The Leaking Law

Abstract

This chapter starts with the question of how damages for violation through crime are determined by law. Compensation for criminal injuries is the predominant type of nonpecuniary damages in Swedish tort law. Yet, a fundamental uncertainty exists regarding computation of damages and the legal meaning of ‘violation’. The general consensus in the legal profession is that norms for computation of damages for compensation of violation are lacking and that the violation and the financial compensation are incommensurable. The analysis and results of my empirical study show several central dichotomies between formal and informal norms and between the internal and external view of law. But this is not simply meant as a critique to show a ‘gap problem’ or a disconnect between ‘law in books and law in action’. Rather, I want to illustrate that what can be described as ‘leaking law’ is a central dimension of a normative system that deals with values, language and the application of general rules through interpretation in a certain context. Accordingly, the question here is how the law leaks rather than whether it does and, further, if in the eyes of legislators estimating such compensation should leak. These aspects raise questions regarding the law’s limits or boundaries and inflow to the legal system. My theoretical approach is inspired by analytical jurisprudence and analytical philosophy expressed by questions like ‘what is the law?’ and ‘what is the relationship between law and its context?’. And finally, I will detail later in this chapter with what is meant by ‘leaking’ and why it is relevant to compensation for violation of personal integrity.

Abstract (Swedish)

This chapter starts with the question of how damages for violation through crime are determined by law. Compensation for criminal injuries is the predominant type of non-pecuniary damages in Swedish tort law. Yet, a fundamental uncertainty exists regarding computation of damages and the legal meaning of ‘violation’. The general consensus in the legal profession is that norms for computation of damages for compensation of violation are lacking and that the violation and the financial compensation are incommensurable. The analysis and results of my empirical study show several central dichotomies between formal and informal norms and between the internal and external view of law.
But this is not simply meant as a critique to show a ‘gap problem’ or a disconnect between ‘law in books and law in action’. Rather, I want to illustrate that what can be described as ‘leaking law’ is a central dimension of a normative system that deals with values, language and the application of general rules through interpretation in a certain context. Accordingly, the question here is how the law leaks rather than whether it does and, further, if in the eyes of legislators estimating such compensation should leak. These aspects raise questions regarding the law’s limits or boundaries and inflow to the legal system. My theoretical approach is inspired by analytical jurisprudence and analytical philosophy expressed by questions like ‘what is the law?’ and ‘what is the relationship between law and its context?’

