Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Vuxet ansvar ska tas av vuxna människor - Eller? - Om unga vuxna lagöverträdare och deras särbehandling inom den svenska straffrätten

Andersson, Elin LU (2015) LAGF03 20152
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Syftet med denna framställning är att genom en rättsdogmatisk och rättssociologisk metod begrunda och skapa en bättre förståelse för lagstiftarens val att särbehandla unga lagöverträdare. Med gällande rätt, dess historiska bakgrund, straffets funktion och myndighetsbegreppet i åtanke har särbehandlingen diskuterats i förhållande till begreppet rättvisa.
Vid femton års ålder inträder straffansvar i samband med att individen blir straffmyndig. Den unge kan däremot bli föremål för mildare straff upp till tjugoett års ålder. Strafflindringen uppmuntras med hänsyn till att unga individer anses vara mer sanktionskänsliga samtidigt som de också har en outvecklad ansvarsförmåga. Vidare anses det finnas ett större behov av tolerans i förhållande... (More)
Syftet med denna framställning är att genom en rättsdogmatisk och rättssociologisk metod begrunda och skapa en bättre förståelse för lagstiftarens val att särbehandla unga lagöverträdare. Med gällande rätt, dess historiska bakgrund, straffets funktion och myndighetsbegreppet i åtanke har särbehandlingen diskuterats i förhållande till begreppet rättvisa.
Vid femton års ålder inträder straffansvar i samband med att individen blir straffmyndig. Den unge kan däremot bli föremål för mildare straff upp till tjugoett års ålder. Strafflindringen uppmuntras med hänsyn till att unga individer anses vara mer sanktionskänsliga samtidigt som de också har en outvecklad ansvarsförmåga. Vidare anses det finnas ett större behov av tolerans i förhållande till ungdomar, deras misstag och oönskade beteenden, eftersom de unga befinner sig i en utvecklings- och inlärningsprocess på väg att bli vuxna.
Nyligen inkom en motion vilken förmedlade åsikten att vuxna människor bör kunna ta ett vuxet ansvar. Motionen ifrågasatte därmed den straffrättsliga särbehandlingen för de individer som hunnit fylla arton år.
Det har framhållits att strafflindringen för unga vuxna gynnar lagöverträdaren eftersom denne blir föremål för ett mildare straff än det som en vuxen individ hade tilldelats i samma situation. Följaktligen har brottsofferperspektivet kommit i skymundan när hänsyn istället tas till förmån för lagöverträdaren och dennes fortsatta utveckling.
Att besvara frågan huruvida särbehandlingen är rättvis eller inte har ansetts problematiskt eftersom rättvisa är en subjektiv konstruktion. Objektivt är det enkelt att ansluta sig till tankarna om att strafflindring är bra för den unge lagöverträdaren och dennes fortsatta utveckling. Strafflindringen ger den unge en chans att bli en bättre människa innan samhället dömt ut honom eller henne som kriminell. För att komma fram till motsatt åsikt har det funnits ett behov av att dra in känslor i debatten. Ungdomsrabatten anses inte lika befogad när det finns ett brottsoffer eller anhöriga som blivit påverkade av den brottsliga gärningen. (Less)
Abstract
The purpose of this presentation is to create a better understanding of the Swedish legislation treating young offenders differently in comparison to adult offenders. With current legislation, its historical background, penalty function and the age of majority in mind, the differential treatment will be discussed in relation to the concept of justice.
At the age of fifteen, the young individual becomes subject to criminal responsibility. Until the age of twenty-one, he or she shall also be subject to more lenient sentence. Leniency in sentencing is encouraged since it is important to take into account that young people have undeveloped responsibility skills and are more sensitive to sanctions compared to adults. Furthermore, youths are... (More)
The purpose of this presentation is to create a better understanding of the Swedish legislation treating young offenders differently in comparison to adult offenders. With current legislation, its historical background, penalty function and the age of majority in mind, the differential treatment will be discussed in relation to the concept of justice.
At the age of fifteen, the young individual becomes subject to criminal responsibility. Until the age of twenty-one, he or she shall also be subject to more lenient sentence. Leniency in sentencing is encouraged since it is important to take into account that young people have undeveloped responsibility skills and are more sensitive to sanctions compared to adults. Furthermore, youths are part of a continuous development and learning process of becoming adults and therefore it is considered to be a greater need for tolerance in relation to young people, their mistakes and undesirable behaviors.
Recently a new motion was proposed by one of the parties in the parliament. They proclaimed that adult responsibility should be taken by adults and hence questioned the existing differential treatment of adults who reached the age eighteen and adults over twenty-one.
The victim’s perspective is being neglected when all the account is taken for the benefit of the offender and his continued progress in society instead of the future of the victim.
To answer the question whether the differential treatment is justified or not is rather problematic since justice is a subjective construction. Objectively, it is easy to adhere to the idea that clemency is good for the young offender and his continued development as it gives the young one an opportunity to become a better person before society condemns him or her as a criminal. I have found it necessary to bring emotions into the debate when discussing the issue with an opposing viewpoint. Clemency is not as easy to justify when there are victims and relatives whose lives have been affected by the criminal offense. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Andersson, Elin LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20152
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Straffrätt, Ansvarsförmåga, Rättvisa, Strafflindring, Särbehandling, Unga lagöverträdare, Ungdomsrabatt
language
Swedish
id
8511494
date added to LUP
2016-02-08 10:52:43
date last changed
2016-02-08 10:52:43
@misc{8511494,
  abstract     = {{The purpose of this presentation is to create a better understanding of the Swedish legislation treating young offenders differently in comparison to adult offenders. With current legislation, its historical background, penalty function and the age of majority in mind, the differential treatment will be discussed in relation to the concept of justice.
At the age of fifteen, the young individual becomes subject to criminal responsibility. Until the age of twenty-one, he or she shall also be subject to more lenient sentence. Leniency in sentencing is encouraged since it is important to take into account that young people have undeveloped responsibility skills and are more sensitive to sanctions compared to adults. Furthermore, youths are part of a continuous development and learning process of becoming adults and therefore it is considered to be a greater need for tolerance in relation to young people, their mistakes and undesirable behaviors. 
Recently a new motion was proposed by one of the parties in the parliament. They proclaimed that adult responsibility should be taken by adults and hence questioned the existing differential treatment of adults who reached the age eighteen and adults over twenty-one.
The victim’s perspective is being neglected when all the account is taken for the benefit of the offender and his continued progress in society instead of the future of the victim. 
To answer the question whether the differential treatment is justified or not is rather problematic since justice is a subjective construction. Objectively, it is easy to adhere to the idea that clemency is good for the young offender and his continued development as it gives the young one an opportunity to become a better person before society condemns him or her as a criminal. I have found it necessary to bring emotions into the debate when discussing the issue with an opposing viewpoint. Clemency is not as easy to justify when there are victims and relatives whose lives have been affected by the criminal offense.}},
  author       = {{Andersson, Elin}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Vuxet ansvar ska tas av vuxna människor - Eller? - Om unga vuxna lagöverträdare och deras särbehandling inom den svenska straffrätten}},
  year         = {{2015}},
}