Necrobusiness and the crime of ‘skin-hunting’ in Poland

‘Skin-hunting’ is a term coined by Polish journalists to name a specific system of corruption that came to light in 2002 in the third largest city in Poland – Łódź. The activity involved an ambulance crew which would tip off a certain funeral parlour about ‘new skins’ (recently deceased bodies), and help to arrange funeral plans with the corrupted undertaker. The involved paramedics also admitted to kill a number of elderly patients using a muscle relaxant, Pavulon, in order to increase their necrobusiness profit. Although discovered in 2002, it is believed that the practice could have started in the early 1990s.

Here is a documentary, produced in 2008 and available in English, that interestingly illustrates the context of the crime.


What now criminology?

‘Everything starts at the crime scene’, said Professor Peter Squires in the first session of the British Society of Criminology conference, which I attended last week in Nottingham. So what is criminology really for? To answer this question Professor Squires put forward a number of stimulating remarks. The obvious function is to provide voices for the excluded but criminology must also remain critical in questioning authority and the power to punish. As all of the conference presentations demonstrated well, the criminological thinking in Britain has been informed by a variety of robust and interesting research. Nonetheless, according to Professor Squires, the purpose of this should not be to advance criminology as such but to have a say about the quality of justice in a given society. What the profession needs more are critical criminologists who acknowledge the broader context of crime and punishment and take the research evidence further.

The broader context of current criminology affairs was then discussed by two conference plenary speakers, Will Hutton and Professor Kelly Hannah Moffat. Will Hutton addressed, among other things, the fact that criminology should better accommodate the notion of inequality as its levels have become exceptionally dysfunctional. This observation was later interestingly echoed in a couple of sessions in which I participated. For example Dr John Moore’s presentation, Built For Inequality in a Diverse World: A Brief History of Criminal Justice showed brilliantly how important is to understand the origins of the criminal justice system, which was built on the premise of and destined for inequality; therefore criminal justice systems in general will probably never become the best mechanisms through which to achieve social justice. Furthermore, as we know there are different kinds of inequalities and Professor Harry Blagg’s presentation, Southern Theory and Southern Criminology: A Postcolonial Critique demonstrated how to maintain a critical stance towards the unequal production of criminological knowledge. Based on his observations related to the situation of indigenous populations in Australia, Professor Blagg said that the information from the ‘Global South’ becomes knowledge only if it is processed by the ‘Global North’. In the light of this highly pertinent argument, my own reflection would be that there is a significant imbalance in the knowledge recognition within the Global North itself, for example between Western and Eastern European countries.

The choice of the conference theme proved that criminology is capable of accommodating and discussing the notion of inequality. However it is still debatable whether the same applies to achieving practical outcomes, or in other words how to do public criminology well. A very interesting remark was made by a member of the audience after Will Hutton’s lecture – universities are institutions that are good at creating a sense of purpose and moral alignment but they are not good at creating conditions for moral actions. This point was played out in another session that I attended, entitled What is to be done about crime and punishment? Professor Roger Matthews, who chaired the session, made a rather strong introductory statement, saying that contemporary criminology has become theoretically weak and empirically dubious, and has no policy relevance and as a result is disentangled with the real world. Although this claim was then challenged by Professor Philip Stenning, who said that the problem lies in the political elites who are not listening, not in criminologists, in my view Professor Matthews’ opening comment was an interesting provocation that aimed to generate emotions, and possibly actions. Professor Roger Matthews’s point was that the contemporary research might be informative and interesting but lacks a tangible policy impact. To prove that research can be communicated differently he then introduced three panellists (who are also contributors to his new book, What is to Be Done About Crime and Punishment? Towards a ‘Public Criminology’) who presented fascinating and policy-focused papers on policing (Professor Ben Bowling), drug policy (Dr Caroline Chatwin) and youth gangs (Professor John Pitts).

The organization of the conference made it evident that there is an enormous willingness to engage with the wider public on the part of criminologists. Communicating criminological thinking in the form of blogging, tweeting, or poster presentations interestingly mirrored Professor Kelly Hannah Maffot’s plenary lecture, which made me rethink how criminologists have increasingly become involved in networked social activism. Nonetheless, as indicated by Professor Kelly Hannah Moffat, risk is constructed in a non-neutral way and the production of knowledge about crime in times of an information avalanche has begun to be constructed by new tech-savvy players – it is worth remembering that the profession of criminologists is only one of these players. Although we might strive for real and tangible policy outcomes, we also have to consider carefully how we should take our research to the next level.

