As Illustrated by Polish Criminal Law
Edited By Teresa Dukiet-Nagorska
Damage and its Redress in Criminal and Civil Law: The Doctrinal and Case-Law Position to Date
← 26 | 27 → Piotr Zawiejski
In the restorative model of criminal law, whose central element is the liquidation of the conflict emerging between the offender and the wronged party, ascertaining damage and identifying the means of its reparation are of key importance. In light of this, findings which are intended to delimit the scope of the realisation of the goals characteristic of the restorative model in criminal proceedings must extend to an understanding of damage and its compensation in the context of penal law.
In the 1997 codifications, lawmakers reinforced the importance of the duty to redress damage inflicted by criminal conduct. Apart from criminal law institutions previously known, i.e. civil action that takes place within criminal proceedings or with the possibility to award damage ex officio, as well as with the obligation to repair loss as a requisite connected with the award of probative measures or community service, which were known already to the previous Criminal Code (CrimC), lawmakers introduced the obligation to repair damage as a new punitive measure.1 In addition, a clearly compensatory function is borne by vindictive damage specified in art. 46(2) of the Criminal Code.2 Among criminal law measures of restitution, W. Zalewski also includes apologies to the wronged party and a publication of the sentence.3 Nevertheless, both vindictive damages and punitive measures involving an apology and a publication of the ← 27 | 28 → sentence, as clearly distinct from the strictly understood obligation to repair damage, will remain outside the scope of...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.