
Pozycja procesowa podejrzanego i pokrzywdzonego w postępowaniu w przedmiocie zastosowania środków zabezpieczających w kodyfikacji postępowania karnego z 1928, 1969 i 1997 r
Author(s) -
Kazimierz Zgryzek
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
problemy prawa karnego
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2353-9712
pISSN - 0208-5577
DOI - 10.31261/ppk.2019.03.04
Subject(s) - criminal code , normative , code (set theory) , subject (documents) , criminal procedure , law , scope (computer science) , state (computer science) , mental health , psychology , political science , criminal law , criminology , medicine , psychiatry , computer science , library science , set (abstract data type) , programming language , algorithm
The author analyses and compares the normative approaches to the participation of the suspected and victim in proceedings for using preventive measures in criminal procedure. While comparing regulations within the scope of his interest published in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the year 1928, 1969, and 1997, the author emphasizes the necessity of undertaking analyses through the prism of regulations included in Mental Health Act. He also indicates the necessity to protect the rights of the suspected and victim not only during the preparatory proceedings, but most of all during the proceedings for using preventive measures. He points to the fact that the prosecuted person, who has been charged with a crime, ought to be a subject to special protection stemming from his or her state of mental health. He postulates that in the course of pre-trial hearing lead in accordance with Article 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the participation of the parties – including the suspected person – should be treated as a rule, and only in exceptional cases the absence of the suspected with mental illness should be allowed. The author assesses negatively the regulation included in Article 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows for using preventive measures against the suspected person even when a court appointed psychiatrists claim that his or her participation in proceedings is unnecessary. He compares this regulation to the operations of “kangaroo courts”.