Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Lawmaking and sentencing in rape and child sexual abuse cases in Poland – dead end or rational criminal policy?

  • Published:
Criminal Law Forum Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Sexual offences have assumed crucial importance in Polish criminal policy in recent years. Several statutes have been enacted with a view to implementing a more appropriate penal response to this category of offence. For all their imperfections, the new regulations have the potential to create a rational, equitable and consistent penal response. These regulations prioritise resocialisation and correction. For reasons discussed in this paper, the courts have declined to apply these regulations, instead continuing to hand down their ‘time honoured’ custodial and suspended sentences. There appear to be several reasons for this, including cultural ones: an abhorrence of sex offenders and a fear of such crimes; a willingness to mete out what society regards as justice; a dismissive attitude towards the legislature; and perhaps a tendency, common among public institutions, to fulfil their legal obligations with a minimum of effort. Although there had been no increase in sexual crimes, the Polish Government (without any empirical research) declared that the existing measures were not working and decided (in 2015) that a paradigm shift was in order. This paper briefly discusses these issues and their likely ramifications. The current state of criminological knowledge about sexual crimes and its legislative implications are discussed. Some conclusions from the author’s own empirical research on rape and child sexual abuse sentencing policy are also presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Graph 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Call, ‘Megan’s law 20 years later: a systematic review of the literature on the effectiveness of sex offender registration and notification’, Journal of Behavioral & Social Sciences 5(4) (2018), 205–217; Bratina, ‘Sex offender residency requirements: an effective crime prevention strategy or a false sense of security?’ International Journal of Police Science & Management 15(3) (2013), 200–218; Hanson and Bussiére, ‘Predicting relapse: a meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 66 (1998), 348–362; Hanson et al., ‘First report of the collaborative outcome data project on the effectiveness of psychological treatment for sex offenders’, Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 14(2) (2002), 169–194; Harkins and Beech, ‘Measurement of the effectiveness of sex offender treatment’, Aggression and Violent Behavior 12(1) (2007), 36–44; Polaschek and Ward, ‘The implicit theories of potential rapists: What our questionnaires tell us’, Aggression and Violent Behavior 7 (2002), 385–406. Polaschek and Gannon, ‘The implicit theories of rapists: what convicted offenders tell us’, Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 16 (2004), 299–315.

  2. Eurostat, ‘Population and population change statistics’, <https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Population_and_population_change_statistics#Population_change_at_a_national_level> (2019) (accessed 25th January 2021).

  3. Hall and Hall, ‘A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues’. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 82(4) (2007), 457–471; Seto, ‘Pedophilia and Sexual Offending Against Children. Theory, Assessment and Intervention.’ Washington DC: American Psychological Association (2008); Marshall and Barbaree, ‘An integrated theory of the etiology of sexual offending’ (1990); Ward et al, ‘Theories of Sexual Offending.’ London: Wiley & Sons (2006).

  4. Malamuth, ‘The confluence model of sexual aggression: feminist and evolutionary perspectives’, In: Buss and Malamuth (Eds) ‘Sex, power, conflict: Evolutionary and feminist perspectives.’ New York: Oxford University Press, (1996), 269–295.

  5. Finkelhor and Araji, ‘Explanation of pedophilia: A four factor model’, The Journal of Sex Research 22 (1986), 145–161.

  6. Marshall and Barbaree, Supra note 3.

  7. Hall and Hirschman, ‘Towards a theory of sexual aggression: a quadripartite model’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 59 (1991), 662–669.

  8. Ward and Siegert, ‘Toward a comprehensive theory of child sexual abuse: a theory knitting perspective’, Psychology, Crime and Law 9 (2002), 319–351.

  9. Beech and Ward, ‘The integration of etiology and risk in sexual offenders: A theoretical framework’, Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2004), 31–63.

  10. Marshall et al., ‘Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories, and treatment of the offender’, New York: Plenum Press (1990); Ward et al., Supra note 3; Marshall et al, ‘Cognitive behavioral treatment of sexual offenders’, New York: Wiley (1999); Laws and O’Donohue (Eds) ‘Sexual deviance: Theory, assessment, and treatment’, New York: Guilford (2008).

  11. Ward and Keenan, ‘Child molesters’ implicit theories’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence 14 (1999), 821–838; Polaschek and Ward, Supra note 1; Polaschek and Gannon, Supra note 1, Marshall et al., Supra note 10; Laws and O’Donohue, Supra note 10.

