act. They are called episodic criminals. Unlike the previous group, they should not be improved. Obviously, they should be punished because they committed a criminal offence. Their punishment will function as a deterrent that will aim at preventing other people from committing crimes. The third group comprises criminals who cannot be improved by any means. They are professional, incorrigible criminals. Their imprisonment is the only way of preventing them from committing crimes and of deterring them from doing harm to society. They should be isolated as long as they stop being harmful to society. This division of criminals shows the means to decrease the number of crimes, i.e. improvement, deterrent, or elimination of a criminal. The individualization of punishment was strictly connected with its appropriateness. The aim of punishment was not repression but the influence on criminal's personality and his future conduct. The rule of appropriateness of punishment, i.e. deterring a criminal from committing a crime again, should be realized by a particular sentence, taking into consideration, mainly, criminal's personality. A fight against crime should be based on individual prevention. Mogilnicki consequently presented his views on the appropriateness of punishment, stressing the significance of the fact that punishment should be deprived of revenge. The main characteristic feature of all his work is unusual reaction to any deficiency of criminal legislation, to anything that was unjust from his point of view. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

PL

Kodeks karny; Prawo karne

EN

Criminal Code; Criminal Law

• Czasopismo: Studia Iuridica Lublinensia
• Rocznik: 2012
• Tom: 17
• Strony: 135--150

Twórcy

autor

Agata Grudzińska

• Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej w Lublinie

Bibliografia

• Janiszewska-Talagao E., Szkoła antropologiczna prawa karnego w Polsce, Warszawa 1965, s. 34.
• Lityński A., Wydział Karny Komisji Kodyfikacyjnej II Rzeczypospolitej. Dzieje prac nad częścią ogólną kodeksu karnego, Katowice 1991, s. 27.
• Makarewicz J., Prawo karne ogólne, Kraków 1914, s. 14-16.
• Makowski W., Środki ochronne wobec recydywistów i przestępców anormalnych, Referat na V Zjazd prawników i ekonomistów polskich we Lwowie 1912 r., s. 2.
• Marek A., Waltoś S., Podstawy prawa karnego i procesu karnego, Warszawa 1999, s. 52.
• Mogilnicki A., Czy kara hańbi?, "Gazeta Sądowa Warszawska" (dalej GSW) 1897, nr 29, s. 442-445.
• Mogilnicki A., Indywidualizacja kary, GSW 1899, nr 50, 51, 52.
• Mogilnicki A., Kary dodatkowe: kary cielesne, kary hańbiąc, pozbawienie czci i praw, Warszawa 1907, s. 19.
• Mogilnicki A., Maximum i minimum kar, GSW 1897, nr 42 i 43.
• Mogilnicki A., Obrońca kryminalny a opinia publiczna, "Ateneum. Pismo Naukowe i Literackie", t. I, z. III, Warszawa 1901, s. 457.
• Mogilnicki A., Pierwiastek zemsty w pojęciu kary, Themis Polska - seria II, t. VI, poszyt pierwszy, Warszawa 1916, s. 86.
• Mogilnicki A., Rappaport E.S., Projekt Kodeksu karnego dla ziem polskich, GSW 1916, nr 16, s. 181.
• Mogilnicki A., Rozmaitość kar, GSW 1898, nr 1 i 2.
• Mogilnicki A., Władza dyskrecjonalna sędziego kryminalnego, Warszawa 1912, s. 3.
• Pol K., Poczet prawników polskich, Warszawa 2000, s. 341.
• Rychter W., Aleksander Mogilnicki: kary dodatkowe, GSW 1909, nr 22, s. 338.
• Seidler G.L., Doktryny prawne imperializmu, Kraków 1961, s. 11.
• Sójka-Zielińska K., Historia prawa, Warszawa 1986, s. 325 i n.
• Sołtysik M., Zła karta Ronikiera, "Palestra" 2011, nr 1-12.
• System prawa karnego. Źródła prawa karnego, T. Bojarski (red.), t. 2, s. 113 i n.
• Świda W., Prawo karne. Część ogólna, Warszawa 1970, s. 53.
• Wąsowicz M., Nurt socjologiczny w polskiej myśli prawnokarnej, Warszawa 1989, s. 180.