Finns det någon här som är ansvarig? - En historia om skuld, tillräknelighet och fri vilja
(2013) JURM02 20131Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Att straff förutsätter skuld är en princip som kan härledas till antiken. Det klassiska ansvarsbegreppet grundar sig också på denna princip. I lagteknisk mening innebär oftast vidmakthållandet av skuldprincipen att strafflagen stipulerar att tillräknelighet är ett krav för straffbarhet. Det svenska straffrättsliga systemet är emellertid, i stort sett, unikt i världen genom att brottsbalken inte innehåller ett tillräknelighetskrav. I den gamla strafflagen var ansvarsbegreppet precis som i det flesta andra rättsordningar klassiskt. Under 1900-talets första hälft började begreppen skuld och tillräknelighet emellertid att ifrågasättas i den svenska debatten. Reformivrarna, som tagit intryck av de italienska kriminologerna, menade att... (More)
- Att straff förutsätter skuld är en princip som kan härledas till antiken. Det klassiska ansvarsbegreppet grundar sig också på denna princip. I lagteknisk mening innebär oftast vidmakthållandet av skuldprincipen att strafflagen stipulerar att tillräknelighet är ett krav för straffbarhet. Det svenska straffrättsliga systemet är emellertid, i stort sett, unikt i världen genom att brottsbalken inte innehåller ett tillräknelighetskrav. I den gamla strafflagen var ansvarsbegreppet precis som i det flesta andra rättsordningar klassiskt. Under 1900-talets första hälft började begreppen skuld och tillräknelighet emellertid att ifrågasättas i den svenska debatten. Reformivrarna, som tagit intryck av de italienska kriminologerna, menade att skuldbegreppet var metafysiskt och gav uttryck för en omodern moraluppfattning. Istället förordades att brottets moraliska dimensioner skulle överges, fokus skulle i stället placeras på brottslingen och straffsystemet skulle vara utformat för att, på bästa möjliga sätt, tillgodose de vårdbehov som var enskild lagöverträdare kunde tänkas ha. Tankegodset fick stor påverkan på den slutliga utformningen av brottsbalken och det svenska systemet blev unikt. I och med att tillräknelighetsbedömningen flyttades till påföljdsdelen genom det nya fängelseförbudet blev effekten att samtliga lagöverträdare åläggs skuld om uppsåtet eller oaktsamheten kan bevisas. Föreligger vårdbehov inträder istället tillräkneligheten vid påföljdsbedömningen.
Under 1900-talets senare hälft har emellertid denna unika rättsordning ifrågasatts och behandlingsideologin har ansetts misslyckad. Det klassiska ansvarsbegreppet har med andra ord fått en renässans i Sverige. Återgången till de äldre tankegodsen understryks i psykansvarskommittén senaste betänkande SOU 2012:17. I förslaget, som är omfattande, föreslås att det svenska straffrättsliga systemet åter ska innehålla ett primärt krav på tillräknelighet. Om en tilltalad bedöms vara otillräknelig, i enlighet med den föreslagna regleringen, ska den tilltalade vara fri från påföljd.
I diskussionen om skuld och tillräknelighet ligger ett antal filosofiska grundproblem. Ytterst handlar frågan om existensen av en fri vilja hos människan. Vidare aktualiseras frågan oftast när en psykiskt sjuk individ begår brott mot liv och hälsa. Den straffrättsliga bedömningen blir då avhängig av hur den rättspsykiatriska expertisen bedömer graden av allvarlighet rörande den psykiska sjukdomen. Framställningen nedan behandlar och diskuterar alla dessa perspektiv på straffrätten. (Less) - Abstract
- That punishment presupposes guilt is a principle that can be traced to ancient Greece. The classical concept of responsibility is also based on this principle. In a legal technical sense this usually means that the criminal legislation in question stipulates that accountability is a requirement for a deed to be viewed as criminal. The Swedish criminal justice system is, however, unique in the world since the Swedish Penal Code does not contain a rule of accountability. In the old Penal Code was the concept of responsibility the same as in most other jurisdictions. However, during the first half of 20th century the concepts of guilt and accountability became questioned in the Swedish debate. The reformers, who were inspired by the Italian... (More)
- That punishment presupposes guilt is a principle that can be traced to ancient Greece. The classical concept of responsibility is also based on this principle. In a legal technical sense this usually means that the criminal legislation in question stipulates that accountability is a requirement for a deed to be viewed as criminal. The Swedish criminal justice system is, however, unique in the world since the Swedish Penal Code does not contain a rule of accountability. In the old Penal Code was the concept of responsibility the same as in most other jurisdictions. However, during the first half of 20th century the concepts of guilt and accountability became questioned in the Swedish debate. The reformers, who were inspired by the Italian criminologists, identified that the concept of guilt was metaphysical and expressed an outdated morality. Instead, it was proposed that the moral dimensions of the Penal Code should be abandoned. The focus should instead be placed on the individual offender and the needs that each individual might have. The penal system was to be reformed and designed in that sense. The new ideas had a major impact on the final design of the new Penal Code. The current Swedish Penal Code is, because of that, a compromise between a classic concept of responsibility and modern sociological movement. The criminal offender is imposed guilt regardless of the existence of mental illness. If the offender has need for psychiatric care, he is sentenced to it.
