TVP WEEKLY: In July, the Sejm passed an amendment to the Penal Code. Criminal law will be made tougher, including the introduction of a 30-year prison sentence and absolute life imprisonment (without the possibility of parole). What should the punishment actually be?

KAZIMIERZ SZAŁATA: Punishment is always a reaction to evil that destroys the moral condition of the perpetrator, the established social order and man's relationship to God. Punishment has a restorative task through rehabilitation and by creating a sense of justice. It certainly cannot be revenge for the evil committed, for revenge always involves bad emotions. Feelings of injustice and revenge arise naturally in human beings, but that is what executive authorities are for - assessing the situation and considering rationally how the wrong done can be rectified - in order to avoid revenge. As we know, if someone, in a desire for revenge, were to attempt to inflict punishment themselves, they will also be subject to judgement and punishment.

The ways in which a sentence is implemented should be modified - based on experience and sound knowledge - so that it effectively fulfils its rehabilitation role. So that it repairs the person and enables him/her to return to life in society. But punishment should also give this society a sense of security. This can sometimes be a problem. For example, juvenile crime has increased significantly in recent years. There is a serious dilemma as to how juvenile bandits, murderers should be treated.

In Poland, persons who have reached the age of 17 are criminally liable. The age limit should therefore be lowered?

There is a problem with setting this boundary accurately, as the maturity of young offenders needs to be assessed. This can be done during the judicial process. Therefore, each case should be considered separately. On the other hand, there is no doubt that the age limit for offenders has clearly decreased. Thus, preventive and educational measures must change. There are killers who are 13-14 years old... They often act with a sense of impunity. I remember a situation when I heard a woman screaming. I ran to her, she was lying with an open fracture of her arm. Witnesses caught the two teenagers who had assaulted her. The police were called. One of the perpetrators, using very vulgar words, said to the police officer: "I warn you, I am a minor. Just try to touch me!".

No one can have a sense of impunity, not even minors. A sense of impunity demoralises. Of course, punishment, rehabilitation in the case of minors requires special care and sensitivity. It is difficult. But society must also be protected from minor offenders.

SIGN UP TO OUR PAGE You mentioned that punishment should have a rehabilitating role. However, one may wonder to what extent rehabilitation - in a prison, demoralising environment - is possible, and whether it is not a myth.

This is a serious problem. The question of the effectiveness of rehabilitation is posed in discussions around the world. There is the dilemma of what to do to ensure that prison is not a place that demoralises.

The amendment to the Penal Code also provides for stricter traffic laws. For example, it will be possible to impound the vehicles of intoxicated drivers.

We have relatively lenient measures against traffic offences, especially the most drastic ones. I have personal experience of this, which illustrates the paradox that if someone crosses a continuous line he is immediately punished with a fine and penalty points. If, on the other hand, he kills someone at a crossing, he will defend himself for several years in a criminal trial and possibly get a "suspended" sentence without even paying court costs because, for example, he is not working full-time. This needs to change.

We need to change our thinking towards people who deliberately use motor vehicles to cause harm to others. And start treating them as killers. A speeding car is a very dangerous weapon.

Of course, each case is different and such situations should be considered individually. That is what the courts and jurors are for, and in my opinion they should play a more active role. My impression is that they are most often people who fall asleep during the trial and do not have the habit or the courage to speak up. And yet they are appointed on behalf of the public to take part in the trial and express their opinions.

An issue often up for debate is the severity of the punishment.

Yes, especially as times are changing and with them the types of crime. For example, crimes committed with mobile phones or IT systems. This is why the Penal Code must be constantly updated, and in every area.

Of course, the principles remain the same: a citizen should be rewarded for good deeds and punished for bad ones, so that there is a sense of justice in society. And furthermore, so that a person who has done wrong can be given the chance to return to the normal, righteous path of life, and so that he or she can progress and improve with us. The point is that everyone should have the chance to return to the righteous path of life..

Besides, each of us commits some wrongdoing, minor or major, and it is the role of society to create the right conditions so that we can have a chance to redress any wrongs and simply rectify them.

And what is your attitude to the death penalty?

This is a topic often considered in the literature. On the question of the death penalty, I personally always turn to the reflections of Fr. Prof. Tadeusz Ślipko, who was my ethics professor. At university we admittedly rather disliked his textbooks, as they were very formal and contained a lot of definitions, but as time has passed I have drawn more and more on his work. He was a classical philosopher in the literal sense of the word, who sorted out and defined everything for us.

I sometimes get the impression that discussions about the death penalty are really discussions about nothing, because everyone - using the same terms - is talking about something different; everyone has their own understanding of the terms they are using. Therefore, defining the basic concepts in ethics is the absolute foundation for a discourse to be serious. This is what we owe to the textbooks of Father Professor Tadeusz Ślipko.

In his book 'The Death Penalty: For or Against', Father Professor Tadeusz Ślipko concluded that the Church's teaching on the death penalty is historical and not timeless, that "the Church on the death penalty does not communicate God's moral doctrine, but speaks in the name of its own human authority, which even for a believing Catholic makes the issue an open question". And he pointed out that in some circumstances, for the most serious crimes, the death penalty is morally permissible.

History teaches us that this is an exceptional punishment. For the principle of absolute respect for life is a universal principle. No one's life may be taken away. However, there are situations in which this is the only way to save the rest of the community. I am thinking, for example, of a war situation.

