Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

När sinnet rinner bort - Uppsåtsbedömningen vid gärningar under självförvållat rus ur ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv

Pöpke, Tor LU (2013) LAGF03 20132
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Frågan om hur uppsåtsbedömningen ska göras på självförvållat berusade personer är erkänt problematisk, och de olika lösningar som finns tycks aldrig bereda en fullständig tillfredställelse. Just balansgången mellan å ena sidan effektivitetsskälen och å andra sidan rättsäkerheten har visat sig svår att gå, då de är två motstående intressen som båda behöver tillgodoses för att uppnå en fullgod lösning. Att HD i NJA 2011 s. 563 slog fast att uppsåtsbedömningen för berusade gärningsmän ska göras med tillämpning av vanliga regler är grunden för uppsatsens undersökning, och de frågor som har blivit utredda är vilka följder detta innebär för berusade gärningsmän och deras rättssäkerhet.
Det faktum att uppsåtsbedömningen vid självförvållat rus... (More)
Frågan om hur uppsåtsbedömningen ska göras på självförvållat berusade personer är erkänt problematisk, och de olika lösningar som finns tycks aldrig bereda en fullständig tillfredställelse. Just balansgången mellan å ena sidan effektivitetsskälen och å andra sidan rättsäkerheten har visat sig svår att gå, då de är två motstående intressen som båda behöver tillgodoses för att uppnå en fullgod lösning. Att HD i NJA 2011 s. 563 slog fast att uppsåtsbedömningen för berusade gärningsmän ska göras med tillämpning av vanliga regler är grunden för uppsatsens undersökning, och de frågor som har blivit utredda är vilka följder detta innebär för berusade gärningsmän och deras rättssäkerhet.
Det faktum att uppsåtsbedömningen vid självförvållat rus ska ske med tillämpning av vanliga regler har visat sig innebära att utrymmet för att tilldela en berusad person uppsåt är större än för en nykter. Att riktlinjerna för uppsåtsbedömningen är allmänna och alltså främst har utformats med en nykter persons handlande i åtanke är nämligen något som i vissa fall leder till att gärningsmannen döms för insikter han hade haft som nykter, men som han inte hade tillgång till i gärningstillfället.
Vidare lägger domstolen i bedömningen stor vikt vid gärningsmannens faktiska agerande i gärningstillfället, och mindre på att utreda i vilken grad han verkligen avsåg eller ens var införstådd med följderna. Visserligen kan det argumenteras för att en gärningsmans avsikter formas i de handlingar han utför, men i fallet med berusade gärningsmän är de inte på samma sätt införstådda med vad de gör, och en stark betoning på det faktiska agerandet innebär att den straffrättsliga skulden blir dispositionell snarare än episodisk.
Efter en genomgång av praxis går det således att konstatera att HD ur ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv inte förhållit sig lika konsekvent till skuldprincipen som de efter den förändrade synen på BrB 1:2 2 st. i NJA 2011 s. 563 velat ge sken av.
Åtminstone har HD tagit för lätt på rättspsykiatriska bedömningar, inte varit konsekventa i NJA 2011 s. 611, samt slirat lite på det nyligen introducerade kravet att gärningsmannen ska ha ”kalkylerat med effekten” för att ett likgiltighetsuppsåt ska föreligga. Likväl har HD på ett tydligt sätt avgränsat tillämpningen av likgiltighetsuppsåtet - för gärningar begångna av berusade såväl som av nyktra personer - något som i teorin måste ses som en form av garanti för rättssäkerheten i allmänhet, och för berusade personers rättssäkerhet i synnerhet. (Less)
Abstract
The question about how the subjective test of intention shall be done on self-induced intoxicated persons has been recognized as problematic, and the various solutions available never seem to give sufficient satisfaction. Especially the balancing act between so called efficiency reasons and on the other hand the rule of law has been proved difficult, as they are conflicting interests that both must be met to achieve a satisfactory solution. The Supreme court in Sweden’s (“Högsta domstolen”) pronunciation in NJA 2011 p 563 that the subjective test of intention by intoxicated offenders should be done by applying ordinary rules, forms the basis of this paper. The issues that have been investigated are which consequences this entails for... (More)
The question about how the subjective test of intention shall be done on self-induced intoxicated persons has been recognized as problematic, and the various solutions available never seem to give sufficient satisfaction. Especially the balancing act between so called efficiency reasons and on the other hand the rule of law has been proved difficult, as they are conflicting interests that both must be met to achieve a satisfactory solution. The Supreme court in Sweden’s (“Högsta domstolen”) pronunciation in NJA 2011 p 563 that the subjective test of intention by intoxicated offenders should be done by applying ordinary rules, forms the basis of this paper. The issues that have been investigated are which consequences this entails for intoxicated offenders and their legal certainty.