  12. Call, Supra note 1; Bierie, ‘The utility of sex offender registration: a research note’, Journal of Sexual Aggression 22(2) (2016), 263–273; Bonnar-Kidd, ‘Sexual Offender Laws and Prevention of Sexual Violence or Recidivism’, American Journal of Public Health 100(3) (2010), 412–419; Duwe and Goldman, ‘The impact of prison-based treatment on sex offender recidivism: evidence from Minnesota’, Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 21(3) (2009), 279–307; Hall and Hall, Supra note 3; Hanson et al, Supra note 1; Hanson et al., ‘Assessing the Risk of Sexual Offenders on Community Supervision: The Dynamic Supervision Project’, Public Safety Canada website (2007), Available at: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/_fl/crp2007-05-en.pdf (accessed 1 April 2022); Hanson and Bussiére, Supra note 1; Hall and Hall, Supra note 3; Ward et al., ‘Cognitive distortions in sex offenders: An integrative review’, Clinical Psychology Review 17 (1997), 479−507; Ward, ‘Sexual offenders’ cognitive distortions as implicit theories’, Aggression and Violent Behavior 5 (2000), 491–507.

  13. Call, Supra note 1; Bierie, Supra note 12; Duwe and Goldman, Supra note 12; Hall and Hall, Supra note 3; Hanson et al, Supra note 1; Hanson et al., Supra note 12; Hanson and Bussiére, Supra note 12.

  14. Vess, ‘Risk assessment with female sex offenders: Can women meet the criteria of community protection laws?’, Journal of Sexual Aggression 17(1) (2011), 77–91; Vess, ‘Sex offender risk assessment: Consideration of human rights in community protection legislation’, Legal & Criminological Psychology 13(2) (2008), 245–256; Craissati, ‘Managing High Risk Sex Offenders in the Community’ (2004) New York: Brunner–Routledge; Hanson et al., Supra note 12; Lewandowska, ‘Karać czy leczyć? – strategie postępowania ze sprawcami przestępstw seksualnych wobec dzieci na przykładzie wybranych krajów’, Dziecko krzywdzone 18 (2007), 1–14; Morawska, ‘Strategie postępowania ze sprawcami przestępstw seksualnych wobec dzieci na przykładzie wybranych krajów’, Dziecko Krzywdzone. Teoria, badania, praktyka 7 (2004), 1–14.

  15. Losel and Schmucker, ‘The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: A comprehensive meta-analysis’, Journal of Experimental Criminology 1(1) (2005), 117–146; Lewandowska, Supra note 14; Morawska, Supra note 14.

  16. Mancini and Mears, ‘To execute or not to execute? Examining public support for capital punishment of sex offenders’, Journal of Criminal Justice 38 (2010), 959–968; Burstein, ‘The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda’, Political Research Quarterly 56 (2003), 29–40; Cullen et al, ‘Public opinion about punishment and corrections’, Crime and Justice 27 (2000), 1–79; Quinn et al, ‘Societal reaction to sex offenders: A review of the myths surrounding their crimes and treatment amenability’, Deviant Behavior 25 (2004), 215–232.

  17. Ackerman et al., ‘Who are the people in your neighborhood? A descriptive analysis of individuals on public sex offender registries’, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 34 (2011), 149–159; Levenson et al, ‘Sex offender residence restrictions: Sensible policy or flawed logic?’, Federal Probation 71 (2007), 2–9; Lussier and Mathesius ‘Not in My Backyard: Public Sex Offender Registries and Public Notification Laws’, Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice 61(1) (2019), 105–116; Call, Supra note 1.

  18. Mancini and Mears, Supra note 16; Payne and DeMichele, ‘Sex offender policies: Considering unanticipated consequences of GPS sex offender monitoring’, Aggression and Violent Behavior 16 (2011), 177–187; Bratina, ‘Sex offender residency requirements: an effective crime prevention strategy or a false sense of security?’ International Journal of Police Science & Management 15(3) (2013), 200–218; Rainey, ‘The registration and monitoring of sex offenders’, Journal of Sexual Aggression 21(2) (2015) 266–268.

  19. Beck and Travis III, ‘Sex offender notification: An exploratory assessment of state variation in notification processes’, Journal of Criminal Justice 34 (2006), 51–55; Rollman, ‘‘Mental illness’: A sexually violent predator is punished twice for one crime’, The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 88(3) (1998), 985–1014; Carlsmith et al, ‘The Function of Punishment in the ‘‘Civil’’ Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators’, Behavioral Sciences and the Law 25 (2007), 437–448; Calkins-Mercado and Ogloff, ‘Risk and the preventive detention of sex offenders in Australia and the United States’, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 30 (2007), 49–59; Gannon et al, ‘Rape: Psychopatology, theory and treatment’, Clinical Psychology Review 28 (2008), 982–1008.

  20. Call, Supra note 1.

  21. Call, Supra note 1.

  22. Button et al., ‘Using electronic monitoring to supervise sex offenders: Legislative patterns and implications for community corrections officers’, Criminal Justice Policy Review 20(4) (2009), 414−436; Padgett et al., ‘Under surveillance: An empirical test of the effectiveness and consequences of electronic monitoring’, Criminology and Public Policy 5(1) (2006), 61−92.