On a more personal note, the conference took place in the shadow of the Brexit vote – a subject that appeared in almost every presentation and informal conversation. I might be a PhD candidate at a great university with promising career prospects. However since 24th June it has felt as if my identity has been limited to the ‘migrant other’. Attending the BSC conference somehow helped alleviate my disappointment in the referendum outcome and recreate a sense of belonging. I should not forget that Britain will always be the place where I gained my very first research experience, met inspirational academics and made a beginning as a criminologist. The conference experience reminded me of how much I have learnt and developed throughout my academic migrant years in the UK.

Whatever the future holds for me professionally, I promised myself to deeply cherish this thought.

What now criminology?

The indebted Polish fathers


Penal landscapes of all countries are built upon socially constructed crimes and punishments. For me it is the penal anomalies that are of most interest. As for the Polish criminal justice system my recent puzzlement relates to the extent of child maintenance arrears which might somewhat be viewed as a peculiarity of the Polish penal landscape.

While non-payment of child alimony is known in the English justice system as a civil issue, in the Polish context the offence translates as przestępstwo niealimentacji and is considered as a crime. The provision of Article 209 of the Polish Penal Code makes alimony arrears a criminal offence for which one can be sentenced to a fine, community order or up to two years of imprisonment.

Although the problem of non-paying parents has also been discussed as a major issue in the UK (see Allbeson, 2015) the amount of arrears appears to be less than in Poland.  According to statistics published by the Department for Work and Pensions, the outstanding maintenance arrears in the UK as of March 2013 were estimated at £3 992 543 – a figure that falls into three categories: likely to be collected (£512 013), potentially collectable (£563 478), and uncollectable (£2 917 052)[1]. The scale of falling into child maintenance arrears in Poland is significantly more considerable. According to the KRD Economic Information Bureau[2] for every 1000 debtors in Poland 7 are the ones who fail to pay outstanding alimony and the total amount of overdue child maintenance as of 2015 was estimated at 8.2 billion PLN (which is approx. 1.5 billion pound sterling)[3].

Given the very punitive response to child maintenance arrears in the Polish justice system, substantial numbers of the child alimony debtors come into contact with the justice system. The tendency to punish, rather than negotiate, the persistent non-payment of alimony dates back to the time of socialism. This long (and punitive) tradition of dealing with child support arrears in the Polish criminal law is still in place. By way of illustration, in 2011 out of the 423 464 sentenced offenders, 16 138 (3.81%) were charged with child maintenance arrears. Furthermore, taking into account the likelihood of receiving a custodial sentence in Poland, it is then unsurprising to see that 76.2% of offenders who fail to clear the arrears get a suspended sentence, 6.5% receive an immediate prison sentence, only 16.5% are sentenced to community order,  and 0.8% are ordered to pay a fine (Gruszczyńska et al., 2014).

And my final point. The non-payment of child support is predominantly caused by fathers as approx. 90% of the alimony debtors are male parents. Fidelis (2012) has interestingly argued that it was a female who was expected to run the household and take the primary role as a parent under the communist regime. The role of father has been significantly limited  for years, which resulted in the exclusion of fathers from mainstream full time parenting, and potentially contributed to the number of fathers who became alimony debtors. This might be partially true as similar observations could be made in other countries as well. Whichever explanation helps to make sense of the problem it is essential to react against this culture of non-compliance, or in other words – the culture of parental financial negligence.

However, do we really need to use imprisonment for this?



Allbeson, J. (2015) Child maintenance arrears: why government boasts of success ring hollow. Available at:

Gruszczyńska, B.; Marczewski, M. & Ostaszewski, P. (2014) Spójność karania. Obraz statystyczny stosowania sankcji karnych w poszczególnych okręgach sądowych. Warszawa: Instytut Wymiaru Sprawiedliwości.

Fidelis (2012) Szukając traktorzystki. Kobiety i komunizm, Miesięcznik ZNAK, p. 33-39.



[1] Client Funds Account – Statutory child maintenance schemes 2013/14, Department for Work and Pensions,

[2] KRD Economic Information Bureau (Polish original: Krajowy Rejestr Dłużników), established in 2003 to provide an economic information exchange programme for all business partners: individuals, sole traders, secondary creditors, small and medium enterprises, and large corporations. Since 1st July 2015 all child maintenance debtors have to be registered with the KRD.


The indebted Polish fathers