Medgärningsmannaskap eller ej - Förutsättningar för rubricering i medgärningsmannaskap och en redogörelse för tillämpningen i rättspraxis
(2018) LAGF03 20181Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- This essay deals with the necessary requirements to convict a participant in a crime as an offender instead of an accomplice. The essay also examines how the courts have judged in practice and the reasons for that.
A participant in a crime is convicted as an offender together with other participants in the following cases. First of all, when the participant together with other participants perform the crime. Secondly, when the participant is aiding the offenders and is crucial for the crime’s execution. The courts practice has on this matter been criticized for being too extensive. This means that aiders have been convicted as offenders despite that they have been less active than the offenders. A reason for that is that the courts have... (More) - This essay deals with the necessary requirements to convict a participant in a crime as an offender instead of an accomplice. The essay also examines how the courts have judged in practice and the reasons for that.
A participant in a crime is convicted as an offender together with other participants in the following cases. First of all, when the participant together with other participants perform the crime. Secondly, when the participant is aiding the offenders and is crucial for the crime’s execution. The courts practice has on this matter been criticized for being too extensive. This means that aiders have been convicted as offenders despite that they have been less active than the offenders. A reason for that is that the courts have tried to sustain efficiency in the judicial proceedings. Often has the reasoning been indistinct when presenting the circumstances that explains why a participant is considered as an offender. The ruling in ”Akallarånet” is considered important because it clarifies when a participant should be convicted as an offender or as an accomplice.
In the analytic section the essay deals with the necessary requirements to convict a participant as an offender. A participant is convicted as an offender when the participant together with other participants perform the crime. A participant is also convicted as an offender when the participant has been contributing both during the preparation to commit the crime and during its execution. It is necessary that the participant has been crucial during either the execution or the preparation. The analytic section also deals with important elements which indicates conviction as an offender. Furthermore it is concluded that there is to some extent agreement in the doctrine that the courts practice has been extensive after ”Lindomefallet” when considering a participant as an offender, this because of effectiveness in the courts. The ruling in ”Akallarånet” limited the possibilities to consider a participant as an offender. In the matter of rule of law, it is problematic when the court does not account for the circumstances that explains why a participant is considered as an offender. The ruling in Akallarånet might remedy this. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Denna uppsats behandlar förutsättningarna för att döma i medgärningsmannaskap, undersöker hur tillämpningen sett ut i rättspraxis och presenterar synpunkter som förklarar varför tillämpningen sett ut som den gjort.
Ansvarsformen medgärningsmannaskap kan delas upp i ordinärt och utvidgat medgärningsmannaskap. Ordinärt medgärningsmannaskap innebär att flera deltagare tillsammans utför en brottslig gärning med antingen likartade eller olikartade handlingar. Utvidgat medgärningsmannaskap handlar istället om att en deltagare endast har främjat en brottslig gärning men ändå anses som gärningsman eftersom deltagaren varit central för brottets utförande. I doktrin har tillämpningen av medgärningsmannaskapet kritiserats för att ha varit för... (More) - Denna uppsats behandlar förutsättningarna för att döma i medgärningsmannaskap, undersöker hur tillämpningen sett ut i rättspraxis och presenterar synpunkter som förklarar varför tillämpningen sett ut som den gjort.
Ansvarsformen medgärningsmannaskap kan delas upp i ordinärt och utvidgat medgärningsmannaskap. Ordinärt medgärningsmannaskap innebär att flera deltagare tillsammans utför en brottslig gärning med antingen likartade eller olikartade handlingar. Utvidgat medgärningsmannaskap handlar istället om att en deltagare endast har främjat en brottslig gärning men ändå anses som gärningsman eftersom deltagaren varit central för brottets utförande. I doktrin har tillämpningen av medgärningsmannaskapet kritiserats för att ha varit för extensiv. Detta innebär att deltagare i brott har dömts i medgärningsmannaskap trots att deras bidrag har varit mindre i förhållande till andra deltagare. Ett skäl till varför tillämpningen har varit sådan är att domstolarna har velat upprätthålla effektivitet i domstolsprövningen. Vidare har domskälen ofta varit oklara när det gäller vilka omständigheter som legat till grund för rubricering i medgärningsmannaskap. HD:s avgörande i Akallarånet har ansetts viktigt för att förtydliga ramarna för när det går att döma i medgärningsmannaskap.
I analysdelen besvaras först frågan om vilka förutsättningar som ska vara uppfyllda för ett dömande i medgärningsmannaskap. För det första ska en deltagare dömas som medgärningsman då deltagaren utför gärningen tillsammans med andra deltagare genom likartade eller olikartade handlingar. För det andra är en deltagare att anse som medgärningsman om deltagaren medverkat under både förberedelsen och genomförandet av brottet och varit central under någon av dessa delar, även om deltagaren inte kan sägas ha utfört gärningen. Viktiga faktorer som pekar på medgärningsmannaskap behandlas också. Vidare så konstateras att det finns viss enighet i doktrin om att tillämpningen av medgärningsmannaskapet har varit extensiv efter Lindomefallet men begränsats genom avgörandet i Akallarånet. Utvidgningen verkar bero på att domstolarna vill ha en effektiv rättsprocess. Ur rättssäkerhetssynpunkt har tillämpningen varit problematiskt främst därför domstolarna ofta låtit bli att redogöra för de omständigheter som ligger till grund för medgärningsmannaskap. Den tydlighet som avgörandet i Akallarånet ger kan leda till en ökad rättssäkerhet för den enskilde. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8940952
- author
- Carlsson, Marcus LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20181
- year
- 2018
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Straffrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8940952
- date added to LUP
- 2018-07-04 18:20:23
- date last changed
- 2018-07-04 18:20:23
@misc{8940952,
abstract = {{This essay deals with the necessary requirements to convict a participant in a crime as an offender instead of an accomplice. The essay also examines how the courts have judged in practice and the reasons for that.
A participant in a crime is convicted as an offender together with other participants in the following cases. First of all, when the participant together with other participants perform the crime. Secondly, when the participant is aiding the offenders and is crucial for the crime’s execution. The courts practice has on this matter been criticized for being too extensive. This means that aiders have been convicted as offenders despite that they have been less active than the offenders. A reason for that is that the courts have tried to sustain efficiency in the judicial proceedings. Often has the reasoning been indistinct when presenting the circumstances that explains why a participant is considered as an offender. The ruling in ”Akallarånet” is considered important because it clarifies when a participant should be convicted as an offender or as an accomplice.
In the analytic section the essay deals with the necessary requirements to convict a participant as an offender. A participant is convicted as an offender when the participant together with other participants perform the crime. A participant is also convicted as an offender when the participant has been contributing both during the preparation to commit the crime and during its execution. It is necessary that the participant has been crucial during either the execution or the preparation. The analytic section also deals with important elements which indicates conviction as an offender. Furthermore it is concluded that there is to some extent agreement in the doctrine that the courts practice has been extensive after ”Lindomefallet” when considering a participant as an offender, this because of effectiveness in the courts. The ruling in ”Akallarånet” limited the possibilities to consider a participant as an offender. In the matter of rule of law, it is problematic when the court does not account for the circumstances that explains why a participant is considered as an offender. The ruling in Akallarånet might remedy this.}},
author = {{Carlsson, Marcus}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Medgärningsmannaskap eller ej - Förutsättningar för rubricering i medgärningsmannaskap och en redogörelse för tillämpningen i rättspraxis}},
year = {{2018}},
}