Fiktiv barnpornografi - finns det tillräckliga skäl för kriminalisering?
(2012) JURM02 20121Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Barnpornografibrott regleras i 16 kap. 10a§ BrB. Bestämmelsen omfattar nästintill all tänkbar befattning med barnpornografi. De huvudsakliga skälen för kriminalisering är att skydda det enskilda barnet och barn i allmänhet, varav det sist angivna skälet inte preciseras något ytterligare. Alla slags bilder betraktas som straffbara, även tecknade och animerade bilder som inte har någon koppling till ett verkligt övergrepp eller ett verkligt offer. I samband med det så kallade Manga-fallet fördes diskussioner i media1 kring kriminaliseringens rimlighet, en debatt som främst drevs framåt av serietecknare och konstintresserade personer.
De svenska förarbeten som behandlar barnpornografi är till stor del väl genomförda och detaljerade, vilket... (More) - Barnpornografibrott regleras i 16 kap. 10a§ BrB. Bestämmelsen omfattar nästintill all tänkbar befattning med barnpornografi. De huvudsakliga skälen för kriminalisering är att skydda det enskilda barnet och barn i allmänhet, varav det sist angivna skälet inte preciseras något ytterligare. Alla slags bilder betraktas som straffbara, även tecknade och animerade bilder som inte har någon koppling till ett verkligt övergrepp eller ett verkligt offer. I samband med det så kallade Manga-fallet fördes diskussioner i media1 kring kriminaliseringens rimlighet, en debatt som främst drevs framåt av serietecknare och konstintresserade personer.
De svenska förarbeten som behandlar barnpornografi är till stor del väl genomförda och detaljerade, vilket inte kan anses vara fallet i den del som hanterar fiktiv barnpornografi. Det givna skyddsvärda intresset anförs vara barn i allmänhet, vilket inte ges någon vidare förklaring. Skälen för en kriminalisering benämns vagt vara risken för att en förövare använder sig av materialet i syfte att förmå ett barn att delta i en sexuell handling samt risken för att en levande modell används vid framställningen av en tecknad eller animerad bild. Ingen diskussion förs kring dessa skäl och inget underlag eller hänvisning till vetenskapliga studier presenteras. Uppsatsens författare anser att vaga kriterier rimmar illa med den ofta yttrade åsikten, att kriminalisering endast bör ske som sista utväg och om saklig grund för kriminaliseringen kan presenteras.
Syftet med uppsatsen har varit att diskutera huruvida skälen för kriminalisering av fiktiv barnpornografi i svenska förarbeten uppfyller kravet på en legitim kriminalisering. Svenska förarbeten ger en oklar motivering till varför kriminalisering ägt rum, denna uppsats redogör för den diskussion som i doktrin förts kring allmänna kriminaliseringsgrunder. Svensk doktrin representeras i detta arbete till största del utav Jareborg och Lernestedt, medan utländsk doktrin främst behandlar Feinberg och den så kallade ”The Harm Principle”.
I uppsatsens avslutande kapitel förs en diskussion utifrån funna allmänna kriminaliseringrunder samt hur den svenska motiveringen står sig i jämförelse med dessa. Författaren har kommit fram till slutsatsen att de svenska skälen för kriminalisering inte uppfyller de krav som kan ställas på en legitim kriminalisering. Utifrån doktrin har författaren även dragit konklusionen att den svenska lagstiftaren i kriminaliseringsavgörande behöver tydliggöra vilket intresse som önskas skyddas, vad som i det aktuella fallet uppfattas som skada och hur en eventuell intresseavvägning ska lösas. (Less) - Abstract
- Child pornography is criminalized in chapter 16 10a§ BrB. It regulates almost every aspect of child pornography. The main reasons for criminalization is to protect the individual child and “children in general” (this concept is not further specified) All forms of illustrations are seen as criminal, even drawn or animated ones which do not necessarily depict an actual sexual assault or a real victim.
The “Manga-case” has actualized this law as “Högsta Domstolen” (the Supreme Court) is trying the case as of the time of writing this essay. In parallel, a debate is taking place in national media concerning the reasonableness of such a criminalization.
The Swedish laws preparatory work is mostly thorough and detailed. This, however, is not... (More) - Child pornography is criminalized in chapter 16 10a§ BrB. It regulates almost every aspect of child pornography. The main reasons for criminalization is to protect the individual child and “children in general” (this concept is not further specified) All forms of illustrations are seen as criminal, even drawn or animated ones which do not necessarily depict an actual sexual assault or a real victim.
The “Manga-case” has actualized this law as “Högsta Domstolen” (the Supreme Court) is trying the case as of the time of writing this essay. In parallel, a debate is taking place in national media concerning the reasonableness of such a criminalization.
