Skyldig utan skuld? - Uppsåtsbedömningen vid gärningar som begåtts under självförvållat rus och dess förenlighet med grundläggande straffrättsliga principer
(2022) LAGF03 20221Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- When it comes to violent crimes it is common that the perpetrator has been drunk at the time of the crime and often the intoxication is a contributing factor to the perpetrator committing the crime. Intoxication often means that the perpetrator has no recollection of the course of events at all. The assessment of intent is associated with difficulties as the perpetrator at the time of the act was so intoxicated and self-alienated to the extent that he could not comment on the course of the event or the motive behind the act. The question arises as to how the intent assessment is to be made in such a case.
This question leads us to the overall purpose of the essay, which is to examine whether the assessment of intent is compatible with... (More) - When it comes to violent crimes it is common that the perpetrator has been drunk at the time of the crime and often the intoxication is a contributing factor to the perpetrator committing the crime. Intoxication often means that the perpetrator has no recollection of the course of events at all. The assessment of intent is associated with difficulties as the perpetrator at the time of the act was so intoxicated and self-alienated to the extent that he could not comment on the course of the event or the motive behind the act. The question arises as to how the intent assessment is to be made in such a case.
This question leads us to the overall purpose of the essay, which is to examine whether the assessment of intent is compatible with our basic principles of criminal law, in particular the principle of guilt, which tells us that only those who at the time of the crime could be held accountable can be held accountable and punished. After analyzing relevant cases in the field, it can be stated that the assessment of intent by relevant legal case, it can be stated that the
The Supreme Court's guidelines state, among other things, that an examination of the perpetrator's awareness must be made in terms of his insight into the realization of the effect. In preparatory work and doctrine, it seems to be the perpetrator's sober condition that should form the basis for the assessment of the perpetrator's insight into the realization of the effect. This can hardly be considered compatible with the principle of guilt. This is because the perpetrator is held responsible for an act that he did not understand the meaning of at the time of the act, which goes against what the principle of guilt stands for. On the other hand, the assessment of intent is well compatible with the principle of conformity because the intoxication is self-inflicted and should therefore not lead to discharge from liability. The perpetrator can thus be considered to have had the opportunity to comply with the law.
A circumstance that further contributes to the current diffuse legal situation regarding acts committed during self-inflicted intoxication is how the regulation in BrB chapter 1 paragraph 2, paragraph 2, is interpreted, which has long been debated. The provision stipulates that if an act has been committed under self-inflicted intoxication or if the perpetrator was otherwise - through his own fault - temporarily out of the use of his senses, this shall not lead to the act not being considered a crime. Different interpretive alternatives have emerged in the preparatory work and doctrine - the question is which of these constitutes applicable law? (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- När det kommer till våldsbrott är det vanligt att gärningsmannen varit berusad vid brottstillfället och ofta är berusningen en bidragande orsak till att gärningsmannen har begått brottet. Berusning gör ofta att gärningsmannen inte har någon minnesbild av gärningen och uppsåtsbedömningen är förenad med svårigheter då gärningsmannen vid gärningstillfället var så berusad och jagfrämmande till den grad att han i efterhand inte kan uttala sig om gärningen eller motivet bakom. Frågan är då hur domstolen fastställer gärningsmannens insikt om effektens förverkligande och gärningsmannens medvetenhet generellt vid gärningsögonblicket. Denna fråga leder oss till det övergripande syftet med uppsatsen, vilket är att undersöka om uppsåtsbedömningen då... (More)
- När det kommer till våldsbrott är det vanligt att gärningsmannen varit berusad vid brottstillfället och ofta är berusningen en bidragande orsak till att gärningsmannen har begått brottet. Berusning gör ofta att gärningsmannen inte har någon minnesbild av gärningen och uppsåtsbedömningen är förenad med svårigheter då gärningsmannen vid gärningstillfället var så berusad och jagfrämmande till den grad att han i efterhand inte kan uttala sig om gärningen eller motivet bakom. Frågan är då hur domstolen fastställer gärningsmannens insikt om effektens förverkligande och gärningsmannens medvetenhet generellt vid gärningsögonblicket. Denna fråga leder oss till det övergripande syftet med uppsatsen, vilket är att undersöka om uppsåtsbedömningen då gärningsmannen på grund av eget vållande varit berusad vid gärningstillfället är förenlig med våra grundläggande straffrättsliga principer, i synnerhet skuldprincipen.
