Sędziowie sądów specjalnych III Rzeszy i ich „zdrowe poczucie narodowe”

German lawyers jointly supported the National Socialist authorities, assuming that the law was Hitler’s will, resulting from the new criminal law being introduced, which violated the principles of nullum crimen sine lege and nulla poena sine lege. Judges of special courts (Sondergerichte) in the Third Reich applied criminal law according to a “healthy national sense” (das gesunde Volksempfinden), which usually meant heavy penalties, contrary to the elementary sense of justice. It was adopted as a rule that a crime is not only what is forbidden by regulations, but also everything that the authorities have not consented to. For any behaviour, even if not prohibited by law, the judges could sentence defendants to draconian punishments, at their “national discretion.” Law professors justified the lawlessness created in the Third Reich by claiming that it was a rule of law (Rechtsstaat). The criminal law for Poles and Jews of 1941 provided for the death penalty for all manifestations of “hostile attitude” towards the German occupier. Polish forced labourers in the Reich were punished with death for violations of discipline and disobedience to the German oppressors. Poles displaced from occupied Poland were assigned to work in enterprises and farms in the Reich. The special court in Breslau sentenced to death a Pole who defended his pregnant beloved woman, forced to work beyond her strength and abused by the German housewife, as well as the unfortunate woman herself. The same court sentenced a Pole to death for trying to protect his 13-year-old son from a German farmer, who was forcing the child to perform work he was physically unable to carry out. Special-court judges continued their professional careers in West Germany after the war and did not bear any responsibility for their crimes.

INTERNATIONAL LAW STANDARDS REGARDING SUBSTANTIVE PETTY OFFENCES LAW

This article attempts to identify and analyse, in the light of the provisions of the acts of international law, the following issues belonging to the substantive part of the law on petty offences: the general problem of criminalization in petty offenses law and; the question of the criminal nature of the law of petty offenses, and thus the application of individual provisions to it and the resulting guarantees appropriate to that law; the application of the principle of guilt on the basis of the analysed regulations as a premise for assigning liability; the principle of ne bis in idem; the principle of nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege, especially in so far as it derives from the principle of lex mitior retro agit.

Binding Nature of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Explanations in Criminal Law

The question of the legal nature and the binding nature of explanations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation remains debatable in the literature. When considering criminal cases, the courts do not always follow the decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court. It seems that the explanations of the Supreme Court, while not being a source of criminal law, are nevertheless binding on courts and officials applying the norms of criminal law. This is a general rule, to which there are exceptions. First, there are erroneous explanations of the Supreme Court, which are not based on the established judicial practice and are not supported by it. Second, there are outdated explanations of the Supreme Court that do not meet modern legal realities. Third, there are explanations of the Supreme Court, which, in relation to a particular situation, require an expansive or restrictive interpretation. In these three situations, the Supreme Court’s explanations do not bind the law enforcement officer. The binding nature of the Supreme Court’s explanations is determined by the value of the law as such. Questions of law require a uniform resolution. An alternative to a uniform interpretation of the law is arbitrary administration. Arbitrary administration is not within the competence of the judge. There is no case law in Russia. The works of legal scholars in modern Russia also cannot satisfy the need for a uniform interpretation of the law. The significance of the explanations of the Supreme Court determines the high requirements for their quality. The Supreme Court’s explanations should not directly contradict the law. The Supreme Court’s explanations should not change unless there is an urgent need to do so. The rule nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege, being an achievement of legal culture, binds the Supreme Court. By clarifying the practice of applying the law, the Supreme Court forms and preserves judicial doctrine, thereby providing legal certainty.

Klauzula norymberska siedemdziesiąt lat później

W artykule analizie poddana została wyrażona w art. 7 ust. 2 EKPC, art. 15 ust. 2 MPPOiP oraz art. 49 ust. 2 KPP klauzula norymberska. W założeniu jej twórców miała ona za zadanie źródłowo uszczegółowić zakres zasady legalizmu, pełniąc przy tym funkcję swoistej „tarczy” przed potencjalnymi zarzutami naruszenia zasady nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege przez powojenne procesy karne zbrodniarzy wojennych. W artykule wykazano, iż wbrew formułowanym niekiedy twierdzeniom, nie stanowi ona jednak wyjątku od zasady lex retro non agit, lecz konstytuuje autonomiczny pod względem źródeł zakazów karnych standard wyrażany przez zasadę nullum crimen sine iure. W pracy zbadano ponadto stosowalność ogólnych zasad prawa uznanych przez społeczność międzynarodową w kontekście odpowiedzialności karnej, a także wykazano praktyczną nieoperatywność klauzuli norymberskiej. Krytycznej analizie poddano także konstrukcję klauzuli norymberskiej. Artykuł wykazuje jej merytoryczną i logiczną wadliwość. W podsumowaniu, autor sugeruje natomiast zastąpienie klauzuli norymberskiej klauzulą prawa natury.

