The Offence of Abduction in Canon Law and Kidnapping in Polish Penal Law—Selected Issues

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is very good and interesting.

Author Response

Thank you for your review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thomas Hobbes did not originate the saying cited in the first line. While he his famous for using it, the phrase is much older. The reference to the Second Vatican Council does not cite the actual document from which it was taken. The Council ended in 1965, so it is bizarre that the reference would be to the year 2002. The generic nature of the subject of can. 1397 does not implicate that the actions themselves are "generic", as the author holds. The premise here is odd and difficult to sustain. In the conclusions, while it is true that abduction in canon law historically is a category connected to marriage, there is nothing that suggests that this must be the case, as the author suggests. Abduction and detention are naturally separate actions, as the one who abducts need not necessarily detain the person abducted. Here, the author's conclusion is erroneous. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English is sufficiently clear. 

Author Response

All answers in the letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article provides a commentary of two legal provisions concerning abduction of minors or vulnerable persons in the Penal law of the Catholic Church and in the Criminal law of Poland. The commentary provided is of the length and depth which might be found in university textbooks for undergraduates. However, there is little actual comparison between the two legal systems. The author(s), for the most part, provide separate commentaries of both legal systems and some conclusions. Therefore, for the article to be published, some in depth amendments and additions may be needed.

These are some ideas which may help the author improve or rewrite the article. First, the author(s) needs to justify the purpose of the article: why should these two articles be compared? Have there been any cases or proceedings where the articles in the two legal systems have been applied together or where the court wondered which one of the two is applicable? Can we expect to understand the crime of abduction and its punishment better from such a comparison? Basically, what is the relevance of this study? In this regard, there some references to sex abuse in the article and it might be interesting to know if Catholic ecclesiastical tribunals have ever had to apply this penal provisions in that context. References are also made to abduction for marriage purposes and, given the relevance of the problem of child marriage, an in-depth study of this ecclesiastical and secular provisions in the context of this serious problem might be of help to find adequate solutions. Moreover, given the influence of canon law in European legal systems, historically, some historical background of the canon law and Polish legal provisions studied in this case might be useful.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article could be greatly improved if a native speaker could read it and provide comments

Author Response

All answers in the letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No. It is a good paper.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors contend that they have accepted all comments by the reviewers but the additions made to the article do now show it. There is a little more on the meaning and correct interpretation of the two legal provisions presented but there is no justification about the interest of describing them side by side, beyond the claim that they are two legal provisions of two legal systems currently applied in Poland. The authors claim that they have consciously refused to adopt a comparative approach but simply describing the two legal provisions and their similarities and differences does not seem to me to be enough

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The contents of the article can be understood and yet it would have been advisable to have the article proofread by a native English speaker

Author Response

The text of the response is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf