The amendment of the Criminal Code and some other laws implies strengthening criminal protection in respect of acts that harm fundamental legal interests such as human life and health, sexual freedom or property.
Act dated 13 June 2019 on the amendment of the law – the Criminal Code and some other laws assume a number of changes in the penalty dimension. The amendment is still pending the opinion of the Constitutional Court.
In the area of imprisonment, the project promoter proposed to eliminate penalties from the catalogue 25 years of imprisonment, which is a separate type of punishment to date, and an extension of the term of imprisonment to years 30
Amendments to the fine
The drafter proposed that the principle of a standard penalty be introduced, namely that, in the case of a crime threatened by both fines and imprisonments, the fine is not less than:
- • 50 rates in the event of acts at risk of imprisonment not exceeding one year;
- • 100 rates in the case of acts at risk of imprisonment not exceeding 2 years;
- • 200 rates in the case of acts at risk of imprisonment not exceeding 3 years;
- • 300 rates in the event of acts at risk of imprisonment exceeding 3 years.
Content Article 33(1) The Code of Criminal Procedure standardising the principle of fines shall read: the fine shall be applied at daily rates, specifying the number of rates and the amount of one rate, unless otherwise provided for in the law, the lowest rate is 10 and the highest 540.
Amendments to the penalty of restrictions on freedom
The drafter also proposed the principle of a standard penalty, namely that in the case of a crime threatened by both the penalty of restrictions on freedom and the penalty of imprisonment, the penalty of restrictions on freedom is not lower than:
- • 2 in the case of acts at risk of imprisonment not exceeding one year;
- • 3 in the case of acts at risk of imprisonment not exceeding 2 years;
- • 6 in the case of acts at risk of imprisonment not exceeding 3 years;
- • 9 in the case of acts at risk of imprisonment exceeding 3 years.
Content Article 34(1) a Code of Criminal Procedure that standardises the principle of punishment for restrictions on freedom: the penalty for restrictions on freedom lasts for the shortest month, the longest 2 years.
The envisaged changes should be assessed negatively, as in any case the penalty or restriction of freedom will have to be clearly above the minimum statutory limit of the threat envisaged. Under Article 33(1) Criminal Code i.e.
10 the rates, which will consequently be a restriction of the judge's judicial freedom within the so-called judicial sentence, which clearly indicate that the court is punishing at its discretion, taking into account its limits as provided for by the Act, as well as that it does not exceed the degree of guilt, taking into account the degree of social harm, as well as its preventive and educational objectives, which should be achieved in relation to the convicted person and the need to shape the legal awareness of the public.
In the light of the above, the proposed amendment would lead to punishment in a manner which is independent of the actual circumstances of the case (weight of action, its effects, the attitude of the perpetrator, its life situation).
In addition, the standardisation included under Article 33(1a)(4) it will also definitely restrict the order ruling, as the order procedure provides for the possibility to fine only until 200 daily rates. Therefore, offences whose upper limit is higher than 3 years but less than 5 will not be allowed to be performed in this mode.
Amendments to prison sentences
In the area of imprisonment, the project promoter proposed to eliminate penalties from the catalogue 25 years of imprisonment, which is a separate type of punishment to date, and an extension of the term of imprisonment to years 30.
The introduction of such a proposal is beneficial in that it introduces greater flexibility in the sentence of imprisonment, thereby allowing the court to adjust the penalty to the different types of offences. It will not be limited by the maximum penalty currently in force, i.e.
15 years of imprisonment, where a sentence of punishment 25 years of imprisonment are not possible. However, second The Projector did not justify in any way why the prison sentence increased to 30 years is adequate, and not just stopped at increasing the upper limit of the penalty to 25 years.
In the light of only the changes to the penalty proposed by the rapporteur, the amendment does not deserve approval.