Suchergebnisse

Most international agreements on the rights of suffrage and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights hold that universal and equal suffrage is a key component of a democratic society. Apart from that, different nations have distinct electoral regulations governing the ability of prisoners to vote. Most of the states have adopted laws, forbidding the right to vote and be elected while in prison. Prisoner disenfranchisement is a topic of academic debate. Many scholars discuss whether voting should be considered as a right, or as a privilege granted by the state. Some critics argue that prisoner disenfranchisement is a form of double jeopardy or the breach of the non bis in idem rule. More specifically, these laws continually punish individuals for crimes that they have already served time for. Questions arise over whether the state has a legitimate interest in denying the right to vote and be elected to those who have manifested a fundamental antipathy to the laws of the state. Convicted felons also raise questions about morality and their ability to vote responsibly. The main purpose of this article is to find out whether the political rights can be restricted on the ground of the prison sentence. The findings partially support hypothesis that incarceration can be the reason for curtailing the political rights. The principle of universal suffrage is not absolute. International and regional documents on the rights of suffrage gives a room for implied limitations and states' legislatures must be allowed a margin of appreciation in this sphere. The margin in this area is wide, however the decision to curtail the rights of any groups or categories of the general population, such as convicted prisoners, must be 1) proportional; 2) in the pursuit of a legitimate aim; 3) reasonable. Most of the foreign tribunals hold that prison disenfranchisement laws are constitutional and justified. [.]

Most international agreements on the rights of suffrage and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights hold that universal and equal suffrage is a key component of a democratic society. Apart from that, different nations have distinct electoral regulations governing the ability of prisoners to vote. Most of the states have adopted laws, forbidding the right to vote and be elected while in prison. Prisoner disenfranchisement is a topic of academic debate. Many scholars discuss whether voting should be considered as a right, or as a privilege granted by the state. Some critics argue that prisoner disenfranchisement is a form of double jeopardy or the breach of the non bis in idem rule. More specifically, these laws continually punish individuals for crimes that they have already served time for. Questions arise over whether the state has a legitimate interest in denying the right to vote and be elected to those who have manifested a fundamental antipathy to the laws of the state. Convicted felons also raise questions about morality and their ability to vote responsibly. The main purpose of this article is to find out whether the political rights can be restricted on the ground of the prison sentence. The findings partially support hypothesis that incarceration can be the reason for curtailing the political rights. The principle of universal suffrage is not absolute. International and regional documents on the rights of suffrage gives a room for implied limitations and states' legislatures must be allowed a margin of appreciation in this sphere. The margin in this area is wide, however the decision to curtail the rights of any groups or categories of the general population, such as convicted prisoners, must be 1) proportional; 2) in the pursuit of a legitimate aim; 3) reasonable. Most of the foreign tribunals hold that prison disenfranchisement laws are constitutional and justified. [.]

Most international agreements on the rights of suffrage and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights hold that universal and equal suffrage is a key component of a democratic society. Apart from that, different nations have distinct electoral regulations governing the ability of prisoners to vote. Most of the states have adopted laws, forbidding the right to vote and be elected while in prison. Prisoner disenfranchisement is a topic of academic debate. Many scholars discuss whether voting should be considered as a right, or as a privilege granted by the state. Some critics argue that prisoner disenfranchisement is a form of double jeopardy or the breach of the non bis in idem rule. More specifically, these laws continually punish individuals for crimes that they have already served time for. Questions arise over whether the state has a legitimate interest in denying the right to vote and be elected to those who have manifested a fundamental antipathy to the laws of the state. Convicted felons also raise questions about morality and their ability to vote responsibly. The main purpose of this article is to find out whether the political rights can be restricted on the ground of the prison sentence. The findings partially support hypothesis that incarceration can be the reason for curtailing the political rights. The principle of universal suffrage is not absolute. International and regional documents on the rights of suffrage gives a room for implied limitations and states' legislatures must be allowed a margin of appreciation in this sphere. The margin in this area is wide, however the decision to curtail the rights of any groups or categories of the general population, such as convicted prisoners, must be 1) proportional; 2) in the pursuit of a legitimate aim; 3) reasonable. Most of the foreign tribunals hold that prison disenfranchisement laws are constitutional and justified. [.]

The article addresses the impact of public administration reforms carried out during the economic crisis on human rights in Lithuania, with a special focus on the right to appropriate conditions of detention. The impact, in this field, of the reforms aimed at improving the quality of legislation, attracting private investments, and reducing administrative costs is examined. It is demonstrated that the expected positive impact of these reforms on the conditions of detention has in practice been limited. The question of a possible impact of these reforms on the complaints filed by convicts deprived of their liberty and respective judicial decisions is also addressed paying special attention to the problem of the amount of compensation as well as broader questions on the link between the economic resources of the state and the amount of compensation for inappropriate conditions of detention.

