Oaktsamhet i fråga om ålder vid köp av sexuell handling av barn
(2015) LAGF03 20151Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Lagstiftaren har gjort bedömningen att barn i åldrarna 15-17 år bör skyddas från vissa sexuella handlingar och därför har man kriminaliserat köp av sexuell handling av barn. För att ansvar ska kunna utkrävas måste gärningspersonen ha uppsåt ifråga om alla omständigheter utom barnets ålder, där måste denne endast agerat oaktsamt. Enligt 6:13 BrB kan en person dömas för köp av sexuell handling av barn om denne hade skälig anledning att anta att barnet var under 18 år. Enligt förarbetena innebär bestämmelsen ett tämligen högt krav på oaktsamhet.
Det är domstolen som gör bedömningen om den tilltalade är oaktsam. I denna uppsats granskas ett antal underrättsavgöranden för att se hur den här bedömningen görs och vilka saker domstolen tittar... (More) - Lagstiftaren har gjort bedömningen att barn i åldrarna 15-17 år bör skyddas från vissa sexuella handlingar och därför har man kriminaliserat köp av sexuell handling av barn. För att ansvar ska kunna utkrävas måste gärningspersonen ha uppsåt ifråga om alla omständigheter utom barnets ålder, där måste denne endast agerat oaktsamt. Enligt 6:13 BrB kan en person dömas för köp av sexuell handling av barn om denne hade skälig anledning att anta att barnet var under 18 år. Enligt förarbetena innebär bestämmelsen ett tämligen högt krav på oaktsamhet.
Det är domstolen som gör bedömningen om den tilltalade är oaktsam. I denna uppsats granskas ett antal underrättsavgöranden för att se hur den här bedömningen görs och vilka saker domstolen tittar på. I denna studie undersökte jag hur domstolen bedömer en fråga om ålder. Denna kan beaktas som en misstanke om låg ålder, vilket innebär att den tilltalade misstänkte att säljaren kunde vara under 18 år. Det kan också anses vara exculperande, om den tilltalade fått svar av målsägande att denne är över 18 år och man ansåg att den tilltalade borde kunnat lita på att uppgiften var korrekt. I vissa fall ansåg domstolen att den tilltalade borde frågat målsägande om dennes ålder, ofta på grund av andra omständigheter. I andra fall där den tilltalade frågat om ålder eller målsägande tidigare uppgett sin ålder ansåg domstolen att den tilltalade inte agerade oaktsamt om inte andra omständigheter förelåg som gav den tilltalade anledning att vara på sin vakt. Domstolen bedömde även målsägandes utseende när de avgjorde om den tilltalade på grund av detta hade skälig anledning att anta att målsägande var under 18 år.
Jag har inte kunnat utläsa några mönster i domstolarnas bedömning men det är klart att de tillämpar regeln restriktivt och att avgörande ofta är hur domstolen bedömer målsägandes utseende och kroppsutveckling. (Less) - Abstract
- The legislator has determined that children in the ages of 15-17 years should be protected from certain sexual acts and therefore it has been criminalized to purchase sexual acts from children. In order for liability to be claimed the perpetrator must have intent about all circumstances but the child’s age, where he must only act negligently. According to 6:13 in the criminal code a person can be convicted of purchase of sexual acts from children if he had reasonable grounds to believe the child was below 18 years old. According to the preparatory work this provision means a fairly high demand on negligence.
The court makes the assessment whether the defendant was negligent. This paper examines a number of lower court decisions to see... (More) - The legislator has determined that children in the ages of 15-17 years should be protected from certain sexual acts and therefore it has been criminalized to purchase sexual acts from children. In order for liability to be claimed the perpetrator must have intent about all circumstances but the child’s age, where he must only act negligently. According to 6:13 in the criminal code a person can be convicted of purchase of sexual acts from children if he had reasonable grounds to believe the child was below 18 years old. According to the preparatory work this provision means a fairly high demand on negligence.
The court makes the assessment whether the defendant was negligent. This paper examines a number of lower court decisions to see how this assessment is done and which things the court looks at. In this study, I examined how the court judges a question of age. This can be considered as a suspicion of low age, which means that the defendant suspected that the seller could be below 18 years old. It can also be considered exculpatory if the accused received a reply from the seller that he is over 18 and one consider that the accused should be able to trust that the information was correct. In some cases, the court held that the defendant should have asked the plaintiff about his or her age, often because of other circumstances. In other cases where the defendant asked about age or the plaintiff previously stated his or her age, the court found that the defendant did not act negligently unless other circumstances existed that gave the defendant reason to be on the alert. The court also assessed the plaintiff’s appearance when it decided if the defendant based on this had reasonable grounds to believe he or she was below 18 years old.
I have not been able to deduce any pattern in the assessments of the courts but it is clear that they apply the provision restrictively and that it is often crucial how the court assesses the plaintiff’s appearance and body development. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/5431202
- author
- Eriksson, Sara LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20151
- year
- 2015
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- straffrätt, oaktsamhet, köp av sexuell handling av barn
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 5431202
- date added to LUP
- 2015-07-03 15:02:34
- date last changed
- 2015-07-03 15:02:34
@misc{5431202,
abstract = {{The legislator has determined that children in the ages of 15-17 years should be protected from certain sexual acts and therefore it has been criminalized to purchase sexual acts from children. In order for liability to be claimed the perpetrator must have intent about all circumstances but the child’s age, where he must only act negligently. According to 6:13 in the criminal code a person can be convicted of purchase of sexual acts from children if he had reasonable grounds to believe the child was below 18 years old. According to the preparatory work this provision means a fairly high demand on negligence.
The court makes the assessment whether the defendant was negligent. This paper examines a number of lower court decisions to see how this assessment is done and which things the court looks at. In this study, I examined how the court judges a question of age. This can be considered as a suspicion of low age, which means that the defendant suspected that the seller could be below 18 years old. It can also be considered exculpatory if the accused received a reply from the seller that he is over 18 and one consider that the accused should be able to trust that the information was correct. In some cases, the court held that the defendant should have asked the plaintiff about his or her age, often because of other circumstances. In other cases where the defendant asked about age or the plaintiff previously stated his or her age, the court found that the defendant did not act negligently unless other circumstances existed that gave the defendant reason to be on the alert. The court also assessed the plaintiff’s appearance when it decided if the defendant based on this had reasonable grounds to believe he or she was below 18 years old.
I have not been able to deduce any pattern in the assessments of the courts but it is clear that they apply the provision restrictively and that it is often crucial how the court assesses the plaintiff’s appearance and body development.}},
author = {{Eriksson, Sara}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Oaktsamhet i fråga om ålder vid köp av sexuell handling av barn}},
year = {{2015}},
}