What was it about the fans who criticized the presidential veto by posting many banners? What was included in the veto revision of the Code of Criminal Procedure? Why is the President's co-workers not fit to defend themselves?
What harm does the power of “little crown witnesses” or “60” bring? Why was this decision a real test for the president – is he on the side of civilian liberties or the law and justice of a state that leaves tremendous freedom of arbitrariness to police and prosecutors? These questions are worth answering.
The fans of Polish football clubs protested against the presidential veto to the law amending the Code of Criminal Procedure. Among the many comments, traditionally describing the universe utilizing categories taken from “the tribal war” the highest form of insight were the ones to turn fans against president Charles Nawrock or those suggesting the manipulation of fans by the Donald Tusk government.
It is hard for those reasoning of the planet in terms of their unreflexive loyalty to their own environment to realize those who put values above the tribe. Polish fans, as far as I can remember (and much longer) have combined patriotism with attachment to civilian liberties. Clear expression of opposition to those politicians who broke their laws did not separate organization colors. Protests were directed against Donald Tusk, who had closed stadiums many years ago – quite a few strong wording was besides aimed at Zbigniew Ziobra, whose outstanding “deeds” in expanding the repressiveness of the state could service as the subject of the book, not the text.
Let us add that if the interior contradiction of the attitudes of fans from different years and stadiums exists, then only from the position of the individual who, as a consequence of the global view, recognizes political organization programs – in fact the right side of the political scene of the Law and Justice Party, which monopolizing many years, strengthened the state, but at the expense of citizens. If we do not look at the views of fans through the prism of organization divisions, we will see that they are simply consistent.
Of course, the cheering worldview has its origin in the individual experiences of those who have been going to matches for years – all those situations where they were facing “preemptive attacks” of prevention services utilizing teardrop gas. But at the same time this view is simply consistent. It is impossible to glorify the tradition of the National Army and National Armed Forces, while supporting the confiscation system. It is not possible to change “freedom” by all cases, but besides to make a sinister structure, making it truly possible for everyone to be detained and deprived of liberty, if only it was unfortunate that he met individual in his way who became a “little crown witness”.
It is interesting that the designers of “civil society from the broadcast” did not foretell that its substitute would appear in football stadiums. Whether 1 agrees with the fans or not, 1 thing is certain – they express their own views, not imposed by anyone.
The amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure included, among another things, provisions to remove the anticipation for the prosecutor to decide whether an “small Crown Witness” would be applied to an exceptional leniency of the penalty, the anticipation of bringing a complaint against the decision of the court to abdicate the detention, and a provision raising the lower limit of the punishment at which arrests from 1 year to 2 years may be filed. She besides abolished the right to usage illegally obtained evidence.
In general, she minimally repaired the strategy created by Zbigniew Ziobra. During the second period, the number of detentions utilized has doubled, there have been horrendously advanced penalties for shoplifting, the trial was allowed without the defendant's participation, it was possible to detain the sentenced to prison without sending a summons to the prison (Mrs. Wąsik and Kamiński may be grateful to Ziobrze), yet – authorities have been made of “little crown witnesses” who want to avoid prison so badly that they aid to close dozens of another people there.
Each of the points of amendment would require separate discussion. The law of deciding on the prosecutor's extraordinary leniency of the punishment for a "small Crown Witness" maintains a pathological situation in which the prosecutor can actually reward his associate for giving him a satisfactory explanation. An example is the communicative of a “little crown witness” called “Ramzes” from Poznań, presented in the TVN “Superviser”. "Ramzes" committed 2 rapes for which he was facing 15 years in prison. No wonder he chose to stay distant from prison. You can see on the recorded hidden video that the witness admits to the man he told that he testified precisely what the prosecutor dictated to him.
Let us not talk about "work accidents" – it is alternatively a occupation of causing accidents. Both cooperating parties – witness and prosecutor – have a immense interest in the conviction of the defendant.
With respect to denying the prosecutor the anticipation to complain about the decision to revoke detention, let us emphasise 1 thing: the fear of being behind bars frequently causes quasi-schizophrenic states, i.e. seeing non-existent policemen everywhere. A sad situation, but it is better than this traumatic insecurity that concerns a individual who is afraid of being arrested shortly. This man’s sense of safety is shattered in an highly severe way. Somehow, this did not convince the politicians of the Law and Justice, who changed “security” by all cases.
