Skip to main content

The Act No. IV of 1978 on the Criminal Code of Hungary

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Changing Attitudes Towards the Death Penalty
  • 1240 Accesses

Abstract

Hungary’s modern, ideologically less biased penal code was adopted as Act IV of 1978. This further reduced the number of crimes punishable by death, resulting in a sharp decline in the number of executions in the 1980s. In this context, I review the regulation of the 1978 Penal Code and its impact on criminal case law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Emphasis added.

  2. 2.

    Emphasis added.

  3. 3.

    Detailed reasoning for Article 39.

  4. 4.

    Ibid.

  5. 5.

    Criminal Code Article 39 para. (1).

  6. 6.

    Detailed reasoning for Article 39.

  7. 7.

    Article 33 para. (1) a) and Article 67 para. (1) a).

  8. 8.

    Article 33 para. (2).

  9. 9.

    In the following, I will compare the current Criminal Code (Act no. 4 of 1978) and the Criminal Code of 1961 based on the version in force at the publishing of the former and version after 1972 of the latter.

  10. 10.

    In the following, the cited paragraphs always mark Act no. 4 of 1978.

  11. 11.

    Thus, it is not applicable if the offender committed another crime in connection with conspiracy, which was punished by law with imprisonment of more than eight years; nor if the conspiracy seriously endangered the state, social, and economic order.

  12. 12.

    The death sentence could be imposed in case of causing serious disadvantage (according to the wording of the Criminal Code of 1961: “if the crime led to serious consequences”); by using state service or official assignment; and if the crime was committed during wartime.

  13. 13.

    While according to Act no. 5 of 1961, high treason could have been realized (in the case of the existence of a motivation against the state) by engaging, forming an alliance or cooperating with foreign governments, foreign organizations or their agents, Act no. 4 of 1978 simplified the method of committing this crime to engaging in a relation with a foreign government or a foreign organization.

  14. 14.

    This is regulated by the Criminal Code of 1961 among the crimes violating international military law, in Article 335.

  15. 15.

    According to the interpretative provision in Article 158 para. (3), “inhumane treatment, in particular, involves the settlement of the civilian population of the occupying power to the occupied territories or the resettlement of the population of the occupied territory, the deprivation of the civilian population and prisoners of war from their right to be judged in a regular and impartial trial,” as well as “the unjustified postponement of the repatriation of prisoners of war and civilian people.”

  16. 16.

    In Act no. 5 of 1961, the word “and” figured instead of the word “or.”

  17. 17.

    Article 17 para. (2).

  18. 18.

    Article 18 paras. (1)–(2).

  19. 19.

    Decree no. 8 of 1979 of the Ministry of Justice (June 30) Article 153 paras. (2)–(3).

  20. 20.

    Article 152 paras. (1)–(3).

  21. 21.

    The full text of the official minutes of the debate is accessible to anyone. See: A halálbüntetés és jövője a magyar bünetőjogban (Death penalty and its future in Hungarian criminal law). (A Magyar Jogász Szövetség Büntetőjogi Bizotságának vitaülése.) In: Jogász Szövetségi Értekezések (Studies of Lawyers’ Association), no. 1984/1.

  22. 22.

    Attorneys, in general, are against death penalty due to their procedural status. This is also the case today: out of the thirteen defense counsels of today’s famous and acknowledged criminal cases, interviewed by Judit P. Gál in her book, nine are clearly against it, while only four of them support it to a lesser or greater extent. (Cf: Judit P. Gál: Ördögök ügyvédei (Devil’s Lawyers). Alexandra, Pécs, 2003, pp. 21, 40–41, 64, 84–85, 94–95, 118–119, 135–136, 168, 187, 213, 251–253, 271, and 287–288.)

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zoltan J. Toth .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Toth, Z.J. (2020). The Act No. IV of 1978 on the Criminal Code of Hungary. In: Changing Attitudes Towards the Death Penalty. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47557-4_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47557-4_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-47556-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-47557-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics