Advanced

Ett nyktrare rättsläge? - Ändrad praxis vad gäller självförvållat rus

Hillarp Ratkoceri, Milla LU (2012) JURM02 20121
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Frågan om hur skuld ska bedömas då en person som varit tillfälligt sinnesförvirrad begår en straffbelagd handling är ett klassiskt straffrättsligt problem. I detta arbete undersöks hur den svenska rätten ser på när förvirringstillståndet beror på en berusning, närmare bestämt hur straffansvaret ser ut vid självförvållat rus. Här presenteras olika tolkningar som framförts i doktrinen både i de lege lata och i de lege ferenda. Juridiskt kunniga har i flera omgångar diskuterat huruvida det är försvarbart eller ej att utöka straffansvaret för en person som genom eget vållande har försatt sig i ett berusat tillstånd. Ska kriminalpolitiska och effektivitets motiv ges företräde över rättsstatsprinciper såsom skuldprincipen? Syftet med arbetet har... (More)
Frågan om hur skuld ska bedömas då en person som varit tillfälligt sinnesförvirrad begår en straffbelagd handling är ett klassiskt straffrättsligt problem. I detta arbete undersöks hur den svenska rätten ser på när förvirringstillståndet beror på en berusning, närmare bestämt hur straffansvaret ser ut vid självförvållat rus. Här presenteras olika tolkningar som framförts i doktrinen både i de lege lata och i de lege ferenda. Juridiskt kunniga har i flera omgångar diskuterat huruvida det är försvarbart eller ej att utöka straffansvaret för en person som genom eget vållande har försatt sig i ett berusat tillstånd. Ska kriminalpolitiska och effektivitets motiv ges företräde över rättsstatsprinciper såsom skuldprincipen? Syftet med arbetet har varit att utreda hur gällande rätt har sett ut innan och efter avgörandet i NJA 2011 s. 563.

Det tidigare rådande rättsläget gick ut på att straffansvaret utökades i viss utsträckning genom att uppsåt och oaktsamhet kunde efterges. Detta kom tydligt till uttryck i förarbetena till brottsbalken, dock var inte alla överens om att rusbestämmelsen i BrB 1:2 2 st skulle tolkas på det sättet. Motståndarna hävdade att bestämmelsen endast skulle ses som en påminnelse om att berusning inte skulle bedömas som en förmildrande omständighet. Bakgrunden till detta fann kritikerna i äldre rätt, vilket de menade att förarbetena hade missuppfattat. Genom NJA 1973 s. 590 konstaterades emellertid att ett eftergivande var att anse som gällande rätt. Ställningstagandet blev ifrågasatt på nytt då domen lämnade olösta tillämpningsfrågor: hur ett eftergivande skulle genomföras, vid vilken punkt var gärningsmannen så pass berusad att ett eftergivande aktualiserades, osv. Det oklara rättsläget återspeglades i praxis där det går att finna stöd för olika tolkningar, olika varianter av eftergiven skuld och bedömning enligt vanliga ansvarsregler. Vissa har hävdat att domstolarna har varit motvilliga till att modifiera skulden i de allra flesta fall eftersom detta skulle framstå som stötande.

Förra året kom en dom från HD, NJA 2011 s. 563, som ändrade det rättsläge som länge hade varit rådande i Sverige. HD slog fast att en berusad gärningsman numera skulle bedömas utifrån vanliga ansvarsregler och att ett utökat straffansvar inte längre kunde anses vara motiverat. Avgörandet väckte stort intresse och debatten var ett faktum. Kritiker förutspådde bland annat att domen skulle medföra oönskade konsekvenser genom att gärningsmän skulle använda sig av fylleursäkter och därigenom undgå straff. Andra hävdade att farhågorna var överdrivna och att domen istället klarade upp ett rörigt rättsläge. Av de efterkommande rättsfall som presenteras i arbetet går det att utläsa att avgörandet har fått genomslag och att vanliga uppsåts- och oaktsamhetsregler har tillämpats. Vilka konsekvenser avgörandet får i ett längre perspektiv får dock framtiden avgöra. (Less)
Abstract
The issue of how legal liability should be assessed when a temporarily insane person commits a punishable offense is a classical problem within criminal law. How the Swedish law regards a state of confusion caused by intoxication will be examined in this thesis. More specifically what is the criminal liability regarding self-induced intoxication? Different interpretations expressed both in de lege lata and in de lege ferenda in the legal literature are presented. The legally skilled have, on numerous occasions, discussed whether or not it is justifiable to enlarge the liability for a person that by own fault has put themselves in a drunken state. Should motives of crime policy and efficiency be given precedency over rule of law-principles... (More)
The issue of how legal liability should be assessed when a temporarily insane person commits a punishable offense is a classical problem within criminal law. How the Swedish law regards a state of confusion caused by intoxication will be examined in this thesis. More specifically what is the criminal liability regarding self-induced intoxication? Different interpretations expressed both in de lege lata and in de lege ferenda in the legal literature are presented. The legally skilled have, on numerous occasions, discussed whether or not it is justifiable to enlarge the liability for a person that by own fault has put themselves in a drunken state. Should motives of crime policy and efficiency be given precedency over rule of law-principles such as nulla poena sine culpa? The purpose of this thesis is to examine applicable law prior - as well as after - the ruling in NJA 2011 s. 563.