• author: Dahlstrand, Karl
• organization: Lund University Centre for Business Law (Swedish abbr: ACLU) (research group); Department of Sociology of Law
• publishing date: 2018-07-12
• type: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding
• publication status: published
• subject: Law and Society
• keywords: Kränkningsersättning, Rättsfilosofi, Rättsscoiologi, Reglerande texter, Reglering och styrning, Normer, Sociology of Law, Jurisprudcence, Wittgenstein’s language-world problem, Compensation for Victims, Rules, Norms
• host publication: Law, Legal Culture and Society : Mirrored Identities of the Legal Order - Mirrored Identities of the Legal Order
• series title: Studies in the Sociology of Law
• editor: Febbrajo, Alberto
• pages: 14 pages
• publisher: Routledge
• external identifiers: scopus:85132952263
• ISBN: 9781138488366
• project: Kränkning och upprättelse. En rättssociologisk studie av kränkningsersättning till brottsoffer
• project: Kränkningar i en digital kontext
• language: English
• LU publication?: yes
• additional info: References Aarnio, A., The rational as reasonable. A Treatise on legal justification. (Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1987). Aarnio, A., Reason and authority. A treatise on the dynamic paradigm of legal dogmatics. (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997). Baier, M., Social and Legal Norms Towards a Socio-legal Understanding of Normativity. (Farnham: Ashgate, 2013). Banakar, R., ”Law Through Sociology's Looking Glass: Conflict and Competition in Sociological Studies of Law”, in The new isa handbook in contemporary international sociology: conflict, competition, and cooperation, (ed.) D., Kalekin-Fishman, A., Denis, (London: Sage, 2009). Banakar, R., Law and social theory. (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2013). Barron, A., ”(Legal) reason and its 'others': recent developments in legal theory,” in PENNER, J. E. SCHIFF, D. NOBLES, R. (ed.) Jurisprudence and legal theory: Commentary and materials. (London: Butterworths, 2002). Björkholm, T., ”To reach bedrock - Wittgenstein on rules and rule-following behaviour” In: Elsa Eschelsson, ed. N. Jareborg. (Uppsala: Iustus Förlag, 1997). Byron, P., Albury, K., Evers, C., ”It would be weird to have that on Facebook. Young people’s use of social media and the risk of sharing sexual health information.” Reprod. Health Matters 21 2013), 35–44. Cardarelli, A., P., Hicks, S., C., ”Radicalism in Law and Criminology: A Retrospective View of Critical Legal Studies and Radical Criminology,” J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 84, (1993) 502-553. Christie, N., “Conflicts as Property,” The British Journal of Criminology. 17 (1977), 1-15. Christofides, E., Muise, A., Desmarais, S., ”Risky Disclosures on Facebook: The Effect of Having a Bad Experience on Online Behavior,” J. Adolesc. Res. 27 (2012), 714–731. Citron, D.K., ”Cyber Civil Rights,” Boston Univ. Law Rev. 89, (2009), 61–125. Citron, D.K., Norton, H., ”Intermediaries and Hate Speech: Fostering Digital Citizenship for Our Information Age,” Boston Univ. Law Rev. 91, (2011) 1435–1484. Coleman, J., ”Incorporationism, Conventionality, and the Practial Difference Thesis,” in Hart’s Postscript, Coleman, J. (ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). Collins, M., The law of defamation and the Internet. (Oxford University Press, Oxford; New York, 2010). Cotterell, R., The Politics of Jurisprudence: A Critical Introduction to Legal Philosophy. (Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989). Dahlstrand, K., “How to compensate the irreplaceable? A socio-legal research project within victimology about the relation between formal and informal norms”, in Norms between law and society, (ed) H., Hydén, (Lund: Lund Studies in Sociology of Law, 2011). Dahlstrand, K., Kränkning och upprättelse: En rättssociologisk studie av kränkningsersättning till brottsoffer, (Lund: Lund Studies in Sociology of Law, 2012). Dahlstrand, K., “Norms about norms: A Hartian perspective”, in Social And Legal Norms. Towards a Socio-legal Understanding of Normativity, (ed.) M., Baier, (Farnham: Ashgate, 2013). Diesen, C., Likhet inför lagen. (Stockholm: Natur och kultur, 2005). Ekstedt, O., Ideellt skadestånd för personskada. (Lund: Juridiska föreningen i Lund, 1977). Feyerabend, P., K., ”Explanation, Reduction and Empiricism,” In H. Scientific Explanation, Space, and Time, Feigl and G. Maxwell (ed.), (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume III ,1962) Flowers, A., Zeadally, S., Murray, A., ”Cybersecurity and US Legislative Efforts to address Cybercrime,” J. Homel. Secur. Emerg. Manag. 10, (2013) 1–27. Friberg, S., Kränkningsersättning: skadestånd för kränkning genom brott, (Uppsala: Iustus, 2010). Freis, S., D., Gurung, R.A.R.,. ”A Facebook analysis of helping behavior in online bullying,” Psychol. Pop. Media Cult. 2, (2013) 11–19. Galligan, D., J., Law in modern society. