Kriminalteknisk bevisning och kriminalteknikerns roll i brottmålsprocessen
(2012) JURM02 20122Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Den alltmer frekventa förekomsten av kriminalteknisk bevisning i brottmålsprocessen borde på sikt leda till en ökad diskussion kring ämnet. Hittills har diskussionen varit sparsam, delvis troligen beroende på principerna om fri bevisprövning och fri bevisvärdering. I dag används en mängd olika kriminaltekniska spår som bevismedel. Forskning och praxis visar att kriminaltekniken ensam sällan är tillräcklig för en fällande dom. I de flesta fall krävs ytterligare bevisning så som utsagor från målsägande, misstänkt och vittnen.
Processrättliga problem i form av rättssäkerhetsfrågor och bevisvärderingsproblematik kan uppstå i samband med användandet av kriminalteknisk bevisning. Domstolen har begränsade möjligheter att ifrågasätta... (More) - Den alltmer frekventa förekomsten av kriminalteknisk bevisning i brottmålsprocessen borde på sikt leda till en ökad diskussion kring ämnet. Hittills har diskussionen varit sparsam, delvis troligen beroende på principerna om fri bevisprövning och fri bevisvärdering. I dag används en mängd olika kriminaltekniska spår som bevismedel. Forskning och praxis visar att kriminaltekniken ensam sällan är tillräcklig för en fällande dom. I de flesta fall krävs ytterligare bevisning så som utsagor från målsägande, misstänkt och vittnen.
Processrättliga problem i form av rättssäkerhetsfrågor och bevisvärderingsproblematik kan uppstå i samband med användandet av kriminalteknisk bevisning. Domstolen har begränsade möjligheter att ifrågasätta expertbevisning vilket skulle kunna få till följd att det är någon annan än rättens ledamöter som står för bevisvärderingen. Den enskilde kriminalteknikern har avsevärd makt till sitt förfogande när denne genomför undersökningar och avgöra vilka spår som ska säkras. Inte bara genom att kriminalteknikern utfärdar protokoll som kan komma att accepteras av domstolen utan större ifrågasättande utan även att genom sin medverkan i utredningsprocessen riskera att färga bevismaterialet genom bristande objektivitet, misstolkningar, handhavandefel, slarv, kontamination, förväxlingar, felmärkningar o.s.v., vilka alla på sitt sätt utgör rättssäkerhetsproblem.
Den svenska lagstiftningen är inte fullt ut anpassad för användningen av kriminalteknisk bevisning trots att det på inget sätt är ett nytt fenomen. Kriminalteknikern passar dåligt in i rollerna som vittne eller sakkunnig. Flera faktorer talar för att kriminaltekniker ska anses som sakkunniga men eftersom en av grundpelarna inom sakkunniginstitutet, fungibilitet, inte uppfylls är det trots allt tveksamt om den regleringen ska användas. I huvudsak är det vittnesregleringen som används vilket får till följd att de kriminaltekniska protokollen anses som skriftlig bevisning. Eftersom protokollen innehåller analyser och slutsatser dragna med hjälp av särskilda erfarenhetssatser borde de insorteras under sakkunnigbevisning. Om kriminalteknikern anses som vittne i stället för sakkunnig kan han eller hon inte gärna anses som upphovsman till ett sakkunnigutlåtande.
En utblick till grannländerna visar att samma problematik angående kriminalteknikerns rättsliga status finns där och har i stort lösts på samma sätt som i Sverige. Den benämning som används, både där och här, är sakkunnigt vittne. Det är en icke lagreglerad mellanform som lyder under ordinarie vittnesreglering men antyder att vittnet har kunskaper utöver vad som kan förväntas av det vanliga vittnet. Sakkunnigt vittne tycks vara den allmänt accepterade termen för icke fungibla experter. För bättre anpassad lagstiftning vore det önskvärt med en översyn och modernisering. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- The increasingly frequent use of forensic evidence in the prosecution of criminal cases should in the long run result in increased analysis of its effectiveness. To date, such analysis has been limited, most probably due to rights of parties to use forensic evidence to support their respective arguments in cases and the rights of the courts to assess and rely on such evidence in criminal cases. Presently, forensic evidence is being used in the prosecution of criminal cases, but research conducted to date indicates that such evidence alone is seldom sufficient to secure a conviction. In most cases, in addition to forensic evidence, supporting evidence in the form of statements from plaintiffs, suspects and witnesses is required to secure a... (More)
- The increasingly frequent use of forensic evidence in the prosecution of criminal cases should in the long run result in increased analysis of its effectiveness. To date, such analysis has been limited, most probably due to rights of parties to use forensic evidence to support their respective arguments in cases and the rights of the courts to assess and rely on such evidence in criminal cases. Presently, forensic evidence is being used in the prosecution of criminal cases, but research conducted to date indicates that such evidence alone is seldom sufficient to secure a conviction. In most cases, in addition to forensic evidence, supporting evidence in the form of statements from plaintiffs, suspects and witnesses is required to secure a conviction.
Procedural law issues such as the rule of law and the assessment of evidence can arise in connection with the use of forensics. The court has limited ability to question expert argument which could result in evidence being accepted by the court without it first being sufficiently scrutinised for relevance and accuracy. The individual crime scene investigator has considerable power at their disposal when conducting a crime scene investigation and has the ability to determine which evidence is to be included and which evidence is to be excluded in crime scene investigations. In addition, the crime scene investigator determines the parameters around which the crime scene investigation is conducted without having those parameters questioned by the court. These circumstances, along with the fact they have direct participation in the investigation process itself, significantly increases the risk of the evidence presented in court being tainted through insufficient independence and objectivity. This in turn increases the risk in the occurrence of misinterpretations, negligence, contamination, mix-ups, errors labelling evidence etc, which can all impinge the principal of the rule of law.
