W roku 2014 odnotowano 94 osoby skazane na 10 tys. ludności, a w roku 2018 o 6,6% mniej – tzn. 88 osób skazanych na 10 tys. ludności. Te zmiany ilustruje poniższy wykres 1.3. = in 2018 88 people sentenced per 10 thousand. population.
Crime, violence or vandalism in the local area https://perma.cc/RM93-4TEX
Crime statistics https://perma.cc/R8JN-EUEN
Intentional homicide victims in the EU https://perma.cc/QLL3-XUTL
Crime & Punishment https://perma.cc/4FAC-VPWB
Violent sexual crimes recorded in the EU https://perma.cc/9PWT-AAVM
Reisehinweise für Polen https://perma.cc/WP5G-G73S
49 arrests in Poland in an operation targeting child sexual exploitation online https://perma.cc/4R47-GFE4
Poland: While initiatives against domestic violence show promise, urgent steps needed to respond to other forms of violence against women, says new report https://perma.cc/5PZQ-LBL5
ZGWAŁCENIE (ART. 197)
§ 1. Kto przemocą, groźbą bezprawną lub podstępem doprowadza inną osobę do obcowania płciowego, podlega karze pozbawienia wolności od lat 2 do 12.
§ 2. Jeżeli sprawca, w sposób określony w § 1, doprowadza inną osobę do poddania się innej czynności seksualnej albo wykonania takiej czynności, podlega karze pozbawienia wolności od 6 miesięcy do lat 8.
§ 3. Jeżeli sprawca dopuszcza się zgwałcenia:
wspólnie z inną osobą,
wobec małoletniego poniżej lat 15,
wobec wstępnego, zstępnego, przysposobionego, przysposabiającego, brata lub siostry, podlega karze pozbawienia wolności na czas nie krótszy od lat 3.
§ 4. Jeśli sprawca czynu określonego w § 1-3 działa ze szczególnym okrucieństwem, podlega karze pozbawienia wolności na czas nie krótszy od lat 5.
—> Whoever, by force, unlawful threat or fraud, causes another person to have sexual intercourse = 12 years https://perma.cc/7EGP-4LW8
—> with violence 10 years https://perma.cc/V9LU-EM4J
—> unconscious 8 years https://perma.cc/BR7K-W3KC
—> under 15 years = 12 years of prison
—> rape video / porno = 8 years, up to 15 years https://perma.cc/A6VS-784D
Crime, violence or vandalism in the local area https://perma.cc/RM93-4TEX
Crime statistics https://perma.cc/R8JN-EUEN
Intentional homicide victims in the EU https://perma.cc/QLL3-XUTL
Crime & Punishment https://perma.cc/4FAC-VPWB
Violent sexual crimes recorded in the EU https://perma.cc/9PWT-AAVM
Reisehinweise für Polen https://perma.cc/WP5G-G73S
49 arrests in Poland in an operation targeting child sexual exploitation online https://perma.cc/4R47-GFE4
Poland: While initiatives against domestic violence show promise, urgent steps needed to respond to other forms of violence against women, says new report https://perma.cc/5PZQ-LBL5
ZGWAŁCENIE (ART. 197)
§ 1. Kto przemocą, groźbą bezprawną lub podstępem doprowadza inną osobę do obcowania płciowego, podlega karze pozbawienia wolności od lat 2 do 12.
§ 2. Jeżeli sprawca, w sposób określony w § 1, doprowadza inną osobę do poddania się innej czynności seksualnej albo wykonania takiej czynności, podlega karze pozbawienia wolności od 6 miesięcy do lat 8.
§ 3. Jeżeli sprawca dopuszcza się zgwałcenia:
wspólnie z inną osobą,
wobec małoletniego poniżej lat 15,
wobec wstępnego, zstępnego, przysposobionego, przysposabiającego, brata lub siostry, podlega karze pozbawienia wolności na czas nie krótszy od lat 3.
