Możliwość orzeczenia zakazu zajmowania stanowiska (stanowisk), wykonywania zawodu (zawodów) lub prowadzenia działalności związanej z wychowaniem, leczeniem, edukacją małoletnich lub opieką nad nimi za przechowywanie lub posiadanie treści pornograficznych z udziałem małoletniego – analiza empiryczna i formalno-dogmatyczna
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study is to answer the question whether adjudicating a ban on holding a position (or positions), practicing a profession (or professions) or conducting activities related to the upbringing, treatment, education or care of minors for storing or possessing pornographic content with the participation of a minor child is legally justified de lege lata. The authors present their standpoint on the basis of a detailed analysis of the elements of penal measures under Articles 39(2) and 39(2a) of the Polish Criminal Code and the conditions for adjudicating these measures provided for in Articles 41(§1) and 41(§1a) of the Criminal Code. For this purpose, a review of Canadian, American, Swiss, German and Czech studies on the correlation between crimes involving child pornography and physical sexual abuse of minors has been conducted. At a later stage, a formal-dogmatic exegesis of rights protected by the types of prohibited acts criminalizing the possession or storage of child pornography, the concept of ‘damage to a minor’ and the collision arising from the application of Article 41(§1) and Article 41(§1a, sentence 2) of the Criminal Code has been undertaken. The conclusion that emerges from both the hitherto achievements of empirical research and the appropriately made formal-dogmatic analysis indicates that at present there are no legal grounds to adjudicate the said criminal ban in the case of possessed or stored, and not self-created, child pornography. Nonetheless, a possible social unrest arising from the fact of a professional contact with children by persons having or storing such materials may be accommodated by a simple amendment to the Article 41(§1a, sentence 2) of the Criminal Code, as proposed by the authors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.010 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".