Hide
Show all
Email this article Judicial Punishment Decisions Referring to Offences with Identical Statutory Punishments in the Light of Statistical Data
Abstract
The article is devoted to the analysis of court punishment practice in the case of offences which have the same statutory punishment. Three groups of such offences are selected: offences punished with imprisonment from 2 to 12 years (group I), offences punished with imprisonment from 3 months to 5 years (group II) and offences punished with imprisonment from 1 month to 3 years (group III). Most of the analysed offences belonged to the group of offences against freedom (including sexual freedom) and the other chosen offences were against other socially cherished values were those quite popular in practice (therefore, the statistical data in their cases are quite representative). The analysed year was 2016. The starting hypothesis was that offences which have identical punishments in the Criminal Code (which means that the lawmaker perceives them as socially harmful in a similar way) will not be treated in such a similar way in practice and in all groups there would be offences which would be punished with visibly more severe and lighter punishments. Detailed analysis of statistical data referring to punishments imposed for the discussed offences confirmed the initial hypothesis, showing also the already known fact that courts tend to impose punishments which are closer to the minimum than to the maximum provided by the lawmaker.
Keywords
References
Act of 20 February 2015 on the amendment to the Criminal Code and certain other acts (Journal of Laws 2015, item 396).
Bojarski T., Polskie prawo karne. Zarys części ogólnej, Warszawa 2008.
Brisbin R.A. Jr., Slaying the Dragon: Segal, Spaeth and the Function of Law in Supreme Court Decision Making, “American Journal of Political Science” 1996, Vol. 40(4), DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2111739.
Collins P.M. Jr., The Consistency of Judicial Choice, “Journal of Politics” 2008, Vol. 70(3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S002238160808081X.
Czabański J., Sędziowski wymiar kary pozbawienia wolności, „Prawo w Działaniu” 2008, nr 3.
Ćwiąkalski Z., O niektórych pojęciach związanych z wymiarem kary, „Nowe Prawo” 1989, nr 4.
European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics, Helsinki 2014, http://wp.unil.ch/europeansourcebook/data-base/5th-edition [access: 10.10.2019].
George T.E., Epstein L., On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision Making, “American Political Science Review” 1992, Vol. 86(2), DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1964223.
Giezek J., Okoliczności wpływające na sędziowski wymiar kary, Wrocław 1989.
Giles M.W., Blackstone B., Vining R.L. Jr., The Supreme Court in American Democracy: Unraveling the Linkages between Public Opinion and Judicial Decision Making, “Journal of Politics” 2008, Vol. 70(2), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381608080316.
Gray T., An Empirical Assessment of Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Decision-Making on Criminal Law from 1995 to 2014, “Western New England Law Review” 2016, Vol. 38.
Gruszczyńska B., Marczewski M., Ostaszewski P., Spójność karania. Obraz statystyczny stosowania sankcji karnych w poszczególnych okręgach sądowych, „Prawo w Działaniu” 2014, nr 19.
Gruszczyńska B., Marczewski M., Ostaszewski P., Więcek-Durańska A., Struktura kar orzekanych w Polsce i w innych państwach Unii Europejskiej, Warszawa 2015.
Hall M.G., Brace P., The Vicissitudes of Death be Decrees: Forces Influencing Capital Punishment Decision Making in State Supreme Courts, “Social Science Quarterly” 1994, Vol. 75(1).
Informator Statystyczny Wymiaru Sprawiedliwości, Skazania prawomocne – dorośli – z oskarżenia publicznego – wg rodzajów przestępstw i wymiaru kary, https://isws.ms.gov.pl/pl/baza-statystyczna/opracowania-wieloletnie [access: 20.01.2019].
Kaczmarek T., Sędziowski wymiar kary w Polskiej Rzeczypospolitej Ludowej w świetle badań ankietowych, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk 1972.
Kastellec J.P., The Statistical Analysis of Judicial Decisions and Legal Rules with Classification Trees, “Journal of Empirical Legal Studies” 2010, Vol. 7(2), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2010.01176.x.
Konarska-Wrzosek, Dyrektywy wyboru kary w polskim ustawodawstwie karnym, Toruń 2002.
Kulesza M.L., Śliwowski J.W., Ustawowy a sędziowski wymiar kary, Warszawa 1936.
Lipez K.V., Is There a Place for Religion in Judicial Decision-Making?, “Touro Law Review” 2014, Vol. 31.
Maroń G., Integralność religijna sędziego oraz argumentacja religijna w amerykańskim procesie orzeczniczym, Rzeszów 2018.
Melezini M., Punitywność wymiaru sprawiedliwości karnej w Polsce w XX wieku, Białystok 2003.
Mozgawa M., Budyn-Kulik M., Prawnokarne aspekty pedofilii. Analiza dogmatyczna i wyniki badań empirycznych, „Czasopismo Prawa Karnego i Nauk Penalnych” 2006, z. 2.
Mozgawa M., Kozłowska-Kalisz P., Pornografia dziecięca w świetle badań empirycznych (aspekty prawnokarne), [in:] Pornografia, red. M. Mozgawa, Warszawa 2011.
Rohde D., Spaeth H.J., Supreme Court Decision Making, San Francisco 1976.
Schubert G., The Judicial Mind Revisited: Psychometric Analysis of Supreme Court Ideology, New York 1974.
Schubert G.A., The Study of Judicial Decision-Making as an Aspect of Political Behavior, “American Political Science Review” 1958, Vol. 52(4), DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1951981.
Segal J.A., Spaeth H.J., The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model, New York 1993.
Świda W., Prawo karne, Warszawa 1982.
Traut C.A., Emmert C.F., Expanding the Integrated Model of Judicial Decision Making: The California Justices and Capital Punishment, “Journal of Politics” 1998, Vol. 60(4), DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2647736.
Wolter W., Z problematyki wymiaru kary (średni wymiar kary), „Państwo i Prawo” 1958, z. 7.
Wróblewski W., Ustawowy a sędziowski wymiar kary (Referat sprawozdawczy), Warszawa 1936.
Zorn Ch., Barnes Bowie J., Ideological Influences on Decision Making in the Federal Judicial Hierarchy: An Empirical Assessment, “Journal of Politics” 2010, Vol. 72(4), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381610000630.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/sil.2019.28.4.101-124
Date of publication: 2019-12-30 00:00:00
Date of submission: 2019-06-24 11:27:17
Statistics
Indicators
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2020 Aneta Michalska-Warias
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.