This article is devoted to the institution of conditionally suspended sentences, and in particular with a proposal for change in this area. The author formulates things differently from the changes brought in by the act of 20 February 2015 about adjusting the law, in the criminal code and other acts. After a discussion of these changes, the author presents their own concept for remodelling this institution. This is preceded by conclusions about its current state, structure and the dynamics of crime in Poland and France. The author bases their conclusions on an analysis of French solutions in this regard. According to the author, by comparing the structure and dynamics of recorded crimes and convictions from 2001 to 2010 in France and Poland, they came to the conclusion that the French statistics show a comparatively higher rate of serious crime, particularly ones featuring aggressive or sexual violence. At the same time however, one can observe greater stability in the number of convictions, with economic and financial crimes being the only exception. But the larger threat of crime does not influence limitations on the conditions of suspended sentences in a meaningful way in this country, something that was an important argument during the amendment of Poland’s penal legislation. It is willingly used by courts, a modern punitive measure, but its construction differs from the Polish solutions in this field significantly. 392 ARCHIVES OF CRIMINOLOGY The author discusses this construction in the article. According to French logic, it also provides for the possibility of partially suspended sentences. This is unknown in the Polish criminal code. It consists of allowing the adjudicating court to decide about the sentence being only partially carried out. It also freely specifies the length of this period, so that it does not exceed the five year limit. This process results in the offender only having to undergo part of their prison sentence, while execution of the remaining part remains conditionally suspended. Comparing this form of suspension, appearing in French legislation next to classic suspension (i.e. full), with its Polish counterpart now regulated by the newly-edited article 69 of the criminal code, the author finds that the French version gives greater range and possibility for its use. And this is despite a significantly larger threat of crime than in Poland, particularly common crime. Even the process of its application is significantly more elastic, since it allows the division of the sentencing process into a closed part carried out in prison, and an open part carried out in freedom. About whether the suspension should be total or just partial, the French judge decides according to their own discretion, while the Polish one is tied to a series of specific prerequisites, both legal and material. In light of this, it proves Poland puts significantly greater trust towards the initial legislator. After a theoretical analysis, in a later part of the article the author cites statistics showing the practice of partially-suspending sentences in reality. In the years 2005 to 2011, a certain growing tendency in use appears in France (of 1.92%). This indicates a growing significance for this penal measure in the judicature of criminal courts, which implies it works well in practice. In general, the type of suspension most prevalent is with a given probation period, and therefore the most common of all applicable duties and controls (in 2008, there were 26,991 cases, i.e. 82.15% of the general number of partial-suspension rulings). Partial suspension in its simplest form is clearly less used and only makes up 17.85% of the general number of applied partial suspensions (5,844 cases in 2008). In contrast, the sum total of both forms of partial suspensions (i.e. the simplest form and with a probation period) in general rose in use by 14.56% in 2010. Commenting on the above indicators, the author claims the rule of partial suspension is given with a trial conviction. This results from the necessity of preserving a continuity of interactions, including further disciplining of the convict after completing part of their “factory” punishment depriving them freedom (partie ferme) and releasing them into an open environment (partie ouverte). For this purpose, the court lays specified duties upon the convict, and also gives control of them to the penitentiary service. The educational value of this practice is indisputable. Due to this, it towers over the Polish practice. Partial suspension has become a modern instrument of criminal policy. In the second part of the article, the author weighs up the possibility of introducing this type of solution into Polish legislation. A comparison with the French institution of suspended sentences with the Polish equivalent in the current version of article 69 of the criminal code inclines them towards not only the conclusion that it needs revision, but also formulation of ‘de lege ferenda’ postulates as part of this. ARCHIVES OF CRIMINOLOGY 393 In the discussion on these, the author indicates arguments for and against partial suspension of sentences in Polish legislation. According to the author, it is a more modern solution than the Polish one in its current form. Moreover, the introduction of partial suspension had a positive effect on French criminal policy, making the methods of serving sentences more flexible and dynamic. This is notably its most important advantage over Polish legislation. Another further benefit of utilising partial suspensions is limiting the placements of convicts placed into penal institutions since they are decidedly shorter than the “flow-through” of Polish prisons. Thus the author assesses that they are in favour of this, as well as the European paradigm of penal moderation. Partial suspension of sentences allows an absolute punishment to be adjusted in the most restrained way, making it humane. It becomes possible to divide it into partly closed (served in a prison) and open (carried out in a free environment). It completely changes not only the character of the punishment, but also its function. It eases problems, the social effects on the convict and their loved ones, yet strengthens the educational effect. This kind of process in administering punishment strikes the author as more dynamic than the current one, where serving the whole of a punishment is a rule of Polish law. The empowerment of the convicted in this process has huge educational value. The author draws attention to the fact that partial suspension is an intermediary measure between depriving freedom and those punishments and measures involving liberation. There is a lack of this type of measure mixed into Polish criminal legislation. Their main advantage is that it enriches punitive instruments, allowing flexibility by increasing the possibility of individualisation in selecting the type and size of punishment. Therefore there is a systemic argument for it. Yet another argument for it has a legal-material character. The Polish institution of suspending sentences is structured too stiffly, which means that the court can only decide between suspending the entire sentence and having it served in full. They are extremes, which in modern rational criminal policy ought to be avoided. The next argument has a criminological character. Neither the Polish nor French literature on the subject has mentioned research into the effectiveness of imprisonment depending on whether it was carried out in full or in part. Therefore nobody has proven that a punishment served in full is any better. Finally, the existence of partial suspension could rationalise penitentiary policy. This is because it shortens the average period spent serving prison time, making the “flow-through” of convicts in prison more dynamic. This makes it a valuable system instrument for opposing their overpopulation. Partial suspension is above all cheaper than serving a punishment completely in full. The author then discusses several counterarguments about the possibility of partially-suspended sentences in Polish legislation Firstly, we are neither mentally nor doctrinally prepared to abandon the stiff static administration of punishments for a more dynamic process in their application through the logical implementation of carrying them out in parts. 394 ARCHIVES OF CRIMINOLOGY Another serious barrier is an organisational problem. Introducing partial suspensions would demand greater dynamism in the work of courts and probation officers, as well as the prison system as a whole. Under Polish conditions, this is not realistic, since observation of the practice leads to the conclusion that carrying out punishments in full is easiest, and we prefer that in practice. The convict is placed into a cell once, without further procedures or changes. Partial suspension would mean the activities of courts, prison and probation personnel would multiply greatly, and nobody wants this. Consequently, it would increase the resistance of these services, which is a serious barrier to prudent changes. In conclusion, the author invites discussion on the proposed solutions about partially-suspended sentences.