  23. Bratina, Supra note 18; Rainey, Supra note 18; Lussier and Mathesius, Supra note 17; Call, Supra note 1; Gannon et al, Supra note 19; Hanson and Morton-Bourgon, ‘The Accuracy of Recidivism Risk Assessments for Sexual Offenders: A Meta-Analysis of 118 Prediction Studies’, Psychological Assessment 21(1) (2009), 1–21.

  24. Mancini and Mears, Supra note 16; Quinn et al., Supra note 16; Cullen et al., Supra note 16; Burstein, Supra note 16; Petruccelli et al, ‘Moral Disengagement Strategies in Sex Offenders’, Psychiatry, Psychology & Law 24(3) (2017), 470–480; Hoppe, ‘Punishing Sex: Sex Offenders and the Missing Punitive Turn in Sexuality Studies’, Law & Social Inquiry 41(3) (2016), 573–594.

  25. Ward, ‘Sexual offenders’ cognitive distortions as implicit theories’, Aggression and Violent Behavior 5 (2000), 491–507. Ward Tet al., ‘Cognitive distortions in sex offenders: An integrative review’, Clinical Psychology Review 17 (1997) 479−507.

  26. Witt et al., ‘Cognitive/behavioral approaches to the treatment adult sex offenders’, The Journal of Psychiatry & Law 36 (2008), 245–269; Marshall et al., Supra note 10.

  27. Andrews and Bonta, ‘The Psychology of Criminal conduct’, Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Company (2003); Hart et al., ‘The risk–need model of offender rehabilitation’ In: Ward et al. (Eds) ‘Theoretical issues and controversies in sexual deviance’ Londyn: Sage (2003), 338–354; Beech and Ward, Supra note 10; Beech et al., ‘Risk assessment of sex offenders’ Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 34 (2003), 339–352.

  28. Thornton, ‘Constructing and testing a framework for dynamic risk assessment’, Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 14 (2002), 139–154; Hanson and Bussiére, Supra note 1.

  29. For Germany, Italy, France see: Lewandowska, Supra note 14; Morawska, Supra note 14.

  30. Lewandowska, Supra note 14; Morawska, Supra note 14.

  31. Salter, ‘Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists, and Other Sex Offenders: Who They Are, How They Operate, and How We Can Protect Our Children’ (2003) New York: Basic Books.

  32. The age of consent in Poland is 15 years. Consensual sexual intercourse with a minor, while a serious criminal offence, is distinct from ‘statutory rape’.

  33. Parliament, Sejm Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, Sejm VIII Kadencji, Druk sejmowy numer 189 (2016), Available at: http://orka.sejm.gov.pl/Druki8ka.nsf/0/055744120464461FC1257F3A0050EAFB/%24File/189.pdf (accessed 5 April 2022), 13–16.

  34. Parliament, Sejm Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, Sejm VIII Kadencji, Druk sejmowy numer 2154, (2018), Available at: http://orka.sejm.gov.pl/Druki8ka.nsf/0/33FA7D96913B8F13C125821000388E45/%24File/2154.pdf (accessed 5 April 2022), 7–11.

  35. Victimisation surveys, and ‘dark number’ estimates are beyond the scope of this essay.

  36. Bocheński, ‘Prawnokarna reakcja wobec sprawców przestępstw z art. 197 KK i art. 200 KK w świetle teorii i badań empirycznych’ (2016) CH Beck, Warsaw; Mozgawa (ed), ‘Przestępstwo zgwałcenia’, (2012), Wolters Kluwer, Warsaw.

  37. Bocheński, Supra note 36; Mozgawa, Supra note 36.

  38. Adult criminal liability begins at the age of 17 in Poland.

  39. Bocheński, Supra note 36; Mozgawa and Budyn-Kulik, ‘Prawnokarne aspekty pedofilii. Analiza dogmatyczna i wyniki badań empirycznych’, Czasopismo Prawa Karnego i Nauk Penalnych 2 (2006), 43–78.

  40. Kantar Public, ‘Badanie opinii Polaków na temat zaostrzenia polityki karnej’ (2018), Available at: http://www.tnsglobal.pl/coslychac/files/2018/09/Raport-Kantar-Public_Opinie-o-zmianach-w-prawie-karnym.pdf (accessed 5 April 2022)

  41. Kantar, Supra note 40.

  42. Kantar, Supra note 40.

  43. Garland, ‘The culture of Control Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society’, (2001), New York: Oxford University Press; Pratt, ‘Penal populism’, (2007), New York: Routledge; Tonry, ‘Punishment and Politics: Evidence and Emulation in the Making of English Crime Control Policy’ (2004), Devon, Portland: Willan Publishing.

