Advanced

Straffvärde och proportionalitet

Andersson, Peter LU (2012) JURM02 20121
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Från början av 1990- talet har straffrättsbedömningen gått från att vara inriktad på allmän prevention och individuella omständigheter till att vara kopplad till brottet och vad som anses vara rättvist. En rättvisebedömning kan skilja sig på många sätt, därför finns det strukturer för domstolen hur handlingar ska värderas och vilka omständigheter som ska anses vara av betydelse. En bedömning av straffvärdet för ett specifikt brott är aldrig absolut men ett straffvärde kan alltid argumenteras vara korrekt. För att göra detta använder sig domstolen av de förarbeten och den praxis som finns på området. ”lika straff ska bedömas lika” och ”olika straff bedömas olika”
En av omständigheterna domstolen använder sig av är standardmodeller. Vissa... (More)
Från början av 1990- talet har straffrättsbedömningen gått från att vara inriktad på allmän prevention och individuella omständigheter till att vara kopplad till brottet och vad som anses vara rättvist. En rättvisebedömning kan skilja sig på många sätt, därför finns det strukturer för domstolen hur handlingar ska värderas och vilka omständigheter som ska anses vara av betydelse. En bedömning av straffvärdet för ett specifikt brott är aldrig absolut men ett straffvärde kan alltid argumenteras vara korrekt. För att göra detta använder sig domstolen av de förarbeten och den praxis som finns på området. ”lika straff ska bedömas lika” och ”olika straff bedömas olika”
En av omständigheterna domstolen använder sig av är standardmodeller. Vissa omständigheter så som livsfarligt vapen eller användandet av kniv anses ha ett visst straffvärde, domstol kan senare beakta omständigheterna i fallet gentemot standardmodellen för att jämföra. Med tiden uppkommer en bred praxis som gör det lättare för domstolen att beakta allt mer detaljrikt och bli säkrare på bedömningen. År 2007 gjordes ändringar i straffvärdesbedömningen, genom att man ansåg att straffvärdet var för lågt och skulle ökas. Detta för att våldsbrott generellt i dagens samhälle åsamkar mer skada än bara den fysiska. Genom att ändra straffvärdesbedömningen och straffskalorna ville man åstadkomma en bedömning som utnyttjade straffskalan på ett mer omfångsrikt sätt och där vissa våldsbrott ledde till en högre påföljd.
Med ändringen uppkommer även frågeställningar för hur den nya bedömningen ska passa in med proportionalitetsprincipen och legalitetsprincipen. Det är upp till domstolen att bedöma straffvärdet men det krävs att domstolen kan införskaffa sådan information för att på säkraste sätt göra en korrekt bedömning. Nya ändringar innebär en tröskeleffekt som gör det svårt att tyda äldre praxis, men innan en stor mängd rättsfall har skapat nya normer måste domstolen försöka finna rätt ingångsvärden. För att göra detta krävs det en diskussion om vilka omständigheter som får betydelse och vad som ska bedömas med ett större straffvärde. Påföljdssystemet idag består av förmildrande omständigheter och betungande men dessa används ytterst sällan. Domsluten sker ex officio och därför kan domskälen bli väldigt innehållsfattiga. Detta gör att proportionalitet och legalitetsprincipen försvagas och gör utgångarna i mål lite mer ovissa. För att undvika detta hade tydligare processregler kunnat förhindra att domstolen måste göra enskilda tolkningar i blindo samt ökat diskussionen om vad som är ett korrekt straffvärde. (Less)
Abstract
From the beginning of the 1990 - century penal assessment went from being focused on general prevention and individual circumstances to be linked to the crime and what is considered fair. There are structures on how the court should value the documents, and which factors that should be considered to be of importance, thus, a fair assessment can differ in many ways.
An assessment of the penalty for a particular crime is never absolute but a penalty can always be argued to be correct. In order to do this, the court takes use of the preparatory work and the established practices in the area i.e. “Equal penalties should be assessed as equal” and “different penalties should be assessed as different”.
The court uses standard models to assess... (More)
From the beginning of the 1990 - century penal assessment went from being focused on general prevention and individual circumstances to be linked to the crime and what is considered fair. There are structures on how the court should value the documents, and which factors that should be considered to be of importance, thus, a fair assessment can differ in many ways.