‘NULLUM CRIMEN, NULLA POENA SINE LEGE’ A ZBRODNIE MIĘDZYNARODOWE

Artykuł ma na celu podjęcie problemu moralnej dostępności prawa w zestawieniu ze standardem nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege możliwym do wywiedzenia z orzecznictwa Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka oraz pomocniczo także innych sądów i trybunałów w sprawach dotyczących przewidywalności bezprawnego i karalnego charakteru czynów składających się na zbrodnie międzynarodowe. Dwa pytania wyznaczają zakres prowadzonych analiz. Po pierwsze, analizie poddane zostaje to, do jakiego stopnia karalność zbrodni międzynarodowych była i jest przewidywalna dla zwykłego adresata normy karnoprawnej. Po drugie zaś, artykuł podejmuje kwestię, w jakim zakresie uzasadnione jest powoływanie się na argument z tzw. dostępności moralnej komunikatu kryminalizacyjnego w celu zrekompensowania pewnych niedociągnięć formalnych charakterystycznych dla legislacji międzynarodowej. Badane są ponadto poszczególne kryteria zasady legalizmu w zestawieniu ze zbrodniami międzynarodowymi. Szerszemu omówieniu poddano także trzy rozpatrywane przez ETPC sprawy (Kononov, Vasiliauskas oraz Korbely) odnoszące się kolejno do zbrodni wojennych, zbrodni ludobójstwa oraz zbrodni przeciwko ludzkości.

Ne bis in idem, nulla poena sine lege and Domestic Prosecutions of International Crimes in the Aftermath of a Trial at the International Criminal Court

The outcome of an icc trial – be it a conviction or acquittal – receives significant attention. However, what happens to a defendant in the aftermath of the proceeding garners little discussion. This article seeks to fill this gap in the literature by analysing how the ne bis in idem and nulla poena sine lege principles, enshrined in Articles 20(2) and 23 of the Rome Statute, protect defendants from subsequent prosecutions and punishments by states and regional courts following their trials at the icc. We argue that these provisions do not provide adequate protection. Further, we argue that given the icc’s limited power to enforce compliance with these provisions as well as the primary role that states enjoy in the enforcement of international criminal law, the most appropriate way to address this issue is through the inclusion of robust protections in domestic legislation and the constituent instruments of regional courts.

