Från frispark till misshandel - en studie om våldshandlingar inom idrotten
(2017) LAGF03 20172Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Hösten 2017 blir en professionell ishockeyspelare dömd för misshandel av hovrätten efter att ha crosscheckat en motspelare i nacken. Än en gång väcktes frågan om hur mycket våld som är tillåtet inom idrotten. Vad legitimerar idrottsvåldet och vilka handlingar är så pass allvarliga att de bör leda till allmänt åtal?
Idrotten har en särställning inom samhället. Idrottens rättsliga särart bygger på grundtanken om att idrotten själv ska lösa idrottstvister. Denna teori stöds genom bland annat föreningsfriheten. Man anser att intresset av att bevara idrotten, med all den samhällsnytta som den skapar, i många fall väger tyngre än andra intressen.
När en idrottare kliver in på plan för att delta i spel så anses denne samtycke till vissa... (More) - Hösten 2017 blir en professionell ishockeyspelare dömd för misshandel av hovrätten efter att ha crosscheckat en motspelare i nacken. Än en gång väcktes frågan om hur mycket våld som är tillåtet inom idrotten. Vad legitimerar idrottsvåldet och vilka handlingar är så pass allvarliga att de bör leda till allmänt åtal?
Idrotten har en särställning inom samhället. Idrottens rättsliga särart bygger på grundtanken om att idrotten själv ska lösa idrottstvister. Denna teori stöds genom bland annat föreningsfriheten. Man anser att intresset av att bevara idrotten, med all den samhällsnytta som den skapar, i många fall väger tyngre än andra intressen.
När en idrottare kliver in på plan för att delta i spel så anses denne samtycke till vissa handlingar. Det är främst handlingar som rör sig inom spelets regler. Handlingar som går utöver spelets regler kan endast täckas av samtycke till en viss gräns. Det är inte helt tydligt exakt hur långt samtyckets giltighet sträcker sig. Där samtycket slutar kan man säga att social adekvans tar vid som ansvarsfrihetsgrund. Den sociala adekvansen är inte lagstadgad utan bygger på att vissa handlingar är accepterade av samhället och det vore orimligt att straffa någon för dessa.
Rättsfall som behandlar idrottsvåld måste ta ansvarsfrihetsgrunderna samtycke och social adekvans i beaktning. Det är ofta någon av dessa som gör att en idrottare kan gå fri från ansvar. Ett våld som är utanför spelets idé kan dock inte täckas av social adekvans och ska därför straffas, såsom nämnda ishockeyspelare. Det går även att se ett visst mönster i hur domstolen bedömer olika typer av handlingar. Det kan bero på våldet i sig, i vilken typ av matchsituation eller var på planen det inträffar. Klart är i alla fall att en tydligare lagreglering skulle öka förutsebarheten och därmed rättssäkerheten för idrottare. (Less) - Abstract
- In the fall of 2017 a professional ice-hockey player gets convicted for assault by the court of appeal after he crosschecked an opponent in the neck. The question about how much violence that is allowed in sports was raised yet again. What is the legal ground that legitimizes violence in sports and which type of actions are allowed?
The sports movement is often seen as an independent operation that solves its disputes within the movement itself. This thought comes from the freedom of association. The interest to preserve sports and the social benefits that comes from it is in many cases higher than other interests.
When an athlete goes out on the sports field to participate in a game, he is considered to have given his consent to be... (More) - In the fall of 2017 a professional ice-hockey player gets convicted for assault by the court of appeal after he crosschecked an opponent in the neck. The question about how much violence that is allowed in sports was raised yet again. What is the legal ground that legitimizes violence in sports and which type of actions are allowed?
The sports movement is often seen as an independent operation that solves its disputes within the movement itself. This thought comes from the freedom of association. The interest to preserve sports and the social benefits that comes from it is in many cases higher than other interests.
When an athlete goes out on the sports field to participate in a game, he is considered to have given his consent to be exposed to certain actions. These actions are mainly those who are allowed within the rules of the game. An action that goes beyond the rules of the game cannot always be covered by consent. When consent is no longer applicable as a legal discharge, social adequacy comes in its place. The social adequacy is not laid down in law. It is a type of legal discharge that says that some types of actions are accepted by the society and it would be unreasonably to convict to culpability.
Cases about violence in sports must take the discharge grounds consent and social adequacy into account. It is often one of these grounds that acquit athletes from responsibility. Violence that goes beyond the idea of the game cannot be covered by consent or social adequacy and must therefor be punished, such as the above named ice-hockey player. When it comes to how the courts judge this kind of action you can see a pattern in their reasoning. Things they take into account are the violence itself, which sort of situation in the game the action has occurred in and where on the field it happened. It is obvious that legislation on the matter would increase the predictability and the security before the law. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8930519
- author
- Forsgren, Jesper LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20172
- year
- 2017
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Processrätt, Straffrätt, Idrott, Idrottsjuridik, Samtycke, Social adekvans
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8930519
- date added to LUP
- 2018-02-06 14:25:54
- date last changed
- 2018-02-06 14:25:54
@misc{8930519,
abstract = {{In the fall of 2017 a professional ice-hockey player gets convicted for assault by the court of appeal after he crosschecked an opponent in the neck. The question about how much violence that is allowed in sports was raised yet again. What is the legal ground that legitimizes violence in sports and which type of actions are allowed?
The sports movement is often seen as an independent operation that solves its disputes within the movement itself. This thought comes from the freedom of association. The interest to preserve sports and the social benefits that comes from it is in many cases higher than other interests.
When an athlete goes out on the sports field to participate in a game, he is considered to have given his consent to be exposed to certain actions. These actions are mainly those who are allowed within the rules of the game. An action that goes beyond the rules of the game cannot always be covered by consent. When consent is no longer applicable as a legal discharge, social adequacy comes in its place. The social adequacy is not laid down in law. It is a type of legal discharge that says that some types of actions are accepted by the society and it would be unreasonably to convict to culpability.
Cases about violence in sports must take the discharge grounds consent and social adequacy into account. It is often one of these grounds that acquit athletes from responsibility. Violence that goes beyond the idea of the game cannot be covered by consent or social adequacy and must therefor be punished, such as the above named ice-hockey player. When it comes to how the courts judge this kind of action you can see a pattern in their reasoning. Things they take into account are the violence itself, which sort of situation in the game the action has occurred in and where on the field it happened. It is obvious that legislation on the matter would increase the predictability and the security before the law.}},
author = {{Forsgren, Jesper}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Från frispark till misshandel - en studie om våldshandlingar inom idrotten}},
year = {{2017}},
}