Prevention of crime, tort and epidemy: The use of criminal procedure for preventive purposes in Poland during Covid-19

2021 ◽  
pp. 174889582110567
Author(s):  
Arkadiusz Lach
Keyword(s):  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Illegal Activity ◽  
The Public ◽  
Polish Code ◽  
Prevention Of Crime

Criminal procedure is increasingly becoming an important instrument of prevention. This is a globally observed tendency, and Poland is not an exception. There are several regulations in the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure that allow the preventive use of coercive measures. In 2020, a new and controversial regulation was introduced, authorising the public prosecutor or court to prohibit the publication of content interfering with the legally protected goods of the victim. The author criticises the new preventive measure as duplicating civil law injunctions and expresses the opinion that, in criminal procedure, preventive measures should be used to prevent crime, not every illegal activity. In addition, the article describes the criminal procedure for isolating persons obliged to quarantine themselves because they have tested positive for Covid-19 or had contact with infected persons. This raises the question of the limits of the preventive function of provisional arrest and possible abuse of the criminal process using it for aims unrelated to the traditional goal of the criminal process: determining the question of guilt of the accused.

Comparative Approaches to Criminal Procedure

2019 ◽  
pp. 66-88
Author(s):  
Eliabetta Grande
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
Jury Trial ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Revolutionary Change ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
The Public ◽  
Adversarial Model

This chapter discusses comparative approaches to criminal procedure, focusing on transplants, translations, and adversarial-model reforms in European criminal process. In particular, it examines the idea of “Americanization/adversarialization” of European criminal procedures—that is, the possible convergence between American common law and European civil law criminal procedure systems toward a common adversary core structure. The chapter also considers the implications of transplanting some American adversarial features into the non-adversary European soil, such as pretrial investigations conducted by the police and the public prosecutor in lieu of the investigating judge typical of the civilian tradition; exclusionary rules; cross-examination; and jury trial. It compares the so-called tango justice with rumba justice and analyzes the “revolutionary change of procedure” with respect to cross-examination of witnesses, jury trial in Spain, and plea bargaining in Europe.

scholarly journals A New System of Preventive Measures Alternative to Remand in Custody: First Results of Application, Development Prospects

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 242-255
Author(s):  
Lev Bertovskij ◽  
Aleksandr Kvyk
Keyword(s):  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Application Development ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
European Court ◽  
First Results

We currently witness a heightened interest for the humanization of penalization measures, specifically, preventive measures, both in the theory and practice of Russian criminal procedure. There is well-grounded criticism of the fact that the number of remands in custody used as preventive measures is high and that their terms are prolongated many times, and on similar grounds, both in the Russian criminal procedure sphere and in the European Court of Human Rights during the examination of specific complaints. The analyzed statistical information showed that in 2015, remand in custody as a preventive measure in the criminal cases of grave and especially grave crimes was used for every second suspect or accused. It could not but contribute to the development of a system of preventive measures alternative to detention, and to the emergence of its new types. The authors analyze changes in the strict hierarchical system of preventive measures in view of Federal Law № 72-ФЗ enacted on April 18, 2018, which changed the procedure of applying the preventing measures of house arrest and bail and provided a measure that is completely new for Russian criminal process - the prohibition of certain actions. A considerable variety of restrictive measures included in the prohibition of certain actions, and the possibility of applying them in combination with a bail created a situation paradoxical for Russian criminal process when the application of a measure of prohibition of certain actions, that is a milder one in the hierarchy of restrictive actions, may restrict the rights and liberties of a person to a greater degree than a bail, which is a stricter measure. Besides, the legislative definition of the essence of house arrest as complete isolation of a person from the society and the prohibition of certain actions as partial isolation has created a competition between these preventive measures when they are enforced in practice. The authors present convincing arguments to show that it is impossible to ensure complete isolation of a person form the society without placing that person in the pre-trial detention facility, which makes it possible to equal house arrest with a prohibition to leave a dwelling in a certain period within the framework of prohibiting certain actions. Although there are some questions regarding the application of preventive measures alternative to remand in custody, we should commend the efforts of lawmakers to develop a system of these measures, and the practice of their enforcement will certainly allow to eliminate the existing competition and solve specific problems of their selection and application.

Features of the election of such preventive measure as house arrest in relation to minors

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-157
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Manohina
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
A Minor

In the article, the author turns to the study of the peculiarities of choosing such a preventive measure as house arrest for minors. Due to the fact that the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation does not precisely define cases when a court must elect a house arrest in relation to minors, in practice there are often difficulties in which cases to choose such a preventive measure as detention, and in which house arrest. In the work, the author attempts to determine the essence of such a preventive measure as house arrest and the peculiarities of his election in relation to minors, and also considers the prohibitions and (or) restrictions to which minors cannot be subjected. The positions contained in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court “On the practice of the application by the courts of legislation on preventive measures in the form of detention, house arrest and bail” are analyzed. The author expresses the opinion that it is inadvisable to choose such a preventive measure as house arrest for minors. Based on the study, the author makes recommendations on the possibility, at the discretion of the court, to make adjustments to the prohibitions and (or) restrictions to which a minor suspect or accused will be subjected to whom such a preventive measure as house arrest is chosen.