During the second half of the 20th century this unique legal system became challenged and the treatment ideology was deemed as a failure. The classical concept of responsibility has thus undergone a renaissance in Sweden. The return to the classical view is underlined in the most recent report SOU 2012:17. The proposal, which is extensive, proposes that the Swedish criminal justice system once again ought to contain accountability as a primary requirement for punishment. If a defendant, according to the proposed rules, isn’t imposed responsibility for his actions, is then free from penalty.
The discussion of criminal guilt and accountability underlines a number of philosophical problems. Ultimately, the question concerning the free will of man comes into play. Furthermore, the problem most often occurs when a mentally ill person commits a severe crime. The criminal assessment will then depend on how the forensic psychiatric expertise assesses the degree of seriousness regarding the mental illness. The presented thesis below discusses each of these perspectives on criminal law. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/3800484
- author
- Anesäter, Viktor LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Who is responsible? - A study of criminal guilt, accountability and free will
- course
- JURM02 20131
- year
- 2013
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- straffrätt, psykisk störning, tillräknelighet, skuld
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 3800484
- date added to LUP
- 2013-06-13 15:35:32
- date last changed
- 2013-06-13 15:35:32
@misc{3800484,
abstract = {{That punishment presupposes guilt is a principle that can be traced to ancient Greece. The classical concept of responsibility is also based on this principle. In a legal technical sense this usually means that the criminal legislation in question stipulates that accountability is a requirement for a deed to be viewed as criminal. The Swedish criminal justice system is, however, unique in the world since the Swedish Penal Code does not contain a rule of accountability. In the old Penal Code was the concept of responsibility the same as in most other jurisdictions. However, during the first half of 20th century the concepts of guilt and accountability became questioned in the Swedish debate. The reformers, who were inspired by the Italian criminologists, identified that the concept of guilt was metaphysical and expressed an outdated morality. Instead, it was proposed that the moral dimensions of the Penal Code should be abandoned. The focus should instead be placed on the individual offender and the needs that each individual might have. The penal system was to be reformed and designed in that sense. The new ideas had a major impact on the final design of the new Penal Code. The current Swedish Penal Code is, because of that, a compromise between a classic concept of responsibility and modern sociological movement. The criminal offender is imposed guilt regardless of the existence of mental illness. If the offender has need for psychiatric care, he is sentenced to it.
During the second half of the 20th century this unique legal system became challenged and the treatment ideology was deemed as a failure. The classical concept of responsibility has thus undergone a renaissance in Sweden. The return to the classical view is underlined in the most recent report SOU 2012:17. The proposal, which is extensive, proposes that the Swedish criminal justice system once again ought to contain accountability as a primary requirement for punishment. If a defendant, according to the proposed rules, isn’t imposed responsibility for his actions, is then free from penalty.
The discussion of criminal guilt and accountability underlines a number of philosophical problems. Ultimately, the question concerning the free will of man comes into play. Furthermore, the problem most often occurs when a mentally ill person commits a severe crime. The criminal assessment will then depend on how the forensic psychiatric expertise assesses the degree of seriousness regarding the mental illness. The presented thesis below discusses each of these perspectives on criminal law.}},
author = {{Anesäter, Viktor}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Finns det någon här som är ansvarig? - En historia om skuld, tillräknelighet och fri vilja}},
year = {{2013}},
}