Kan barn tala sanning? - En studie om förhållandet mellan de svenska domstolarnas bevisvärdering av barns utsagor och rättspsykologisk forskning
(2018) JURM02 20182Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Domstolarnas avgörande bedömning vid sexualbrott mot barn är inte sällan att värdera barnets utsaga. Människans åldersrelaterade kognitiva utveckling, barns ofullständiga förmåga att uttrycka sig och svårigheter att förstå erfarenheter genom att sätta dem i relation till tidigare erfarenheter försvårar bedömningen av barns utsagor. Sexualbrott mot barn tillhör därav de mål som är svårast för domstolarna att hantera. För att kunna bedöma barns utsagor krävs det både rättspsykologisk kunskap om barns förmåga att minnas och återberätta övergrepp samt en djup kännedom om det enskilda barnet.
På grund av de omständigheter kring barn som försvårar bedömningen av barns utsagor belyser framställningen de svenska domstolarnas bevisvärdering av... (More) - Domstolarnas avgörande bedömning vid sexualbrott mot barn är inte sällan att värdera barnets utsaga. Människans åldersrelaterade kognitiva utveckling, barns ofullständiga förmåga att uttrycka sig och svårigheter att förstå erfarenheter genom att sätta dem i relation till tidigare erfarenheter försvårar bedömningen av barns utsagor. Sexualbrott mot barn tillhör därav de mål som är svårast för domstolarna att hantera. För att kunna bedöma barns utsagor krävs det både rättspsykologisk kunskap om barns förmåga att minnas och återberätta övergrepp samt en djup kännedom om det enskilda barnet.
På grund av de omständigheter kring barn som försvårar bedömningen av barns utsagor belyser framställningen de svenska domstolarnas bevisvärdering av barns utsagor i förhållande till rättspsykologisk forskning om barns förmåga att minnas samt återberätta upplevda övergrepp ur ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv.
De prejudikat och kriterier som tillämpas vid bevisvärdering av barns utsagor saknar direkt vetenskapligt stöd. Utifrån rättspsykologin går det bland annat inte att bedöma utsagor utifrån förbestämda kriterier. Vid det fall fällande domar förekommer grundade på barns utsagor i egenskap av huvudsaklig bevisning verkar bedömningen baseras på rättens subjektiva uppfattning. Detta även då rätten omöjligen kan lära känna det enskilda barnet genom rättsprocessen på ett sådant djup som krävs för en korrekt bedömning.
Även om bevisvärderingen sker i enlighet med vad som faktiskt har hänt och om barnet talar sanning görs bedömningen på icke vetenskapligt förankrade erfarenhetssatser. Förevarande framställning visar således på en diskrepans mellan domstolarnas bevisvärdering av barns utsagor och den vetenskapliga synen på barns förmåga återberätta. Domstolarna verkar beakta andra intressen än utsagans faktiska beviskraft vid den dömande verksamheten, genom att barns utsagor tillmäts för hög beviskraft och att beviskravet ställs lägre i särskilt svårbevisade mål. Genom att domstolarna tenderar att beakta intressen som egentligen inte ska få påverka den dömande verksamheten, istället för att meddela vetenskapligt korrekta domar, strider bevisvärderingen mot grundläggande rättsliga principer.
Rättsväsendets vilja och strävan att avlägga fällande domar i mål om sexualbrott mot barn i de fall bevisningen objektivt sett och utifrån vetenskapen inte är tillräcklig grundar sig mest troligt i en uppfattning om att ett rättsskydd för samhällets alla invånare väger tyngre än rättssäkerhet, rättstrygghet och att inte meddela fällande domar på egentligen för svag bevisning. (Less) - Abstract
- The decisive assessment of the courts in cases involving child sexual abuse is often to evaluate the testimony of the child. The humans' age-related cognitive development, children’s incomplete ability to express themselves and children's difficulties in understanding experiences by putting them in relation to past experiences complicates the evaluation of children's testimonies. Child sexual abuse is, therefore, a part of the most difficult cases for the courts to handle. To be able to assess the testimony of a child, both forensic psychological knowledge of children's ability to remember and retell sexual abuses is necessary as well as an in-depth knowledge of the individual child.
Due to the aggravating circumstances surrounding the... (More) - The decisive assessment of the courts in cases involving child sexual abuse is often to evaluate the testimony of the child. The humans' age-related cognitive development, children’s incomplete ability to express themselves and children's difficulties in understanding experiences by putting them in relation to past experiences complicates the evaluation of children's testimonies. Child sexual abuse is, therefore, a part of the most difficult cases for the courts to handle. To be able to assess the testimony of a child, both forensic psychological knowledge of children's ability to remember and retell sexual abuses is necessary as well as an in-depth knowledge of the individual child.