I also remember a conversation from the 1990s with a young police officer who was involved in an operation to free children who were being held hostage. The terrorist threatened to blow himself and the children up. So the policeman carried out a death sentence in a situation where there was absolutely no other option. He had to be precise, a mistake would have cost many lives. He did it, paradoxically, in the name of the principle of protecting human life as the supreme good.

Killing is not allowed. Not even in revenge or to get even. The death of a murderer will not restore what we have lost, will not even out the wrongs. But it must not be forgotten that there are situations when eliminating a person from a community is an unavoidable necessity to save others.

There is another situation in which the death penalty is acceptable. Namely, introducing it preemptively, as an indication of the measure of the crime committed, but without enforcing it. There are countries where the death penalty has been retained, but no such sentence has been carried out for years.

It is somehow possible to reach the consciousness of the criminal?

This is problematic. There was a time when I used to get a lot of letters from prisoners (to be honest, I don't know why). In none of them did the inmate express remorse or feel that he had done anything wrong. Often the opposite was true. For example, one of them lamented: "I did the right thing because I did clean up the neighbourhood and for that I am suffering today...".

This is why the hard and diligent work of educators, psychologists is needed to reach the consciousness of young offenders in particular, so that they understand that it is worthwhile to live an honest life.

Being in prison should be the moment in life when an inmate realises that he is worth something, that he is needed by someone. And that he is not rubbish thrown to the margins of society. If there is no respect for the detainee, he too will cease to respect himself. And by the same token, he will stop caring enough to straighten himself out, to try to see the wrong of which he is the perpetrator, and then to put it right. A good way forward is to allow prisoners to work.

A way to redeem their guilt?

Rather, one that makes them feel useful. Let me give you an example: I volunteered many times during the floods. In Wilków, we had prisoners helping us. They took great care to be able to tell the supervisor in the evening that they were polite and worked well.

A volunteer 'exchange' was organised in front of the municipal office. Residents came there asking for help. They always said: 'Ideally, two prisoners should come to us'. The convicts were polite and helpful. Of course, these were people who had done something bad or even terrible in their lives, perhaps their politeness was for show. But what they really cared about was that we saw that they were just like others and could do something good.

When we are guided by human rights, by the dignified treatment of prisoners, do we not sometimes forget the victims, who, after all, also had their rights? Let me just remind you of Anders Breivik, who killed 77 people on the island of Utoya in 2011. The living conditions under which this criminal is serving his 21-year prison sentence (the maximum penalty in Norway; however, the sentence may be extended) are enviable for many people who lead decent, honest lives. He can even correspond with his followers ...

An inmate must be guaranteed basic human rights: he must not go hungry, he must have normal hygiene and sanitary conditions, plus a cell with heat and a place to sleep. But other comforts? Many people cannot afford daily access to the press. Breivik could count on such a privilege... This is supposed to be a punishment, not a holiday.

Sometimes there is an exaggerated care and sensitivity towards the rights of prisoners, forgetting about the victims who, for example, after losing their health and fitness, are unable to work and are struggling for the basic necessities of life. Of course, every human being, even prisoners, must be treated with dignity. On the other hand, one must not forget that punishment is depriving the convicted person of some of his or her rights.

In addition, various "benevolent psychologists" appear to us to explain the attitude of prisoners. They say that "the man must be understood because he had a difficult childhood", etc. In this way, they justify crimes, even drastic ones. It happens that on the same day that a person commits a crime, they easily exonerate him. This is the result of carelessness, but also the fashion of indulging criminals. Such a narrative actually blunts our sensitivity. As a society, we are responsible for the safety of citizens - this must not be forgotten.

I would like to ask about the sentence of absolute life imprisonment. Does a sentence whereby a person will spend the rest of his life in prison mean that he should not be expected to improve? And that he may pose a threat to fellow inmates and prison staff?

Some inmates are under special supervision. There are people who have no conscience. We tend to assume, following Immanuel Kant, that every human being has a conscience. But this is not true. Unfortunately, there are people who have not developed a conscience. They have no moral consciousness. They have no sense of evil.

Such people really are dangerous and capable of anything. They threaten prison staff and fellow inmates. They still need to be treated with dignity - a man remains a man no matter what he has done; despite the devastation of his humanity - but also with caution. It is tragic that there are 'beasts' at all, as we call such people.

You spoke earlier about trying to reach the consciousness of prisoners. Perhaps a certain step towards making prisoners aware of their guilt and towards reparation - at least in some cases - would be an obligation to meet with the victims, with the families of the victims? Of course, if the injured party would be interested in this.

This is a delicate and very complex issue. In theory, if the conditions for such meetings exist and both parties are willing to do so, do so with sincere intentions, then such meetings are highly desirable.

This is the best way to repair the relationship between offender and victim. But sometimes such meetings are arranged as a trial tactic by defence lawyers simply to improve the offender's image. They can be very traumatic for the victims, as well as for the offender who does not feel the need to do so.

Such a meeting must be voluntary for each party. It can be proposed, not forced. And such meetings do of course happen. Sometimes on the initiative of the victims and sometimes on the initiative of the perpetrators. On the other hand, these apologies - directed by lawyers, recorded on camera - are a pathetic practice, part of a calculating game of litigation. The victims, the relatives of the victims, may feel humiliated.

– interviewed by Łukasz Lubański
-translated by Tomasz Krzyżanowski

TVP WEEKLY. Editorial team and jornalists