In Poland, between 2015 and 2022 the number of detentions utilized increased twice, even though the number of crimes fell. The judges accept the prosecutor's requests for an isolation preventive measure, as it were, “from a vending machine”, while the Polish justice strategy resembles large Lotek due to the fact that any judges approve these requests in 90% of cases, while others in 5% of the situation. Let us add that much more frequently legal complaints are accepted erstwhile they concern the usage of detention than erstwhile they question its extension, that is, in fact, erstwhile the situation becomes precedent, due to the fact that the man next months is deprived of liberty without a judgement (I took the data from the study of the “Court Watch Poland”.
Thinking Ziebra is meaningful for the president's political approach to justice to date. Karol Nawrocki may have cut himself off from this shameful heritage, turning towards civilian liberties, even accented by part of the Confederate. He chose differently.
Interestingly, while the politicians of the Confederation – in voting on the rejection of the veto – abstained, members of the Confederation of the Polish Crown, whose leader Grzegorz Braun declared support for supporters voted as the PiS voted. They voted this way in a situation that created an chance for highly clear support: freedom or repressiveness of the strategy and convenience of law enforcement and prosecutors.
Let us item the crucial issue – Ziobrze and his akin “reformers” are not about any justice or change in law in the spirit of conservative values. If specified an argument arises, it is only rationalisation or ideological superstructure to their interests, and sometimes vengefulness.
Ziobro took care of the favour of uniformed formations, thus limiting the rights of those deprived of liberty was simply in his hand. The essence of what Ziobro did is to increase the convenience of law enforcement and prosecutors – and it is known that it is most convenient for them to lock themselves in prison. Conservative changes in law do not trust on the actual abolition of the rights of defence, as no changes should be made to that effect
It is worth asking ourselves erstwhile politicians of the Law and Justice organization opposed the interference of European institutions in the Polish order. erstwhile you had to take care of the interests of farmers, the losers in the Green Order? After all, Commissioner Wojciechowski praised the Green Deal as a “PiS programme”. possibly erstwhile you had to take care of older car drivers, discriminated against by the introduction of Clean Transport Zones? No, absolutely not. PiS politicians protested against European interference, protested with full force, characteristic of a individual fighting for his own interests in 1 situation – erstwhile their own farm, or justice, was threatened.
Let us be clear – all power prefers to have a more repressive strategy at its disposal, due to the fact that it is simply easier for it to act. respect for civilian rights – frequently deliberately confused with alleged moral freedoms – limits the arbitrariness of the rulers.
Liberalisation of laws simply does not pay them, besides due to election effects. Even those who, for any reason, will yet find themselves in prison are inclined to view themselves as citizens who would like to be "protected from criminals." They do not sound credible to politicians about "advocating criminals" by their opponents – there are respective twelve votes of citizens per vote, outraged by liberalisation. The prisoners do not support the civilian Coalition so much – the prisoners believe that there is nothing worse than the Law and Justice Administration. And they have reason to think so.
People associated with the Presidential Palace formulated respective arguments defending veto. Unfortunately, they were a mixture of populism, deficiency of insight and slogans.
Whenever the rulers take distant our freedom, they talk about “security”. Trusting in the power of passwords and slogans frequently do not make the effort to clarify what safety is right. Is it the safety of mothers who watch their sons be detained by an anti-terrorist unit after a “little crown witness” has remembered after 15 years that individual he has never seen dealing drugs with? Presenting concrete situations, the actual impact of existing rules on the lives of very many people is the best antidote and general narratives covering the repressive system.
The argument that the amendment "protects paedophiles" was exemplary for the rude populism. The point is, Article 200 of the Criminal Code has a lower limit of 2 years. It is not known why the Presidential Palace did not propose to amend Article 200 Kk (let's just skip the fact that it is not the main article on which the allegations of paedophilia are based). It is besides unclear why Zbigniew Ziobro did not make this change. Or you know – due to the fact that he was busy tracking shoplifters.
Jacek Tomczak
Think Poland, No. 17-18 (26.04-3.05.2026)