Due to the aggravating circumstances surrounding the evaluation of a child's testimony, this essay illustrates the court's evaluation of children's testimonies relation to forensic psychology research on children's ability to remember and retell experienced sexual abuses from a legally secure perspective.
The precedents and criteria that apply to the evaluation of children's testimonies by the courts are in lack of actual scientific support. Based on the forensic psychology it is for example not possible to evaluate testimonies based on pretermitted criteria. In cases where convictions occur based on children's testimonies as the primary evidence, the assessment of the court appears to be based on the court's subjective opinion. On top of that, the courts may also be unable to get to know the individual child through the legal process to such level as is required for a correct assessment.
Although, even if the evaluation of evidence match what has happened and even if the child speaks the truth, the assessments of children's testimonies are made on non-scientifically based experience batches. Thus, the present essay shows a discrepancy between courts' evaluation of children's testimonies and the forensic psychological view of children's ability to retell sexual abuses. The courts seem to take other interests into account at the judicial activity than the actual power of a testimony by the fact that children's testimonies appear to be given too high evidence power and that the evidentiary requirement tend to be lowered in particular cases that are difficult to prove. By the courts tend to consider interests that shouldn't affect the judicial activity instead of passing judgements that are scientifically correct, the evaluation of evidence violates fundamental legal principles.
The will and the desire of the judiciary to pass convictions in cases of sexual child abuse where the evidence objectively and on the basis of forensic psychology isn't enough for a conviction, is most likely based on an idea that legal protection for all residents of the society weighs heavier than the rule of law, security before the law and to not pass convictions based on too weak evidence. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8964581
- author
- Najafi, Cornelia
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Can children speak the truth? - A study on the relationship between the Swedish courts' evidence evaluation of children's testimonies and forensic psychological research
- course
- JURM02 20182
- year
- 2018
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Straffrätt, Bevisvärdering, Barns utsagor, Rättspsykologi
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8964581
- date added to LUP
- 2019-01-28 11:25:37
- date last changed
- 2019-01-28 11:25:37
@misc{8964581,
abstract = {{The decisive assessment of the courts in cases involving child sexual abuse is often to evaluate the testimony of the child. The humans' age-related cognitive development, children’s incomplete ability to express themselves and children's difficulties in understanding experiences by putting them in relation to past experiences complicates the evaluation of children's testimonies. Child sexual abuse is, therefore, a part of the most difficult cases for the courts to handle. To be able to assess the testimony of a child, both forensic psychological knowledge of children's ability to remember and retell sexual abuses is necessary as well as an in-depth knowledge of the individual child.
Due to the aggravating circumstances surrounding the evaluation of a child's testimony, this essay illustrates the court's evaluation of children's testimonies relation to forensic psychology research on children's ability to remember and retell experienced sexual abuses from a legally secure perspective.
The precedents and criteria that apply to the evaluation of children's testimonies by the courts are in lack of actual scientific support. Based on the forensic psychology it is for example not possible to evaluate testimonies based on pretermitted criteria. In cases where convictions occur based on children's testimonies as the primary evidence, the assessment of the court appears to be based on the court's subjective opinion. On top of that, the courts may also be unable to get to know the individual child through the legal process to such level as is required for a correct assessment.
Although, even if the evaluation of evidence match what has happened and even if the child speaks the truth, the assessments of children's testimonies are made on non-scientifically based experience batches. Thus, the present essay shows a discrepancy between courts' evaluation of children's testimonies and the forensic psychological view of children's ability to retell sexual abuses. The courts seem to take other interests into account at the judicial activity than the actual power of a testimony by the fact that children's testimonies appear to be given too high evidence power and that the evidentiary requirement tend to be lowered in particular cases that are difficult to prove. By the courts tend to consider interests that shouldn't affect the judicial activity instead of passing judgements that are scientifically correct, the evaluation of evidence violates fundamental legal principles.
The will and the desire of the judiciary to pass convictions in cases of sexual child abuse where the evidence objectively and on the basis of forensic psychology isn't enough for a conviction, is most likely based on an idea that legal protection for all residents of the society weighs heavier than the rule of law, security before the law and to not pass convictions based on too weak evidence.}},
author = {{Najafi, Cornelia}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Kan barn tala sanning? - En studie om förhållandet mellan de svenska domstolarnas bevisvärdering av barns utsagor och rättspsykologisk forskning}},
year = {{2018}},
}