The article addresses the impact of public administration reforms carried out during the economic crisis on human rights in Lithuania, with a special focus on the right to appropriate conditions of detention. The impact, in this field, of the reforms aimed at improving the quality of legislation, attracting private investments, and reducing administrative costs is examined. It is demonstrated that the expected positive impact of these reforms on the conditions of detention has in practice been limited. The question of a possible impact of these reforms on the complaints filed by convicts deprived of their liberty and respective judicial decisions is also addressed paying special attention to the problem of the amount of compensation as well as broader questions on the link between the economic resources of the state and the amount of compensation for inappropriate conditions of detention.

The article addresses the impact of public administration reforms carried out during the economic crisis on human rights in Lithuania, with a special focus on the right to appropriate conditions of detention. The impact, in this field, of the reforms aimed at improving the quality of legislation, attracting private investments, and reducing administrative costs is examined. It is demonstrated that the expected positive impact of these reforms on the conditions of detention has in practice been limited. The question of a possible impact of these reforms on the complaints filed by convicts deprived of their liberty and respective judicial decisions is also addressed paying special attention to the problem of the amount of compensation as well as broader questions on the link between the economic resources of the state and the amount of compensation for inappropriate conditions of detention.

The article addresses the impact of public administration reforms carried out during the economic crisis on human rights in Lithuania, with a special focus on the right to appropriate conditions of detention. The impact, in this field, of the reforms aimed at improving the quality of legislation, attracting private investments, and reducing administrative costs is examined. It is demonstrated that the expected positive impact of these reforms on the conditions of detention has in practice been limited. The question of a possible impact of these reforms on the complaints filed by convicts deprived of their liberty and respective judicial decisions is also addressed paying special attention to the problem of the amount of compensation as well as broader questions on the link between the economic resources of the state and the amount of compensation for inappropriate conditions of detention.

The author analyses the pattern of governance of the right-wing parties in Poland between 2015 and 2019. It bears many features of a concentration of powers as a method of achieving desired goals in the sphere of political competition and public policy along with the use of informal components. The manifestation of concentration of power is centralisation, understood as the transfer of functions of the state from the lower (in particular local government) levels to the higher, as well as strong interference of the central government in many areas of public life that previously remained apolitical.

The aim of this article is to discuss the influence of historicism on political philosophy which was revealed by Leo Strauss. The paper deals with links between historicism, modern political philosophy, and political science. Reasons are explicated for historicist elimination from scientific discourse of the main problems of classical political philosophy: justice, natural right, best political regime. The paper discusses the main ideas of historicism, which political science absorbed, and Strauss`s exposed contradictions of historicism, its inability to prove consistently the narrowness of philosophical thinking or the reliability of historicist attitude. Political science also becomes self-contradictory as much as it uses historicist approach.

The aim of this article is to discuss the influence of historicism on political philosophy which was revealed by Leo Strauss. The paper deals with links between historicism, modern political philosophy, and political science. Reasons are explicated for historicist elimination from scientific discourse of the main problems of classical political philosophy: justice, natural right, best political regime. The paper discusses the main ideas of historicism, which political science absorbed, and Strauss`s exposed contradictions of historicism, its inability to prove consistently the narrowness of philosophical thinking or the reliability of historicist attitude. Political science also becomes self-contradictory as much as it uses historicist approach.

The aim of this article is to discuss the influence of historicism on political philosophy which was revealed by Leo Strauss. The paper deals with links between historicism, modern political philosophy, and political science. Reasons are explicated for historicist elimination from scientific discourse of the main problems of classical political philosophy: justice, natural right, best political regime. The paper discusses the main ideas of historicism, which political science absorbed, and Strauss`s exposed contradictions of historicism, its inability to prove consistently the narrowness of philosophical thinking or the reliability of historicist attitude. Political science also becomes self-contradictory as much as it uses historicist approach.

The aim of this article is to discuss the influence of historicism on political philosophy which was revealed by Leo Strauss. The paper deals with links between historicism, modern political philosophy, and political science. Reasons are explicated for historicist elimination from scientific discourse of the main problems of classical political philosophy: justice, natural right, best political regime. The paper discusses the main ideas of historicism, which political science absorbed, and Strauss`s exposed contradictions of historicism, its inability to prove consistently the narrowness of philosophical thinking or the reliability of historicist attitude. Political science also becomes self-contradictory as much as it uses historicist approach.

artykuł w: Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska. Sectio M, Balcaniensis et Carpathiensis Vol. 4 (2019), s. 39-52 ; streszcz. pol., ang. ; artykuł w: Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska. Sectio M, Balcaniensis et Carpathiensis Vol. 4 (2019), s. 39-52 ; streszcz. pol., ang.