Acta Iuris Stetinensis

Wcześniej: Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. Acta Iuris Stetinensis

ISSN: 2083-4373     eISSN: 2545-3181    OAI    DOI: 10.18276/ais.2020.29-10

Lista wydań / 1/2020 (29)
Protecting the right to clean air through criminal law: a perspective from economic law analysis and the case of Poland

Autorzy: Mateusz Podhalicz
Słowa kluczowe: air pollution efficiency of environmental criminal law right to a clean environment economic law analysis
Rok wydania:2020
Liczba stron:18 (147-164)
Cited-by (Crossref) ?:
Liczba pobrań ?: 347


The aim of this paper is to examine whether Polish criminal law efficiently criminalises acts that harm air quality (most notably emissions of toxins to the air through, among others, the improper processing of waste). The relevance of this research stems from the notorious fact that air-quality in Poland is one of the worst in Europe, and it is no secret that this situation is caused largely by private actors infringing on rules concerning the emissions of toxins into the environment. As the author establishes through legal analysis, the collection of empirical data, and on the basis of an economic-law-analysis crime model, Polish criminal law fails thoroughly when it comes to combatting this phenomenon. Relating the current legal regu- lations and, most importantly, their employment in practice to the prerequisites of effective crime policy (as envisaged by G. Becker), it is doubtless that for the poor air-quality in Poland to change, the state should aim at reaching a better detection rate when it comes to environ- mental crimes, as well as inflicting more severe penalties on the perpetrators of those crimes. This, coupled with proper educational campaigns directed at citizens and law enforcement authorities at large, should bring about higher levels of deterrence when it comes to these crimes, and by extension, enhance air quality in Poland.
Pobierz plik

Plik artykułu


1.Almer, C., Extending the economic model of crime to environmental offenses - and vice versa, ce-econ-dam/documents/research/ws-and-conf/nachwuchsworkshop/Almer_Paper. pdf.
2.Ashraf, N. et al., Adam Smith. Behavioral economist, “Journal of Economic Perspective” 2005, Vol. 19, No. 3.
3.Barrett, J.J., Sentencing environmental crimes under the United States sentencing guide- lines: a sentencing lottery, “Environmental Law” 1992, No. 22.
4.Becker, G.S., Crime and punishment: an economic approach, “Journal of Political Econo- my” 1968, Vol. 76, No. 2.
5.Becker, G.S., Irrational behaviour and economic theory, “Journal of Political Economy” 1962, Vol. 70, No. 11-13.
6.Bentham, J., Introduction to the principles of morals and legislation, Kitchener 2000,
7.Bowles, R., Law and the economy, Oxford 1982.
8.Coffee, J.S., Corporate crime and punishment: a non-Chicago view of the economics of cri¬minal sanctions, “American Criminal Law Review” 1980.
9.Cooter, R., Prices and sanctions, “Columbia Law Review” 1984.
10.Cooter, R. and Ulen, T., Law and economics, 6th edition, Berkeley 2016.
11.Faure, M., Environmental crimes, in: Garoupa, N. (ed.), Criminal law and economics, Cheltenham 2009.
12.Gruszecka, D., Komentarz do art. 182, in: Giezek, E. (ed.), Kodeks karny. Część szczegól¬na. Komentarz, Warszawa 2014.
13.Gałązka, M., Komentarz do art. 182, in: Grześkowiak, A. and Wiak, K. (eds.), Kodeks kar¬ny. Komentarz, Warszawa 2019.
14.Jajuga, W., in: Jajuga, W. (ed.), Zarządzanie ryzykiem, Warszawa 2007.
15.Królikowski, M., Komentarz do art. 183 in: Królikowski, M. and Zawłocki, R. (eds.), Ko¬deks karny. Część szczególna. Tom I. Komentarz do artykułów 117-221, 2017, Legalis.
16.Kurowski, M., Komentarz do art. 5, in: Świecki, D. (ed.), Kodeks postępowania karnego. Tom I. Komentarz, 2020, LEX.
17.Lachowski, J., Komentarz do art. 182, k.k., in: Konarska-Wrzosek, V. (ed.), Kodeks karny. Komentarz, 2018, LEX.
18.Miceli, T., Optimal prosecution of defendants whose guilt is uncertain, “Journal of Law, Economics and Organisation” 1990, No. 6.
19.Meinberg, V., Empirische Erkenntnisse zum Vollzug des Umweltstrafrechts, “Zeitschrift fur die Gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaften” 1988.
20.Ogus, A. and Abbot, C., Pollution and penalties, in: Swanson, T. (ed.), An introduction to the law and economics of environmental policy: issues in institutional design, Am¬sterdam 2002.
21.Polinsky, M. and Shavell, S., The economic theory of public enforcement of law, “Journal of Economic Literature” 2000, No. 38.
22.Posner, R., An economic theory of the criminal law, “Columbia Law Review” 1985, No. 85.
23.Posner, R., Frontiers of legal theory, Harvard 2004.
24.Posner, R., Optimal sentences for white-collar criminals, “American Criminal Law Re- view” 1980, Vol. 17.
25.Radecki, W., Ochrona środowiska w nowym prawie karnym, cz. II: Prawnokarna ochrona przed zanieczyszczeniami, odpadami i promieniowaniem, “Monitor Prawniczy” 1998, No. 1, Legalis.
26.Radecki, W., Komentarz do art. 182 k.k., in: Górniok, O. (ed.), Kodeks karny. Komentarz, Warszawa 2005.
27.Radecki, W., Komentarz do art. 191, in: Radecki, W. (ed), Ustawa o odpadach. Komen¬tarz, Warszawa 2012.
28.Shavell, S., Criminal law and the optimal use of non-monetary sanctions as a deterrent, “Columbia Law Review” 1985, No. 85.
29.Skogh, G., A note on gary becker’s crime and punishment: an economic approach, “Swe- dish Journal of Economics” 1973, Vol. 75.
30.Skogh, G. and Stuart, C., An economic analysis of crime rates, punishment and the social consequences of crime, “Public Choice” 1982, No. 38.
31.Stigler, G., The optimum enforcement of laws, “Journal of Political Economy” 1970, Vol. 78, No. 3.
32.Zoll, A., Komentarz do art. 182, in: Wróbel, W. and Zoll, A. (eds.), Kodeks karny. Część ogólna. Tom I. Część I. Komentarz do art. 1-52, 2016, LEX.