Keywords
administration of justice
court
criminal law
separation of powers
How to Cite
Abstract
The concept of discretion in the domestic literature is generally associated closely with the theory or philosophy of law. This issue, despite the fact that its modern theoretical framework was created precisely by legal theorists headed by H.L.A. Hart and R. Dworkin, has a much deeper significance for the current debate on the modern democratic state and the role of the judiciary, especially in criminal cases. The text shows theoretical approaches to the phenomenon of discretion. The requirement of judicial independence, which is an integral element of the judiciary, falls within the essence of the right to effective judicial protection and the fundamental right to a fair trial. The criminal court in this view has a special role, as it decides on the most far-reaching restrictions on rights and freedoms. When shaping the rules of criminal liability, the legislator must bear in mind that it is not its role to decide individual cases, a competence constitutionally reserved for the courts.
References
Adams J., Novanglus Papers, no. 7.—The Works of John Adams, red. Ch.F. Adams, vol. 4, 1851, < https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/adams-the-works-of-john-adams-vol-4 >.
Alexy R., Teoria praw podstawowych, Warszawa 2010.
Barak A., Judicial Discretion, New Haven 1989.
Discretionary Power of Public Administration: Its Scope and Control, ed. L. Leszczyński, A. Szot, P. Lang, Frankfurt am Main 2017.
Dworkin R., Judicial Discretion, „The Journal of Philosophy” 1963, t. 60, nr 21.
Dworkin R., Taking rights seriously, London 1977.
Dyskrecjonalność w prawie, red. M. Araszkiewicz, Warszawa 2010.
Graynor W.J., A Government of Laws, Not of Men, „The North American Review” 1903, vol. 176, no. 555.
Greenawalt K., Discretion and Judicial Decision: The Elusive Quest for the Fetters That Bind Judges, „Columbia Law Review” 1975, vol. 75, no. 2.
Hart H.L.A., Discretion, „Harvard Law Review” 2013, t. 127.
Hart H.L.A., The concept of law, Oxford University Press 1961.
Hart H.M., Sacks A.M., Eskridge W.N., Frickey P.P., The legal process: Basic problems in the making and application of law, Westbury 1994.
Isaacs N., The Limits of Judicial Discretion, „The Yale Law Journal” 1923, t. 32, nr 4.
Iwański M., Odpowiedzialność za odmowę świadczenia usługi (art. 138 Kodeksu wykroczeń) na tle kolizji zasad konstytucyjnych. Rozważania na kanwie kazusu łódzkiego drukarza o styku prawa karnego sensu largo i prawa konstytucyjnego, „e-Czasopismo Prawa Karnego i Nauk Penalnych” 2018, nr 7.
Jakimowicz W., Zewnętrzne granice uznania administracyjnego, „Państwo i Prawo” 2010, nr 5.
Jaśkowska M., Uznanie administracyjne a inne formy władzy dyskrecjonalnej administracji publicznej, w: Instytucje prawa administracyjnego. System Prawa Administracyjnego, t. 1, red. R. Hauser, Z. Niewiadomski, A. Wróbel, Warszawa 2015.
Jędrzejczak M., Ziemski K., Dyskrecjonalność w prawie administracyjnym, Poznań 2015.
Jennex D., Dworkin and the Doctrine of Judicial Discretion, „Dalhousie Law Journal” 1992, t. 14, nr 3.
Klatt M., Taking Rights less Seriously. A Structural Analysis of Judicial Discretion, „Ratio Juris” 2007, vol. 20, nr 4.
Raz J., Legal Principles and the Limits of Law, „The Yale Law Journal” 1972, vol. 81, no. 5.
Sartorius R., Social Policy and Judicial Legislation, „American Philosophical Quarterly” 1971, vol. 8, no. 2.
Wojciechowski B., Dyskrecjonalność sędziowska. Studia teoretycznoprawne, Toruń 2004. Zimmermann M., Pojęcie administracji publicznej a „swobodne uznanie”, Warszawa 2009.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Cracow Institute of Criminal Law Foundation