CONCERNING THE STRUCTURE OF PUBLIC LEGAL INTEREST IN CRIMINAL COURT PROCEEDINGS

2021 ◽  
pp. 26-30
Author(s):  
Алексей Викторович Дашин ◽  
Петр Михайлович Малин ◽  
Алексей Васильевич Пивень
Keyword(s):  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
The Public ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Legitimate Interest ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
Constituent Elements

В статье анализируется структура публичного законного интереса в уголовном судопроизводстве, входящих в него элементов на примере института домашнего ареста. Авторская модель публичного законного интереса участников уголовного процесса «привязана» к стадийности и может распространяться не только на вопросы, связанные с мерами пресечения. По мнению авторов, публичный законный интерес в контексте рассматриваемой проблемы воплощается в жизнь на основе нормативно установленного действия, содержащего конкретно сформулированные правила, устанавливающие четко определенные права и обязанности участников правоотношений. Данная деятельность сопряжена с определенными этапами (стадиями), которые в той или иной степени характерны соответствующей мере пресечения, и возможна в той стадии, где осуществляется оценка действий, предпринятых должностным лицом, осуществляющим производство по уголовному делу. Реализация публичного законного интереса, заявленного следователем, дознавателем на избрание домашнего ареста, зависит от того, как соответствующие устремления оценят другие должностные лица - руководитель следственного органа, прокурор (не обладающие правами реализации публичного законного интереса), то есть от их усмотрения. Законодатель не предоставляет следователю, дознавателю возможность «непосредственно» обратиться в суд - участнику процесса, наделенному правом реализовать их устремление на избрание меры пресечения. Подобные «преграды» не предусмотрены в законе для иных участников уголовного процесса, не наделенных публичной властью и стремящихся реализовать свой законный интерес. The article analyzes the structure of public legitimate interest in criminal proceedings, its constituent elements on the example of the institution of house arrest. The author's model of the public legitimate interest of participants in the criminal process is «tied» to the stage and can extend not only to issues related to preventive measures. According to the authors, public legitimate interest in the context of the problem under consideration is brought to life on the basis of a normatively established action containing specifically formulated rules establishing clearly defined rights and obligations of participants in legal relations. This activity is associated with certain phases (stages) that are more or less characteristic of the corresponding measure of restraint, and is possible at the stage where the actions taken by the official conducting the criminal proceedings are evaluated. The realization of the public legitimate interest declared by the investigator, the investigating officer for the election of house arrest depends on how the relevant intentions will be evaluated by other officials - the head of the investigative body, the prosecutor (who do not have the rights to realize the public legitimate interest), i.e. on their discretion. The legislator does not give the investigator, the inquirer the opportunity to turn «directly» to the court - a participant in the process, entitled to realize their intentions for the election of measures of restrain. Such «barriers» are not provided in the law for other participants in the criminal process who are not endowed with public authority and who seek to realize their legitimate interest.

scholarly journals House Arrest as a Preventive Measure in Accordance with the New Criminal Procedure Code

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 344-348
Author(s):  
Silviu Jîrlăianu
Keyword(s):  
European Community ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Community Law ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Set Up

Abstract Romania's participation in European Community imposed realities of our country harmonization of national legislation in relation to Community law. Such national legislation, in terms of criminal procedure were introduced through preventive measures, house arrest, judicial and Judicial control on bail. In relation to the same European context, Romanian police set up surveillance units of judicial duties in order to enforce these measures.

The Place of the Prosecutor in Common Law and Civil Law Jurisdictions

2019 ◽  
pp. 138-163
Author(s):  
Katalin Ligeti
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Prosecutorial Discretion ◽  
The Public ◽  
European Public ◽  
Institutional Positioning ◽  
Centralization And Decentralization

This chapter focuses on the place of the public prosecutor in common law and civil law jurisdictions. It first describes the institutional positioning of public prosecutors, particularly vis-à-vis the executive power, before discussing their role and powers in regard to the pretrial phase. It then considers the increasing tendency to entrust the public prosecutor with quasi-judicial sanctioning powers in the context of out-of-court procedures (“prosecutorial adjudication”). It also examines the role of specialized law enforcement authorities in the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial functions, coercive measures and the need for judicial authorization, and prosecutorial discretion and alternatives to trial proceedings. Finally, it explains how independence, centralization and decentralization, legality and opportunity of prosecution, and the alternatives to trial proceedings have been translated to the supranational design of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO).

