"Det slutna rummets problem" - Bevisvärderingen kring Lindomeproblematiken med flera närvarande på en brottsplats
(2017) JURM02 20171Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- För 27 år sedan skedde ett mord vars efterdyningar märks av och är ett ständigt diskussionsämne än idag. Den mediala reaktionen när en 89-årig man mördades i sitt egna hem med sin egen stekpanna lät inte vänta på sig när de enda två som befunnit sig på platsen vid tiden för mordet frikändes. Begreppet Lindomeproblematiken myntades och är idag synonymt med situationer där de tilltalade skyller på varandra och på så vis undkommer straff då det saknas bevisning och vittnen. De två tilltalade männen i Lindome friades för mordet och sedan dess har det svenska rättsväsendet försökt ändra sitt tillvägagångssätt i de fall där Lindomeproblematiken ställts på sin spets.
I den här uppsatsen har jag diskuterat och analyserat det så kallade ”slutna... (More) - För 27 år sedan skedde ett mord vars efterdyningar märks av och är ett ständigt diskussionsämne än idag. Den mediala reaktionen när en 89-årig man mördades i sitt egna hem med sin egen stekpanna lät inte vänta på sig när de enda två som befunnit sig på platsen vid tiden för mordet frikändes. Begreppet Lindomeproblematiken myntades och är idag synonymt med situationer där de tilltalade skyller på varandra och på så vis undkommer straff då det saknas bevisning och vittnen. De två tilltalade männen i Lindome friades för mordet och sedan dess har det svenska rättsväsendet försökt ändra sitt tillvägagångssätt i de fall där Lindomeproblematiken ställts på sin spets.
I den här uppsatsen har jag diskuterat och analyserat det så kallade ”slutna rummets problem” som har att göra med bevisvärderingen kring Lindomeproblematiken med flera närvarande på en brottsplats. Denna problematik kan ge upphov till ett antal typsituationer som alla ger olika förutsättningar för att döma. För att förstå vilka dilemman domstolarna ställs inför och hur det påverkar deras bevisvärdering är det viktigt att utreda de rättsliga principer som genomsyrar det svenska rättsväsendet. En av de viktigaste principerna är att ingen ska dömas om dennes skuld inte är ställd utom rimligt tvivel. Det höga beviskravet kommer från principen om hellre fria än fälla. Samtidigt har rättsväsendet en skyldighet mot det allmänna att upprätthålla allmän ordning och se till att begångna brott lagförs. Ju strängare domstolarna är i att upprätthålla det höga beviskravet desto fler skyldiga kommer gå fria samtidigt som motsatsen innebär att fler oskyldiga döms för brott de inte begått. I svensk rätt råder principen om fri bevisprövning. Rätten är med andra ord inte bunden av några legala regler vid värderingen av den framlagda bevisningen. Avsaknaden av riktlinjer har gett upphov till ett flertal metoder och modeller från jurister och psykologer men även matematiker. När domstolen ställs inför ett fall liknande Lindomefallet är det framförallt två delmoment som är avgörande för resultatet. Det första är utredningskravet. Är åklagarens bevisning tillräckligt stark eller finns det ytterligare bevisning som kan ha inverkan på bevisvärdet? Svaret på dessa två frågor är avgörande för målets fortsatta gång. Är bevisningen otillräcklig, ska de tilltalade frikännas redan på denna grund. Anses dock beviskravet uppfyllt ska domstolen gå vidare till det andra momentet som innebär en värdering av de tilltalades utsagor.
Mordet i Lindome ägde rum för 27 år sedan, men den mediala och allmänna indignationen som uppstod i efterdyningarna lever kvar än idag. Lagförslag och rekommendationer har getts från alla håll och kanter på hur detta problem ska lösas men kontentan är att Sverige uppfyller de krav som ställs på en rättsstat. För att komma till bukt med denna problematik krävs det att rättsväsendets olika aktörer samarbetar, men det krävs också lite tur. Ett vittne eller annat bevis kan vara oerhört viktig och få en avgörande roll för resultatet. (Less) - Abstract
- 27 years ago, a murder took place in a small Swedish town. The aftermath of the murder is still today a constant topic of discussion. The public was outraged when an 89-year-old man was murdered in his own home with his own frying pan and the only two who were at the scene of the crime were released and the charges were dropped. The term “Lindomeproblematiken” was coined and is still today synonymous with situations were the accused blame each other thus avoiding punishment, as there is not enough evidence. The accused men in the Lindome-case were not charged for the murder and since then, the Swedish justice system has tried to change its approach in cases where the Lindome-problem has been present.
In this essay I have discussed and... (More) - 27 years ago, a murder took place in a small Swedish town. The aftermath of the murder is still today a constant topic of discussion. The public was outraged when an 89-year-old man was murdered in his own home with his own frying pan and the only two who were at the scene of the crime were released and the charges were dropped. The term “Lindomeproblematiken” was coined and is still today synonymous with situations were the accused blame each other thus avoiding punishment, as there is not enough evidence. The accused men in the Lindome-case were not charged for the murder and since then, the Swedish justice system has tried to change its approach in cases where the Lindome-problem has been present.