I Högsta domstolens riktlinjer anges bland annat att en prövning av gärningsmannens medvetenhet ska göras när det gäller bedömningen av hans insikt om effektens förverkligande. I förarbeten och doktrin synes det vara gärningsmannens nyktra tillstånd som bör ligga till grund för bedömningen av gärningsmannens insikt om förverkligandet av effekten. Detta kan knappast anses vara förenligt med skuldprincipen. Detta eftersom gärningsmannen på så sätt hålls ansvarig för en gärning som han inte förstod innebörden av vid gärningstillfället, vilket strider mot vad skuldprincipen står för. Däremot är uppsåtsbedömningen väl förenlig med konformitetsprincipen eftersom berusningen just är självförvållad, vilket innebär att gärningsmannen satt sig själv i rustillståndet och därmed inte på något sätt - utom hans kontroll - blivit förhindrad att följa lagen. Han får helt enkelt ta konsekvenserna av hans val att frivilligt berusa sig.
En omständighet som ytterligare bidrar till det rådande diffusa rättsläget beträffande gärningar som begåtts vid självförvållat berusning är hur föreskriften i BrB kap. 1 2 § st. 2 ska tolkas, vilket länge varit omdiskuterat. I bestämmelsen föreskrivs att om en gärning har begåtts under självförvållad berusning eller om gärningsmannen eljest - på grund av eget vållande - tillfälligt varit från sina sinnens fulla bruk, ska detta inte leda till att gärningen inte anses som brott. Olika tolkningsalternativ har framkommit i förarbetena och doktrinen – frågan är vilket av dessa som utgör gällande rätt? (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9081042
- author
- Jaber, Diana LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20221
- year
- 2022
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Straffrätt, Rättsvetenskap
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9081042
- date added to LUP
- 2022-06-28 09:34:25
- date last changed
- 2022-06-28 09:34:25
@misc{9081042,
abstract = {{When it comes to violent crimes it is common that the perpetrator has been drunk at the time of the crime and often the intoxication is a contributing factor to the perpetrator committing the crime. Intoxication often means that the perpetrator has no recollection of the course of events at all. The assessment of intent is associated with difficulties as the perpetrator at the time of the act was so intoxicated and self-alienated to the extent that he could not comment on the course of the event or the motive behind the act. The question arises as to how the intent assessment is to be made in such a case.
This question leads us to the overall purpose of the essay, which is to examine whether the assessment of intent is compatible with our basic principles of criminal law, in particular the principle of guilt, which tells us that only those who at the time of the crime could be held accountable can be held accountable and punished. After analyzing relevant cases in the field, it can be stated that the assessment of intent by relevant legal case, it can be stated that the
The Supreme Court's guidelines state, among other things, that an examination of the perpetrator's awareness must be made in terms of his insight into the realization of the effect. In preparatory work and doctrine, it seems to be the perpetrator's sober condition that should form the basis for the assessment of the perpetrator's insight into the realization of the effect. This can hardly be considered compatible with the principle of guilt. This is because the perpetrator is held responsible for an act that he did not understand the meaning of at the time of the act, which goes against what the principle of guilt stands for. On the other hand, the assessment of intent is well compatible with the principle of conformity because the intoxication is self-inflicted and should therefore not lead to discharge from liability. The perpetrator can thus be considered to have had the opportunity to comply with the law.
A circumstance that further contributes to the current diffuse legal situation regarding acts committed during self-inflicted intoxication is how the regulation in BrB chapter 1 paragraph 2, paragraph 2, is interpreted, which has long been debated. The provision stipulates that if an act has been committed under self-inflicted intoxication or if the perpetrator was otherwise - through his own fault - temporarily out of the use of his senses, this shall not lead to the act not being considered a crime. Different interpretive alternatives have emerged in the preparatory work and doctrine - the question is which of these constitutes applicable law?}},
author = {{Jaber, Diana}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Skyldig utan skuld? - Uppsåtsbedömningen vid gärningar som begåtts under självförvållat rus och dess förenlighet med grundläggande straffrättsliga principer}},
year = {{2022}},
}