PARTIAL WITHDRAWAL OF THE PRINCIPAL ACTION BY THE PROCESUTOR IN THE POLISH CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (XIX) ◽  
pp. 173-183
Author(s):  
Jan Kil
Keyword(s):  
Current Model ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Subject

The subject of the article is the analysis of the admissibility of a partial withdrawal of a principalaction by the prosecutor in the current model of Polish criminal proceedings. The study defines the main procedural rules regarding the issue in question, namely the principle of accusatorial procedure and adversary trial system. In the study, the disposition of Article 14 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is being interpreted with the use of linguistic, teleological and functional directives of interpretation. The study also presents the arguments justifying the acceptance of the view of the admissibility of partial withdrawal of the complaint by the public prosecutor. The study presents the procedural implications of the aforementioned standpoint. In the study the possibility of partial withdrawal of the principal action on the basis of pending supplementary or private prosecution proceedings was also analyzed.

scholarly journals Separate Filing (Splitsing) In Criminal Case Management

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 461
Author(s):  
Hidayat Abdulah
Keyword(s):  
Case Management ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Case File ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Court Process

In the implementation of the criminal case handling a lot of things that can be done to perfect evidence is the failure by one of them is doing a separate filing (splitsing). In Article 142 Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that the public prosecutor has the authority to separate docket (splitsing) against each defendant if found lacking evidence and testimony, as well as other matters that are not included in the provisions of Article 141 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Separation of the case must be based on solely the purpose of examination. That's what makes the public prosecutor has the authority to determine the case file should be separated (splitsing) or not. The purpose for doing the separation of the case file (splitsing) is to facilitate the enforcement of the prosecutor when the court process, to strengthen the evidence for lack of evidence when the process of verification, then a criminal offense committed by the offender more than one and the same time one of these actors into the search list (DPO) which allow splitsing.Keywords: Separate Filing; The Criminal Case.

scholarly journals Gugurnya Hak Menuntut Terhadap Korporasi Akibat Pailit

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Audaraziq Ismail ◽  
Eva Achjani Zulfa ◽  
Yutcesyam Yutcesyam ◽  
Fatiatulo Lazira
Keyword(s):  
Limited Liability ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
District Court ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Bankruptcy Code

Prosecution is basically an action by the public prosecutor to delegate a criminal case to the competent District Court so that it is examined and decided by a judge in a court session. With regard to prosecution, Article 109 of the Criminal Procedure Code states that there are 3 reasons for stopping prosecution, namely that an event is not a criminal act, there is not enough evidence collected by investigators to prove the fulfillment of the elements in a criminal act and for the sake of law. The Criminal Code, First, with regard to the application of the principle of ne bis in idem. Second, if the Defendant dies, Third, Expires, Fourth, Settlement outside the court, Article 82 of the Criminal Code has described if an offense is threatened with a fine only, then prosecution can be avoided by paying the maximum fine directly. Against corporations, prosecution is limited by a number of provisions, in this case also including when the corporation is bankrupt. That as a result, if the entire corporate assets are included in the bankruptcy code, there will be a transfer of corporate licenses and an impact on the liquidation process. Thus, based on the provisions of Article 142 paragraph (1) of Law no. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies, the corporation is dissolved. Thus, the prosecution of the bankrupt corporation can be dropped.

scholarly journals Implementation of Extraordinary Review (Pk) For the Public Prosecutors after the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 33/Puu-Xiv/2016

2021 ◽  
Vol 04 (06) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rahmadianto Andra ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legal Remedies ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Right

The background of this paper is inspired and triggered to observe and study the legal uncertainty between the public prosecutor and the convict/his heirs regarding the authority to submit a PK Application as regulated in Article 263 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The article states "the right of the public prosecutor" to apply for a PK application. However, what is expected by the Petitioner's wife is that Article 263 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code can be interpreted in this way, "PK applications can only be filed by the convicted person or their heirs". This condition was exacerbated by the issuance of the Constitutional Court decision Number 33/PUU-XIV/ 2016 regarding "the right of the public prosecutor to file a PK application in a criminal case". This study aims to determine the application of extraordinary legal remedies by the public prosecutor and the implications of implementing these extraordinary remedies. The research method used is normative legal research. The results showed the application of extraordinary PK legal remedies for the public prosecutor after the Constitutional Court decision Number 33/PUU-XIV/2016, had direct implications for the Petitioner and his family. This implication is detrimental to the Petitioners' constitutional rights based on Article 28G of the 1945 Constitution because the protection of personal, family, honor and dignity has clearly been lost. It is better if the Constitutional Court reaffirms the legal principles in the article through constitutional interpretation which is an integral part that is not separate from the article in question and is able to provide fair legal certainty.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document