That the subjective test of intention by intoxicated offenders is done with an application of the ordinary rules, inevitably means that the space for assessing intention of an intoxicated person is greater than that of a sober.
The guidelines are general, and therefore primarily designed with a sober person's behaviour in mind, which in some cases leads to the offender being convicted because of retrospective insights he may have had after the fact and while sober, even though these were not available to him at the time of the deed.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court generally puts a strong emphasis on the offender’s actual conduct at the time of the deed, putting more weight on the demonstrable consequences of his actions and less weight on investigating the extent to which he really intended or was even able to perceive those consequences. It can certainly be argued that the intention of a person is formed in the factual actions he commits, but in the case of intoxicated offenders they are not aware of what they do in the same way as a sober person, and a strong emphasis on the actual behaviour means that the criminal liability becomes dispositional rather than episodic.
Upon review it can thus be concluded that the practices of the Supreme Court has not been quite as consistent in accordance with the guilt-principle as it would make it seem in NJA 2011 p 563. At the very least the Supreme Court has taken too lightly on forensic psychiatric assessments, as well as not having been consistent in the case NJA 2011 p 611. The Supreme Court has furthermore made a slip on the recently introduced requirement that the offender must have "calculated with the effect" if the indifference intention (“likgiltighetsuppsåt”) is to be actualized.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court clearly demarcated the application of the indifference intention - for acts committed by drunk as well as sober people - something that in theory should be seen as a form of guarantee for the rule of law in general, and for intoxicated offenders in particular. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Pöpke, Tor LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20132
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
straffrätt, självförvållat rus, berusning, uppsåt, uppsåtsbedömning, rättssäkerhet
language
Swedish
id
4228849
date added to LUP
2014-01-28 16:46:26
date last changed
2014-01-28 16:46:26
@misc{4228849,
  abstract     = {The question about how the subjective test of intention shall be done on self-induced intoxicated persons has been recognized as problematic, and the various solutions available never seem to give sufficient satisfaction. Especially the balancing act between so called efficiency reasons and on the other hand the rule of law has been proved difficult, as they are conflicting interests that both must be met to achieve a satisfactory solution. The Supreme court in Sweden’s (“Högsta domstolen”) pronunciation in NJA 2011 p 563 that the subjective test of intention by intoxicated offenders should be done by applying ordinary rules, forms the basis of this paper. The issues that have been investigated are which consequences this entails for intoxicated offenders and their legal certainty.
 That the subjective test of intention by intoxicated offenders is done with an application of the ordinary rules, inevitably means that the space for assessing intention of an intoxicated person is greater than that of a sober.
 The guidelines are general, and therefore primarily designed with a sober person's behaviour in mind, which in some cases leads to the offender being convicted because of retrospective insights he may have had after the fact and while sober, even though these were not available to him at the time of the deed.
 Furthermore, the Supreme Court generally puts a strong emphasis on the offender’s actual conduct at the time of the deed, putting more weight on the demonstrable consequences of his actions and less weight on investigating the extent to which he really intended or was even able to perceive those consequences. It can certainly be argued that the intention of a person is formed in the factual actions he commits, but in the case of intoxicated offenders they are not aware of what they do in the same way as a sober person, and a strong emphasis on the actual behaviour means that the criminal liability becomes dispositional rather than episodic.
 Upon review it can thus be concluded that the practices of the Supreme Court has not been quite as consistent in accordance with the guilt-principle as it would make it seem in NJA 2011 p 563. At the very least the Supreme Court has taken too lightly on forensic psychiatric assessments, as well as not having been consistent in the case NJA 2011 p 611. The Supreme Court has furthermore made a slip on the recently introduced requirement that the offender must have "calculated with the effect" if the indifference intention (“likgiltighetsuppsåt”) is to be actualized. 
 Nevertheless, the Supreme Court clearly demarcated the application of the indifference intention - for acts committed by drunk as well as sober people - something that in theory should be seen as a form of guarantee for the rule of law in general, and for intoxicated offenders in particular.},
  author       = {Pöpke, Tor},
  keyword      = {straffrätt,självförvållat rus,berusning,uppsåt,uppsåtsbedömning,rättssäkerhet},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {När sinnet rinner bort - Uppsåtsbedömningen vid gärningar under självförvållat rus ur ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv},
  year         = {2013},
}