We deport the criminals before they answer. Victims stay without conviction and compensation

Zdjęcie: Deportujemy przestępców, zanim odpowiedzą. Ofiary zostają bez wyroku i odszkodowania

A state that demands the removal of abroad criminals loudly in practice sends them abroad before they stand trial. Together with them, the chance to conviction and compensation for injured Poles disappears. Author of the Ślązag portal Robert Lechowski collected a series of cases from Silesia and Zagłębie, which exposure this paradox. Is that law enforcement?

Elimination alternatively of judgment

In Katowice, on October 3, 2025, Ukrainian citizen Konstantin K. was to stab a police officer respective times during the struggle. Officer protected the vest. In the same case, Dmytro K. heard drug charges. Both men were sent to Ukraine before the court could decide their guilt.

There's more like it. In May 2026, a 39-year-old Georgian citizen was detained in Zawiercie, who had a series of shoplifting and utilizing a false identity. He had escaped before being punished. He was not in custody, but in the hands of the Border Guard, with the possible of expulsion. On the another hand, in July 2026, a 19-year-old Ukrainian citizen broke up a stolen BMW after drinking, destroying another people's property and second vehicle. Although his case was handled by 2 D.A.'s office, he besides threatened to be dismissed before proceeding the charges.

The victim is left with nothing

Robert Lechowski points out: "Deportation is not punishment". Sending the perpetrator abroad before the trial means that no conviction is made and the victim loses a real chance to claim compensation. Bringing specified a individual back by extradition can be costly and ineffective. In practice, the foreigner avoids the work that would meet the Pole in the same situation.

It reverses the usual order of things. After a drunken collision or attack on a police officer, a Polish citizen would go to court, pay compensation and be punished. The foreigner gets a one-way ticket, and the bill for his actions stays on the Polish side of the border.

Two modes that diverge

The point of the problem is that expulsion from the country and the criminal trial run 2 separate tracks in Poland. The decision to oblige the foreigner to return is made by the administration and may overtake the prosecution and the court. As a result, a individual suspected of a crime disappears from the Polish jurisdiction before any decision is taken. The victim's civilian claim is then suspended in vacuum due to the fact that there is neither a conviction nor a real anticipation of execution outside the country. The perpetrator formally leaves Poland as an innocent person, although without a trial no 1 verified this innocence.

Moods versus Justice

Rapid expulsions can be a consequence to the understandable frustration of public opinion toward abroad crime. Lechowski asks, however, whether social sentiments justify a practice that contradicts the basic principle: first judgment, then consequences. Expulsion before judgement only pretends to be hardness, and in fact carries the problem abroad and leaves the victims unprotected.

The real sovereignty of the judiciary is that the state settles the perpetrator in its own territory and takes sides with the victim. If a foreigner has broken Polish law, he should be held accountable before a Polish court, not on his way to the airport. Otherwise, the password about the deportation of criminals turns into a comfortable motion that does not find anything. The question remains whether we are talking about real law enforcement, or whether it is just about getting the problem out of sight.

Source: Slag