Notwithstanding the fact that forensic evidence is in no way a new phenomenon, Swedish legislation is not sufficient to ensure its best use in the court process. The existing duties of the crime scene investigator are a poor fit for the role of witness or expert and yet crime scene investigators are held out as experts. One of the cornerstones of the role of experts in legal contexts is exchangeability between crime scene investigators. Given the application of the existing regime does not in practice readily lend itself to exchangeability of cases between crime scene investigators, it is questionable whether or not this accepted cornerstone of the legal institution is being fully embraced. Generally, witness regulation is used when the crime scene investigator is to be interrogated in court. But as the written arguments from the crime scene investigator are drawn from analyses and conclusions compiled through the use of special experience, they should be subjected to the same regulation as expert arguments. However, if the crime scene investigator is considered a witness instead of an expert, he or she should not be considered as being the author of an expert statement.
A review of neighbouring countries legal systems reveals that the same complex problems concerning the legal status of crime scene investigators has been “solved” in the same way as has been done in Sweden. That solution being the name used both in Sweden and neighbouring countries for crime scene investigators is “sakkunnigt vittne”, a Swedish term risky to translate, since the obvious English translation would be expert witness. However, the Anglo-American meaning of expert witness is not analogous with the Swedish. The Swedish term “sakkunnigt vittne” implies a witness that has additional knowledge to that of the common witness but is still considered a witness. “Sakkunnigt vittne” is not regulated separately by law. Ordinary witness regulation is to be used. This term appears to be the generally accepted term for non-exchangeable experts. A review and modernisation is desirable to secure legislation better suited to modern needs. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/3350619
- author
- Jansdotter, Marie LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Forensic evidence and the participation of the crime scene investigator in the prosecution of criminal cases
- course
- JURM02 20122
- year
- 2012
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Straffrätt, processrätt, kriminalteknik, sakkunnig
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 3350619
- date added to LUP
- 2013-01-28 13:09:44
- date last changed
- 2013-01-28 13:09:44
@misc{3350619,
abstract = {{The increasingly frequent use of forensic evidence in the prosecution of criminal cases should in the long run result in increased analysis of its effectiveness. To date, such analysis has been limited, most probably due to rights of parties to use forensic evidence to support their respective arguments in cases and the rights of the courts to assess and rely on such evidence in criminal cases. Presently, forensic evidence is being used in the prosecution of criminal cases, but research conducted to date indicates that such evidence alone is seldom sufficient to secure a conviction. In most cases, in addition to forensic evidence, supporting evidence in the form of statements from plaintiffs, suspects and witnesses is required to secure a conviction.
Procedural law issues such as the rule of law and the assessment of evidence can arise in connection with the use of forensics. The court has limited ability to question expert argument which could result in evidence being accepted by the court without it first being sufficiently scrutinised for relevance and accuracy. The individual crime scene investigator has considerable power at their disposal when conducting a crime scene investigation and has the ability to determine which evidence is to be included and which evidence is to be excluded in crime scene investigations. In addition, the crime scene investigator determines the parameters around which the crime scene investigation is conducted without having those parameters questioned by the court. These circumstances, along with the fact they have direct participation in the investigation process itself, significantly increases the risk of the evidence presented in court being tainted through insufficient independence and objectivity. This in turn increases the risk in the occurrence of misinterpretations, negligence, contamination, mix-ups, errors labelling evidence etc, which can all impinge the principal of the rule of law.
Notwithstanding the fact that forensic evidence is in no way a new phenomenon, Swedish legislation is not sufficient to ensure its best use in the court process. The existing duties of the crime scene investigator are a poor fit for the role of witness or expert and yet crime scene investigators are held out as experts. One of the cornerstones of the role of experts in legal contexts is exchangeability between crime scene investigators. Given the application of the existing regime does not in practice readily lend itself to exchangeability of cases between crime scene investigators, it is questionable whether or not this accepted cornerstone of the legal institution is being fully embraced. Generally, witness regulation is used when the crime scene investigator is to be interrogated in court. But as the written arguments from the crime scene investigator are drawn from analyses and conclusions compiled through the use of special experience, they should be subjected to the same regulation as expert arguments. However, if the crime scene investigator is considered a witness instead of an expert, he or she should not be considered as being the author of an expert statement.
A review of neighbouring countries legal systems reveals that the same complex problems concerning the legal status of crime scene investigators has been “solved” in the same way as has been done in Sweden. That solution being the name used both in Sweden and neighbouring countries for crime scene investigators is “sakkunnigt vittne”, a Swedish term risky to translate, since the obvious English translation would be expert witness. However, the Anglo-American meaning of expert witness is not analogous with the Swedish. The Swedish term “sakkunnigt vittne” implies a witness that has additional knowledge to that of the common witness but is still considered a witness. “Sakkunnigt vittne” is not regulated separately by law. Ordinary witness regulation is to be used. This term appears to be the generally accepted term for non-exchangeable experts. A review and modernisation is desirable to secure legislation better suited to modern needs.}},
author = {{Jansdotter, Marie}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Kriminalteknisk bevisning och kriminalteknikerns roll i brottmålsprocessen}},
year = {{2012}},
}