§ 4. Jeśli sprawca czynu określonego w § 1-3 działa ze szczególnym okrucieństwem, podlega karze pozbawienia wolności na czas nie krótszy od lat 5.
—> Whoever, by force, unlawful threat or fraud, causes another person to have sexual intercourse = 12 years https://perma.cc/7EGP-4LW8
—> with violence 10 years https://perma.cc/V9LU-EM4J
—> unconscious 8 years https://perma.cc/BR7K-W3KC
—> under 15 years = 12 years of prison
—> rape video / porno = 8 years, up to 15 years https://perma.cc/A6VS-784D
The Death Penalty: No Evidence for Deterrence
What the paper simply write: there is no evidence, means no way to show with high quality scientific studies that cannot be applied at all, that a death sentence is effective.
What people understand when they read quickly just the title: a death sentence is not effective. This is not what the paper is saying! It clearly says there is no positive or negative evidence, because doing proper studies would be unethical, especially if we would removed all factors that influence such values.
This doesn't happen just with the prison, but even in many other topics. We cannot crash a plane to study what are the effects ... we cannot tell a patient "please eat 0 kcal, because i want to check how many days it requires before you die". There are so many scientific questions that cannot be answer, due to ethical problem with such studies ...
Studies show no link between the presence or absence of the death penalty and murder rates https://perma.cc/6P4Q-SP5J
If the death penalty is not a proven deterrent to murder (= MEANS NO REAL POSITIVE STUDIES), is it worth the excessive costs, risks of error, uncertainty of completion, and other problems that are inherent to its practice? —> so since we cannot answer that by science, we use factors like errors during execution or the price to say "it's not ok" —> we cannot say "scientifically there is a negative evidence!"
Even saying "murders are less" is bullshit, like we showed in previous posts, because yes, maybe in one US state this is the case, in another one is totally fake saying that ...
Plus even if there is an increase or decrease, can we really say "it's due to the death sentence?". Canada was the best example. An increase without that ...
https://t.iss.one/WomenRightsTelegram/340
So instead of checking half of the information, let we really check facts:
- scientific evidence: NEUTRAL or better NOT POSSIBLE TO ANSWER DUE TO ETHICAL ISSUES
- more / less homicide = bullshit
- cost: not clear
- wrong sentence / errors: depends
What the paper simply write: there is no evidence, means no way to show with high quality scientific studies that cannot be applied at all, that a death sentence is effective.
What people understand when they read quickly just the title: a death sentence is not effective. This is not what the paper is saying! It clearly says there is no positive or negative evidence, because doing proper studies would be unethical, especially if we would removed all factors that influence such values.
This doesn't happen just with the prison, but even in many other topics. We cannot crash a plane to study what are the effects ... we cannot tell a patient "please eat 0 kcal, because i want to check how many days it requires before you die". There are so many scientific questions that cannot be answer, due to ethical problem with such studies ...
Studies show no link between the presence or absence of the death penalty and murder rates https://perma.cc/6P4Q-SP5J
If the death penalty is not a proven deterrent to murder (= MEANS NO REAL POSITIVE STUDIES), is it worth the excessive costs, risks of error, uncertainty of completion, and other problems that are inherent to its practice? —> so since we cannot answer that by science, we use factors like errors during execution or the price to say "it's not ok" —> we cannot say "scientifically there is a negative evidence!"
Even saying "murders are less" is bullshit, like we showed in previous posts, because yes, maybe in one US state this is the case, in another one is totally fake saying that ...
Plus even if there is an increase or decrease, can we really say "it's due to the death sentence?". Canada was the best example. An increase without that ...
https://t.iss.one/WomenRightsTelegram/340
So instead of checking half of the information, let we really check facts:
- scientific evidence: NEUTRAL or better NOT POSSIBLE TO ANSWER DUE TO ETHICAL ISSUES
- more / less homicide = bullshit
- cost: not clear
- wrong sentence / errors: depends