DISPARITAS PUTUSAN HAKIM DALAM PERKARA TINDAK PIDANA NARKOTIKA DI WILAYAH HUKUM PENGADILAN NEGERI BANGKINANG

ABSTRAKDisparitas pidana juga sering dihubungkan dengan independensi hakim. Model pemidanaan yang diatur dalam perundang-undangan (perumusan sanksi pidana maksimal) juga ikut memberi andil. Dalam menjatuhkan putusan, hakim tidak boleh diintervensi pihak manapun. Rumusan masalah yang dikaji dalam penelitian ini adalah pertama, bagaimanakah disparitas putusan hakim jika dihubungkan dengan asas Nulla Poena sine lege dalam memberi batasan pada hakim dihubungkan dengan Pasal 4 Ayat (1) Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia No. 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman. Kedua, apa dasar pertimbangan hakim dalam menjatuhkan putusan pidana terhadap pelaku tindak pidana narkotika di Wilayah Hukum Pengadilan Bangkinang khususnya pada Tahun 2019. Dalam melakukan penelitian ini, penulis menggunakan metode penelitian sebagai berikut, jenis dan sifat penelitian dari sudut metode yang di pakai dalam penelitian ini, maka penelitian ini berupa penelitian hukum normatif atau kepustakaan Dengan teknik pengumpulan data studi dokumen dan studi kepustakaan. Studi dokumen merupakan langkah awal dari setiap penelitian hukum (baik normatif maupun yang sosiologis) karena penelitian hukum selalu bertolak dari premis normatif, Sedangkan sifat penelitian ini adalah deskriptif, artinya penulis mencoba memberikan gambaran secara rinci mengenai disparitas putusan hakim pengadilan negeri bangkinang dalam perkara tindak pidana narkotika.Dilihat dari dua pokok pembahasan dan penelitian diatas maka penulis dapat menyimpulkan, pertama, disparitas putusan hakim jika dihubungkan dengan asas nulla poena sine lege dalam memberi batasan pada hakim dihubungkan dengan Pasal 4 Ayat (1) Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia No. 48 Tahun 2009 Tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman: Asas nulla poena sine lege terdapat dalam pasal 1 kuhp guna memberikan batasan agar hakim tidak sewenang-wenang dalam memberikan putusan pemidanaan, akan tetapi dalam praktiknya hakim bebas memberikan putusan tanpa intervensi, Asas nulla poena sine lege warisan belanda tidak selaras dengan pasal 4 ayat 1 undang-undang republik indonesia no. 48 tahun 2009 tentang kekuasaan kehakiman. Kedua, dasar pertimbangan hakim dalam menjatuhkan putusan pidana terhadap pelaku tindak pidana narkotika di wilayah hukum pengadilan bangkinang khususnya pada tahun 2019, hakikatnya pertimbangan hakim hendaknya juga memuat tentang hal-hal sebagai berikut: Pokok persoalan dan hal-hal yang diakui atau dalil-dalil yang tidak disangkal. Adanya analisis secara yuridis terhadap putusan segala aspek menyangkut semua fakta / hal-hal yang terbukti dalam persidangan. Kata kunci: disparitas; putusan hakim; tindak pidana narkotikaABSTRACTCriminal disparity is also often associated with the independence of judges. The criminal punishment model regulated in legislation (the formulation of maximum criminal sanctions) also contributes. In passing a decision, a judge may not be intervened by any party. The formulation of the problem examined in this study is firstly, how is the disparity in the decision of the judge if it is related to the principle of Nulla Poena sine lege in giving limitations to the judge related to Article 4 Paragraph (1) of the Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power. Second, what is the basis of the judge's judgment in imposing a criminal decision on narcotics offenders in the Legal Area of the Bangkinang Court, especially in 2019.In conducting this research, the author uses the following research methods, types and nature of research from the point of view of the method used in this study, then this research is in the form of normative legal research or literature. Document study is the first step of any legal research (both normative and sociological) because legal research always departs from the normative premise, while the nature of this research is descriptive, meaning that the writer tries to give a detailed description of the disparity in decisions of the district court judges in criminal cases narcotics.Judging from the two points of discussion and research above, the writer can conclude, first, the disparity in the decision of the judge if it is related to the principle of nulla poena sine lege in giving limits to the judge connected with Article 4 Paragraph (1) of the Republic of Indonesia Law No. 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power: The principle of nulla poena sine lege is contained in article 1 of the Kuhp in order to provide a limitation so that judges are not arbitrary in giving criminal decisions, but in practice judges are free to give decisions without intervention, the nulla poena sine lege principle is not inherited from the Dutch legacy. in line with article 4 paragraph 1 of the law of the Republic of Indonesia no. 48 of 2009 concerning judicial authority. Second, the basic consideration of judges in issuing criminal decisions against narcotics offenders in the jurisdiction of the Bangkinang court, especially in 2019, in essence the judges' considerations should also contain the following matters: Principal issues and matters that are recognized or arguments that are recognized not denied. There is a juridical analysis of the verdict on all aspects concerning all facts / proven matters in the trial.Keywords: disparity; judge decision; narcotics crime

Kilka uwag na temat aktualnego modelu środków oddziaływania wychowawczego

Autorka w niniejszym opracowaniu omawia instytucję, która umożliwia załatwienie spra-wy o wykroczenie w innym trybie i z zastosowaniem innych środków niż przewidziane w przepisach karnych. Podkreślając niewątpliwe walory takiego rozwiązania, wskazuje jednocześnie, że kon-strukcja środków oddziaływania wychowawczego nie jest pozbawiona wad i niedociągnięć. Uwagę koncentruje zwłaszcza na tych aspektach jej funkcjonowania, które wymagają pilnej interwencji ze strony ustawodawcy. Autorka konkluduje, że pozostawienie omawianego unormowania bez żadnych zmian naraża je na sprzeczność z jedną z fundamentalnych zasad prawa karnego, a mianowicie zasadą nulla poena sine lege.