Towards an American Model of Criminal Process: The Reform of the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure

Open access

Abstract

In September 2013, the Polish Parliament passed an amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The legislators decided to expand a number of adversarial elements present in current Polish criminal proceedings. When these changes come into effect (July 1, 2015), Polish criminal procedure will be similar to American regulations, in which the judge’s role is to be an impartial arbitrator, not an investigator.

The authors of the article describe the meaning of the principle of adversarial trial in Poland. They also emphasized relations between this principle and the concept of “material truth”. The changes established by the amendment are shown in perspective of the American definition of adversarial trial. The authors analyze the reform and attempt to predict the problems with new regulations in practice.

1. Boratyńska, Katarzyna, Łukasz Chojniak, and Wojciech Jasiński. Postępowanie karne [Criminal procedure]. Warsaw: C.H. Beck, 2012.

2. Cieślak, Marian. Dzieła wybrane. Tom II. Polska procedura karna. Podstawowe założenia teoretyczne [Selected Works. Volume II. Polish criminal procedure. The basic theoretical assumptions]. Cracow: Jagiellonian University Press, 2011.

3. Corrado, Michael Louis. “The Future of Adversarial Systems: An Introduction to the Papers from the First Conference.” North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation 35 (2010): 285-296.

4. Engel, Christoph. “Preponderance of the evidence versus intime conviction: a behavioral perspective on a conflict between American and Continental European law.” Vermont Law Review 33(3) (2009): 435-468.

5. Feldmeier, John, and Frank Schmalleger. Criminal Law and Procedure for Legal Professionals. New York: Practice Hall, 2012.

6. Goodpaster, Gary. “On the theory of American adversary criminal trial.” The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 78 (1987): 118-154.

7. Grzegorczyk, Tomasz, and Janusz Tylman. Polskie postępowanie karne wyd. 8 [Polish criminal proceedings, 8 ed.]. Warsaw: LexisNexis, 2011.

8. Israel, Jerold, Wayne LaFave, Nancy King, and Orin Kerr. Criminal Procedure. 5th ed. Las Vegas: West Law School, 2009.

9. Katz, Lewis R., and Neil P. Cohen. Questions & Answers: Criminal Procedure I & II. Newark, NJ: LexisNexis, 2003.

10. Kuckes Niki. “Civil Due Process, Criminal Due Process.” Yale Law & Policy Review 25 (2006): 1-61.

11. Lach, Arkadiusz. “Zasada kontradyktoryjności w postępowaniu sądowym w procesie karnym de lege lata i de lege ferenda” [“The principle of adversarial trial in a criminal proces de lege lata and de lege ferenda”]. Palestra 5-6 (2012): 124-138.

12. Nita, Barbara, and Światłowski Andrzej. “Kontradyktoryjny proces karny (między prawdą materialną a szybkością postępowania)” [“Adversarial criminal litigation (between the material truth and velocity of proceedings”]. Państwo i Prawo 1 (2012): 33-49.

13. Pawelec, Szymon. “Od wniosku o skazanie bez rozprawy do negocjowania wyroków. Czy zmierzamy w stronę plea bargaining?” [“From a motion to convict the accused without conducting a trial to negotiating a sentence. Are we aiming toward plea bargaining?”]: 218-226. In: Cezary Kulesza, ed. Ocena funkcjonowania porozumień procesowych w praktyce wymiaru sprawiedliwości [The assessment of plea agreements in practice of criminal justice]. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer, 2009.

14. Senna, Joseph, and Larry Siegel. Introduction to Criminal Justice. 8th ed. Las Vegas: Cengage Learning, 1999.

15. Stefanowicz, Krzysztof. “The victim of the crime in Polish criminal law.” Capital University Law Review 21 (1992): 86-94.

16. Śliwiński, Stanisław. Polski proces karny przed sądem powszechnym. Zasady ogólne. Wydanie II [Polish criminal process before the court. General principles. Edition II]. Warsaw: Lawyers Publishing House, 1961.

17. Świda, Zofia, ed. Postępowanie karne. Cześć ogólna [The criminal proceedings. General part.]. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer, 2008.

18. The National Centre for Victims of Crime. “Civil Justice for Victims of Crime.” (2008) // http://victimsofcrime.org/docs/NCVBA/standard-cj-brofinal.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (accessed November 21, 2013).

19. Tokarczyk, Roman. Prawo amerykańskie [American Law]. Warsaw: Oficyna, 2011.

20. Walpin, Gerald. “America’s adversarial and jury systems: more likely to do justice.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 26 (2003): 175-186.

21. Waltoś, Stanisław, and Piotr Hofmański. Proces karny. Zarys systemu [Criminal process. Outline of the systems]. Warsaw: LexisNexis, 2013.

22. Zacharias, Fred C. “Who owns work product?” University of Illinois Law Review 1 (2006): 127-176.

Baltic Journal of Law & Politics

A Journal of Vytautas Magnus University

Journal Information


CiteScore 2016: 0.13

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.102
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.276

Target Group researchers and scholars in the fields of law and politics, with an acute interest in the cross-pollinations of disciplines, comparative approaches to regional issues, and active dialogue on pressing contemporary issues of theoretical and practical import.

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 106 106 28
PDF Downloads 35 35 9