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). Guichard, A., ”Hate crime in cyberspace: the challenges of substantive criminal law,” Inf. Commun. Technol. Law 18, (2009) 201–234. Harris, J. W., Legal Philosophies, (London: Butterworths, 1997). Hart, H., L., A., The Concept of Law, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). Heath, S., ”A Jungian Alice in social media land: Some reflections on solastalgia, kinship libido, and tribes formed on Facebook,” Jung J. Cult. Psyche 6, (2012) 110–127. Hur, J.L., Gupta, M., ”Growing up in the web of social networking: Adolescent development and social media” Adolesc. Psychiatry 3, (2013) 233–244. Hydén, H., ”Understanding Law in Society. Developments in Socio-legal Studies”, in Understanding Law in Society: Developments in Socio-legal Studies, (ed) K., Papendorf, S., Machura, K., Andenæs, (Münster: LIT Verlag, 2011). von Jherring, R., Geist des römischen Rechts, (Leipzig, 1906). Karniel, Y., ”Defamation on the Internet - A New Approach to Libel in Cyberspace,” J. Int. Entertain. Media Law 2, (2009) 215–239. Kripke, s., Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language, (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1982) Kuhn, T., S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962). Kwan, G. c. e., Skoric, M. m., ”Facebook bullying: An extension of battles in school,” Comput. Hum. Behav. 29 (2013) 16–25. Lacey, N., A life of H. L. A. Hart. The nightmare and the noble dream. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). Larsson, S., Metaphors and Norms - Understanding Copyright Law in a Digital Society. (Lund: Lund Studies in Sociology of Law, 2011). Lefebvre, A., “Law and the Ordinary: Hart, Wittgenstein, Jurisprudence,” Telos: a quarterly journal of critical thoughts, 154, (2011) 99-118. Leiter, B., ”Legal realism, Hard Positivism, and the Limits of Conceptual analysis,” in Hart’s Postscript. Essays on the Postscript to the Concept of Law, (ed.) J. Coleman. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001). Lernestedt, C., Tham, H., Brottsoffret och kriminalpolitiken. (Stocholm: Norstedts Juridik, ., 2011). Lessig, L., ”The limits in open code: Regulatory standards and the future of the Net,” Berkeley Technol. Law J. 14, (1999) 759. Låftman, S., B., Modin, B., Östberg, V., ”Cyberbullying and subjective health: A largescale study of students in Stockholm,” Sweden. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 35, (2013) 112– 119. MacCormick, N., H.L.A. Hart. (Stanford: Stanford Law Books, 1981). Mainiero, L.A., Jones, K.J., ”Workplace Romance 2.0: Developing a Communication Ethics Model to Address Potential Sexual Harassment from Inappropriate Social Media Contacts between Coworkers,” J. Bus. Ethics 114, (2013) 367–379. Modéer, K., Å., Juristernas nära förflutna. (Stockholm: Santérus förlag, 2009). Mohamed, D., ”Combating the threats of cybercrimes in Malaysia: The efforts, the cyberlaws and the traditional laws,” Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 29, (2013) 66–76. Negre, F.M., D. V. Go III, G., ”Curbing Domain Name Registration Abuse: A Legal Framework in the Implementation of the Anti-Cybersquatting Provision of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012,” Ateneo Law J. 57, (2013) 949–1000. Pedersen, S., ”UK young adults’ safety awareness online—Is it a ’girl thing’?” J. Youth Stud. 16, (2013) 404–419. Perry, B., Olsson, P., ”Cyberhate: the globalization of hate,” , 18 (2009) 185–199. Perry, S., R., “Hart's Methodological Positivism,” in Hart’s Postscript: Essays on the Postscript to the Concept of Law, (ed.) J. Coleman, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). Rabinowicz, W., “Incommensurability and Vagueness,” Aristotelian Society Supplementary, 83(1), (2009) 71–94. Radin, M., J., ”Compensation and Commensurability,” Duke Law Journal, 43 (1993) 56-86. Samuelsson, J., Tolkningslärans gåta: En studie i avtalsrätt, (Uppsala: Iustus förlag, 2011). Schultz, M., Kränkning. Studier i skadeståndsrättslig argumentation. (Stockholm: Jure, 2008). Schultz, M., Wiklander, G., Bardon, J., Näthat: rättigheter och möjligheter. (Stockholm: Karnov Group, 2013). Soudijn, M., Zegers, B., ”Cybercrime and virtual offender convergence settings,” Trends Organ. Crime 15, (2012) 111–129. Stavropoulos, N., ”Hart’s Semantics”, i Hart’s postscript. Essays on the postscript to the concept of law. Coleman, J. (red.) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). Sunstein, C., R., “Incommensurability and Valuation in Law,” Michigan Law Review, 79, (1994) 779-861. Teubner, G., Law as an Autopoietic System. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993). Wacks, R., Understanding Jursprudence. An introduction to Legal Theory, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). Weber, M., The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. (New York: Free Press, 1947). Wennberg, S., Introduktion till straffrätten. (Stockholm: Norstedts juridik, 2009). Visser, B.J., Huiskes, F., Korevaar, D.A., ”A social media self-evaluation checklist for medical practitioners,” Indian J. Med. Ethics 9, (2012) 245–248. Wittgenstein, L., Philosophical Investigations. (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 1953). Zamboni, M., ”A Legal Pluralist World'… or the Black Hole for Modern Legal Positivism,” (Available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2251017, accessed 2014-08-26).
• id: 5ccc16a8-28d1-497e-8af3-365818f8bf42
• date added to LUP: 2018-07-01 11:29:40
• date last changed: 2022-10-05 11:58:26