  44. Pratt, Supra note 43.

  45. Bocheński, ‘Populizm Penalny w polskim wydaniu – rzecz o kryminologicznej problematyce ustawy o postępowaniu wobec osób stwarzających zagrożenie’, Czasopismo Prawa Karnego i Nauk Penalnych 1 (2015), 127–144.

  46. Pratt, Supra note 43; Garland, Supra note 43.

  47. Bocheński, Supra note 36.

  48. Bocheński, Supra note 36.

  49. Giddens, ‘Przemiany intymności. Seksualność, miłość i erotyzm we współczesnych społeczeństwach’ (2006) Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN; Izdebski, ‘Seksualność Polaków na początku XXI wieku. Studium badawcze’, (2012) Cracow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego; Kaczorek and Stachura, ‘Przemiany seksualności’ (2009), Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego; Pacewicz-Biegańska, ‘Przemiany seksualności nastolatków’, Przegląd Pedagogiczny 2 (2013), 108–118; Izdebski, ‘Inicjacja seksualna po polsku’ (2002), Available at: tnsglobal.pl/archiv_files/IP37-02.doc (accesed 4 April 2022); Woynarowska and Mazur, ‘Zdrowie młodzieży szkolnej w Polsce. Zachowania zdrowotne i samoocena zdrowia. Raport z serii badań wykonanych w 1998 roku’, (1999) Warsaw.

  50. Faller, ‘Child Sexual Abuse: Intervention and Treatment Issues’ (1993) Darby: Diane Publishing; Faller, ‘Understanding and Assessing Child Sexual Maltreatment’ (2003) New York: Sage.

    Finkelhor, ‘Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research’ (1984) New York: Free Press; Finkelhor, ‘Child Sexual Abuse. Challenges Facing Child Protection and Mental Health Professionals’ [in:] Ullman and Hilweg (eds), ‘Childhood and Trauma. Separation, Abuse, War’ (1997), Aldershot, Brookfield: Ashgate.

  51. Rutkowski and Sroka, ‘Sprawcy przestępstw seksualnych – oddziaływania terapeutyczne w okresie odbywania kary pozbawienia wolności’, Dziecko Krzywdzone 1(18) (2007), 27–34.

  52. Tonry, Supra note 43.

  53. Melezini, ‘Punitywność wymiaru sprawiedliwości karnej w Polsce w XX wieku, (2003), 14–25.

  54. Bocheński, Supra note 36; Wysocki, ‘Taka sprawiedliwość, jaki jej wymiar’, Monitor Prawniczy 3 (2010), 38–43.

  55. Bocheński, Supra note 36; Habzda-Siwek, ‘Diagnoza stanu psychicznego sprawcy a rozstrzygnięcia w procesie karnym’, (2002) Cracow: Zakamycze; Beisert, ‘Pedofilia. Geneza i mechanizm zaburzenia, (2011) GWP, Sopot.

  56. Bełdowski and Sześciło, ‘Stan wymiaru sprawiedliwości w Polsce w świetle międzynarodowych badań porównawczych’ Monitor Prawniczy 3 (2010), 2–11; Bocheński, Supra note 36.

  57. Habzda-Siwek, Supra note 55; Mozgawa and Budyn-Kulik, Supra note 39; Bełdowski and Sześciło, Supra note 56; Wysocki, Supra note 54.

  58. Habzda-Siwek, Supra note 55; Mozgawa and Budyn-Kulik, Supra note 39.

  59. O’Malley, ‘Volatile and contradictory punishment’, Theoretical Criminology 3(2) (1999), 175–196; Garland, ‘Penality and the Penal State’, Criminology 51(3) (2013), 475–517.

  60. Pratt, Supra note 43.

  61. Weingast et al., ‘Politics and the Courts: A Positive Theory of Judicial Doctrine and the Rule of Law’, Southern California Law Journal 68 (1995), 1631–1683.

Funding

National Centre of Science Research grant no 2013/09/N/HS5/04247

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chair of Criminology Cracow, Faculty of Law and Administration, Jagiellonian University, Katedra Kryminologii WPiA UJ, ul. Olszewskiego 2, 31-007, Kraków, Poland

    Maciej Bocheński

Authors
  1. Maciej Bocheński
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maciej Bocheński.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Chair of Criminology, Faculty of Law and Administration, Jagiellonian University, Katedra Kryminologii WPiA UJ, ul. Olszewskiego 2, 31-007 Kraków, Poland. E-mail: maciej.bochenski@uj.edu.pl

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bocheński, M. Lawmaking and sentencing in rape and child sexual abuse cases in Poland – dead end or rational criminal policy?. Crim Law Forum 33, 233–253 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-022-09439-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-022-09439-3

Search

Navigation