In this essay I have discussed and analyzed the so-called “closed room problem” that has to do with the evidence assessment of the Lindome-problem where two or more people are tied to the crime scene. This problem can give rise to a number of situations that all provide different premises for judgment. In order to understand the various dilemmas the courts faces and how they affect their evaluation of the evidence, it is important to investigate the legal principles that permeates the Swedish judiciary system. One of the most important principles is that no one should be sentenced unless his or hers guilt is put beyond reasonable doubt. The proof requirement comes from another important principle “hellre fria än fälla” which is loosely translated to “benefit of doubt”. At the same time, the judiciary has an obligation to the public to maintain public order and to ensure that committed crimes are prosecuted. The more stringent courts are in maintaining this high level of proof, the greater the risk is of criminals being acquitted while the opposite means that more people will be convicted of crimes they have not committed. The Swedish courts are not bound by any legal rules when it comes to the assessment of the provided evidence. The lack of guidelines has given rise to a number of methods and models from lawyers, psychologists and even mathematicians. When the court is faced with a case similar to the Lindome- case, there are primarily two stages that are crucial to the outcome. The first is the investigation requirement. Is the prosecutor's evidence strong enough or is there any further information that may affect the value of the evidence? The answer to these two questions is crucial for the continuation of the case. If the evidence is insufficient, the accused will be acquitted based on that alone. However, if the proof requirement is met, the court shall proceed to the second stage, which is assessing the accused’s statements.
The murder in Lindome took place 27 years ago, but the medial and general indignation that arose in the aftermath is still very much alive. Legislative proposals and recommendations have been discussed but the fact is that Sweden meets the requirements of a nation of law. To overcome the problem, it is necessary that all parts of the judicial system work together. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8909127
- author
- Södervall, Louise LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- "The closed room problem" - The evidence assessment of the so called "Lindome-problem"
- course
- JURM02 20171
- year
- 2017
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Processrätt, Straffrätt, Rättssäkerhet, Bevisvärdering, Medgärningsmannaskap, Medverkan, Criminal law
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8909127
- date added to LUP
- 2017-06-08 11:59:47
- date last changed
- 2017-06-08 11:59:47
@misc{8909127,
abstract = {{27 years ago, a murder took place in a small Swedish town. The aftermath of the murder is still today a constant topic of discussion. The public was outraged when an 89-year-old man was murdered in his own home with his own frying pan and the only two who were at the scene of the crime were released and the charges were dropped. The term “Lindomeproblematiken” was coined and is still today synonymous with situations were the accused blame each other thus avoiding punishment, as there is not enough evidence. The accused men in the Lindome-case were not charged for the murder and since then, the Swedish justice system has tried to change its approach in cases where the Lindome-problem has been present.
In this essay I have discussed and analyzed the so-called “closed room problem” that has to do with the evidence assessment of the Lindome-problem where two or more people are tied to the crime scene. This problem can give rise to a number of situations that all provide different premises for judgment. In order to understand the various dilemmas the courts faces and how they affect their evaluation of the evidence, it is important to investigate the legal principles that permeates the Swedish judiciary system. One of the most important principles is that no one should be sentenced unless his or hers guilt is put beyond reasonable doubt. The proof requirement comes from another important principle “hellre fria än fälla” which is loosely translated to “benefit of doubt”. At the same time, the judiciary has an obligation to the public to maintain public order and to ensure that committed crimes are prosecuted. The more stringent courts are in maintaining this high level of proof, the greater the risk is of criminals being acquitted while the opposite means that more people will be convicted of crimes they have not committed. The Swedish courts are not bound by any legal rules when it comes to the assessment of the provided evidence. The lack of guidelines has given rise to a number of methods and models from lawyers, psychologists and even mathematicians. When the court is faced with a case similar to the Lindome- case, there are primarily two stages that are crucial to the outcome. The first is the investigation requirement. Is the prosecutor's evidence strong enough or is there any further information that may affect the value of the evidence? The answer to these two questions is crucial for the continuation of the case. If the evidence is insufficient, the accused will be acquitted based on that alone. However, if the proof requirement is met, the court shall proceed to the second stage, which is assessing the accused’s statements.
The murder in Lindome took place 27 years ago, but the medial and general indignation that arose in the aftermath is still very much alive. Legislative proposals and recommendations have been discussed but the fact is that Sweden meets the requirements of a nation of law. To overcome the problem, it is necessary that all parts of the judicial system work together.}},
author = {{Södervall, Louise}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{"Det slutna rummets problem" - Bevisvärderingen kring Lindomeproblematiken med flera närvarande på en brottsplats}},
year = {{2017}},
}