The Swedish laws preparatory work is mostly thorough and detailed. This, however, is not the case when it comes to fictive child pornography. the stated interest in this case is children in general, which is not further specified. The reasons for criminalization are vaguely described as the risk for a presumptive perpetrator to use the material in the purpose of persuading a child into participation in a sexual act. Furthermore, it states that it cannot be ruled out that a real child has stood model for a given image or animation. There is no discussion referring to scientific studies or other similar evidence. The writer of this paper is of the opinion that poorly founded opinions or speculation is not compatible with the view that criminalization only should be used as a last resort and if there are objective reasons for it.
The aim of this paper is to discuss whether the reasons given for criminalizing fictive child pornography fulfill the criteria for a legitimate criminalization. Swedish preparatory work is unclear as to what motivates criminalization in this case. This paper gives further account of the discussion made in doctrine concerning general grounds for criminalization. Swedish doctrine is represented mostly by Jareborg and Lernestedt, while international doctrine is foremost represented by Feinberg and the so called “Harm Principle”.
This paper’s concluding chapter analyzes the subject of general grounds for criminalization and how the Swedish justifications in this specific case stand against these grounds. The writer comes to the conclusion that the Swedish reasons do not fulfill the criteria of a legitimate criminalization. It is furthermore concluded that in order to be consistent with national and international doctrine concerning general grounds for criminalization, it is necessary to specify what interest the law criminalizing fictive child pornography is meant to protect, what the definition of harm is and how a conflict of interest can be resolved by other means.
2
According to the writer, the search for general, clear and useful principles for criminalization poses great difficulties. “The harm principle” discussed in this paper is but one of many attempts to give guidance in this issue. With further discussion, including different or supplementary views, there is an increased possibility of solving the conflicts of interest when it comes to criminalization in general and in this case.
In conclusion, the writer proposes that the preparatory work, specifically addressing fictive child pornography, would benefit from clearer formulation, greater specificity regarding interests and objective support when estimating risks. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/2542978
- author
- Marekovic, Martina LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Fictive child pornography - enough reasons for criminalization?
- course
- JURM02 20121
- year
- 2012
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Straffrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 2542978
- date added to LUP
- 2012-10-15 11:33:47
- date last changed
- 2012-10-15 11:33:47
@misc{2542978,
abstract = {{Child pornography is criminalized in chapter 16 10a§ BrB. It regulates almost every aspect of child pornography. The main reasons for criminalization is to protect the individual child and “children in general” (this concept is not further specified) All forms of illustrations are seen as criminal, even drawn or animated ones which do not necessarily depict an actual sexual assault or a real victim.
The “Manga-case” has actualized this law as “Högsta Domstolen” (the Supreme Court) is trying the case as of the time of writing this essay. In parallel, a debate is taking place in national media concerning the reasonableness of such a criminalization.
The Swedish laws preparatory work is mostly thorough and detailed. This, however, is not the case when it comes to fictive child pornography. the stated interest in this case is children in general, which is not further specified. The reasons for criminalization are vaguely described as the risk for a presumptive perpetrator to use the material in the purpose of persuading a child into participation in a sexual act. Furthermore, it states that it cannot be ruled out that a real child has stood model for a given image or animation. There is no discussion referring to scientific studies or other similar evidence. The writer of this paper is of the opinion that poorly founded opinions or speculation is not compatible with the view that criminalization only should be used as a last resort and if there are objective reasons for it.
The aim of this paper is to discuss whether the reasons given for criminalizing fictive child pornography fulfill the criteria for a legitimate criminalization. Swedish preparatory work is unclear as to what motivates criminalization in this case. This paper gives further account of the discussion made in doctrine concerning general grounds for criminalization. Swedish doctrine is represented mostly by Jareborg and Lernestedt, while international doctrine is foremost represented by Feinberg and the so called “Harm Principle”.
This paper’s concluding chapter analyzes the subject of general grounds for criminalization and how the Swedish justifications in this specific case stand against these grounds. The writer comes to the conclusion that the Swedish reasons do not fulfill the criteria of a legitimate criminalization. It is furthermore concluded that in order to be consistent with national and international doctrine concerning general grounds for criminalization, it is necessary to specify what interest the law criminalizing fictive child pornography is meant to protect, what the definition of harm is and how a conflict of interest can be resolved by other means.
2
According to the writer, the search for general, clear and useful principles for criminalization poses great difficulties. “The harm principle” discussed in this paper is but one of many attempts to give guidance in this issue. With further discussion, including different or supplementary views, there is an increased possibility of solving the conflicts of interest when it comes to criminalization in general and in this case.
In conclusion, the writer proposes that the preparatory work, specifically addressing fictive child pornography, would benefit from clearer formulation, greater specificity regarding interests and objective support when estimating risks.}},
author = {{Marekovic, Martina}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Fiktiv barnpornografi - finns det tillräckliga skäl för kriminalisering?}},
year = {{2012}},
}