An assessment of the penalty for a particular crime is never absolute but a penalty can always be argued to be correct. In order to do this, the court takes use of the preparatory work and the established practices in the area i.e. “Equal penalties should be assessed as equal” and “different penalties should be assessed as different”.
The court uses standard models to assess the circumstances. Certain circumstances, such as use of a deadly weapon or the use of a knife, is considered to result in a certain penalty, the court then compare the facts of the case against the standard model, to further assess the penalty. Over time the courts produces a vast spectra of precedents, which helps the court's to assess all the details of a case and thus deliver a safer and more established sentence.
Over time, producing a wide practices that make it easier for the court to consider more detail and be safer on the assessment. In 2007, changes were made in the penalty assessment by considering that sentences were too low and should be increased. The reason to this was due to the fact that violent crimes in general in our society cause more damages than just the physical. By changing the penalty assessment and the punishments they wanted to produce an assessment that took advantage of the range of penalties in a more voluminous way, and in which certain violent crimes led to a higher penalty.
The amendment also raised questions of how the new assessment should fit in with the principle of proportionality and legality. It is up to the court to assess the seriousness of the offense, but it is required of the court to obtain the information needed to make a proper assessment of the offense. Recent changes is a threshold effect that makes it difficult to decipher old precedents, but before a large amount of case law has created new standards the court must try to find the correct input values. This requires a discussion of the factors that may be important and what is to be considered as a major penalty. The disciplinary system today consists of mitigating circumstances and burdensome but these are extremely rare. Judgments are made ex officio and therefore lack explanation on how the court reasoned. This means that the proportionality and legality weakens and makes the verdicts in cases more uncertain. Clearer procedural rules would prevent the court from making individual interpretations in the dark and it would also increase the discussion of what a proper penalty is. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Andersson, Peter LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Punishment and desert theory
course
JURM02 20121
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Straffvärde, proportionalitet, straffvärdesbedömning, legalitet
language
Swedish
id
3129847
date added to LUP
2013-07-23 09:20:42
date last changed
2013-07-23 09:20:42
@misc{3129847,
  abstract     = {From the beginning of the 1990 - century penal assessment went from being focused on general prevention and individual circumstances to be linked to the crime and what is considered fair. There are structures on how the court should value the documents, and which factors that should be considered to be of importance, thus, a fair assessment can differ in many ways. 
An assessment of the penalty for a particular crime is never absolute but a penalty can always be argued to be correct. In order to do this, the court takes use of the preparatory work and the established practices in the area i.e. “Equal penalties should be assessed as equal” and “different penalties should be assessed as different”. 
The court uses standard models to assess the circumstances. Certain circumstances, such as use of a deadly weapon or the use of a knife, is considered to result in a certain penalty, the court then compare the facts of the case against the standard model, to further assess the penalty. Over time the courts produces a vast spectra of precedents, which helps the court's to assess all the details of a case and thus deliver a safer and more established sentence.
Over time, producing a wide practices that make it easier for the court to consider more detail and be safer on the assessment. In 2007, changes were made in the penalty assessment by considering that sentences were too low and should be increased. The reason to this was due to the fact that violent crimes in general in our society cause more damages than just the physical. By changing the penalty assessment and the punishments they wanted to produce an assessment that took advantage of the range of penalties in a more voluminous way, and in which certain violent crimes led to a higher penalty.
The amendment also raised questions of how the new assessment should fit in with the principle of proportionality and legality. It is up to the court to assess the seriousness of the offense, but it is required of the court to obtain the information needed to make a proper assessment of the offense. Recent changes is a threshold effect that makes it difficult to decipher old precedents, but before a large amount of case law has created new standards the court must try to find the correct input values. This requires a discussion of the factors that may be important and what is to be considered as a major penalty. The disciplinary system today consists of mitigating circumstances and burdensome but these are extremely rare. Judgments are made ex officio and therefore lack explanation on how the court reasoned. This means that the proportionality and legality weakens and makes the verdicts in cases more uncertain. Clearer procedural rules would prevent the court from making individual interpretations in the dark and it would also increase the discussion of what a proper penalty is.},
  author       = {Andersson, Peter},
  keyword      = {Straffvärde,proportionalitet,straffvärdesbedömning,legalitet},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Straffvärde och proportionalitet},
  year         = {2012},
}