The previously existing legal position stated that criminal liability was enlarged to a certain extent by the ability to waive criminal intent and negligence. This was clearly put in the legislative history of the Penal Code. There was however a lack of consensus in the legal literature regarding this interpretation of BrB 1:2 2nd paragraph. The opponents claimed that the regulation only should be seen as a reminder that intoxication shouldn’t function as a mitigating circumstance. The background to this was found in older regulations, which they meant was misinterpreted by the legislative history. Nevertheless, through NJA 1973 s. 590 it was found that an enlargement was to be considered as applicable law. The stance was questioned again as the ruling left unresolved questions of application: how should an enlargement be implemented, at what point was the offender intoxicated to the extent that an enlargement was relevant, and so on. The lack of legal certainty was reflected in the case law where support for different interpretations can be found: different types of enlargement and also assessments according to ordinary procedure. Some claim that the courts have been reluctant to modify guilt in most of the cases, as this would appear offensive.

During fall 2011 the Supreme Court issued a ruling, NJA 2011 s. 563, that changed the long-standing Swedish legal position. It stated that a drunken offender would now be assessed under normal liability rules and that an enlargement of criminal liability could no longer be justified. The ruling aroused great interest and the debate was a fact. Critics predicted, amongst other, that the ruling would bring unwanted consequences, as offenders would use the intoxication as an excuse in order to avoid penalty. Others claimed that the apprehensions are exaggerated and that the ruling instead brought clarity to a messy legal situation. The subsequent cases presented in the thesis shows that the ruling has had an impact and that ordinary liability procedure has been applied. What effect the ruling may have in the long term only time will tell. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Hillarp Ratkoceri, Milla LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
A more sober legal position? - Changed case law regarding self-induced intoxication
course
JURM02 20121
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Straffrätt, självförvållat rus, straffansvar, uppsåt, skuld, rättssäkerhet, konformitetsprincipen, täckningsprincipen, skuldprincipen, berusning, alkohol
language
Swedish
id
2541859
date added to LUP
2012-11-01 09:28:03
date last changed
2012-11-01 09:28:03
@misc{2541859,
  abstract     = {The issue of how legal liability should be assessed when a temporarily insane person commits a punishable offense is a classical problem within criminal law. How the Swedish law regards a state of confusion caused by intoxication will be examined in this thesis. More specifically what is the criminal liability regarding self-induced intoxication? Different interpretations expressed both in de lege lata and in de lege ferenda in the legal literature are presented. The legally skilled have, on numerous occasions, discussed whether or not it is justifiable to enlarge the liability for a person that by own fault has put themselves in a drunken state. Should motives of crime policy and efficiency be given precedency over rule of law-principles such as nulla poena sine culpa? The purpose of this thesis is to examine applicable law prior - as well as after - the ruling in NJA 2011 s. 563. 

The previously existing legal position stated that criminal liability was enlarged to a certain extent by the ability to waive criminal intent and negligence. This was clearly put in the legislative history of the Penal Code. There was however a lack of consensus in the legal literature regarding this interpretation of BrB 1:2 2nd paragraph. The opponents claimed that the regulation only should be seen as a reminder that intoxication shouldn’t function as a mitigating circumstance. The background to this was found in older regulations, which they meant was misinterpreted by the legislative history. Nevertheless, through NJA 1973 s. 590 it was found that an enlargement was to be considered as applicable law. The stance was questioned again as the ruling left unresolved questions of application: how should an enlargement be implemented, at what point was the offender intoxicated to the extent that an enlargement was relevant, and so on. The lack of legal certainty was reflected in the case law where support for different interpretations can be found: different types of enlargement and also assessments according to ordinary procedure. Some claim that the courts have been reluctant to modify guilt in most of the cases, as this would appear offensive. 
 
During fall 2011 the Supreme Court issued a ruling, NJA 2011 s. 563, that changed the long-standing Swedish legal position. It stated that a drunken offender would now be assessed under normal liability rules and that an enlargement of criminal liability could no longer be justified. The ruling aroused great interest and the debate was a fact. Critics predicted, amongst other, that the ruling would bring unwanted consequences, as offenders would use the intoxication as an excuse in order to avoid penalty. Others claimed that the apprehensions are exaggerated and that the ruling instead brought clarity to a messy legal situation. The subsequent cases presented in the thesis shows that the ruling has had an impact and that ordinary liability procedure has been applied. What effect the ruling may have in the long term only time will tell.},
  author       = {Hillarp Ratkoceri, Milla},
  keyword      = {Straffrätt,självförvållat rus,straffansvar,uppsåt,skuld,rättssäkerhet,konformitetsprincipen,täckningsprincipen,skuldprincipen,berusning,alkohol},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Ett nyktrare rättsläge? - Ändrad praxis vad gäller självförvållat rus},
  year         = {2012},
}