Advanced

Underlåtenhetens ansvarsformer - till frågan om underlåtenhetsansvarets systematik

Bergkvist, Tor LU (2014) JURM01 20141
Department of Law
Abstract
The concepts of ‘authentic’ and ‘inauthentic’ crimes of omission have been frequently used by Swedish criminal law writers during the larger part of the last century. As of today, these concepts tend to be essential for the representation of criminal responsibility for omissions in the legal literature. Their importance cannot be understated, especially since the requirement of a ‘special duty to act’ (cf special legal duty), only applicable to certain crimes of omission, tend to be associated with the concept of inauthentic omissions (cf commission by omission).

Despite this, there has been no agreement on the definitions of the concepts of authentic and inauthentic crimes of omission. In addition, the criminal literature lacks an... (More)
The concepts of ‘authentic’ and ‘inauthentic’ crimes of omission have been frequently used by Swedish criminal law writers during the larger part of the last century. As of today, these concepts tend to be essential for the representation of criminal responsibility for omissions in the legal literature. Their importance cannot be understated, especially since the requirement of a ‘special duty to act’ (cf special legal duty), only applicable to certain crimes of omission, tend to be associated with the concept of inauthentic omissions (cf commission by omission).

Despite this, there has been no agreement on the definitions of the concepts of authentic and inauthentic crimes of omission. In addition, the criminal literature lacks an understanding of the function of this differentiation between separate forms of omission liability. Neither has one agreed upon the requirements for the definition of the distinctive forms of liability. In this thesis an attempt is made to clarify the possible functions and to make suggestions for the needed requirements. Moreover, an effort is made to construct such different forms of omission liability that complies with the preferred function and requirements.

The conclusion is that the legal literature has a much greater role to play than might be expected. It is not only able to identify separate forms of omission liability but also, by defining the involved concepts, to modify the extension of criminal responsibility for omissions. No adequate forms of responsibility could however be inferred more directly from the investigated legal sources. Future studies should aim to further develop current law and its categories of omission responsibility, by incorporating a normative perspective on omission liability and its different shapes. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Under stora delar av det senaste århundradet har indelningen i ‘äkta’ och ‘oäkta’ underlåtenhetsbrott varit frekvent förkommande inom den svenska straffrättsvetenskapen. De moderna standardverken, inom straffrättens allmänna del, tenderar till och med att bygga upp sin presentation av underlåtenhetsansvaret kring en dylik indelning. Dessutom associeras det för underlåtenhetsansvar stundvis tillkommande kravet på en ’särskild handlingsplikt’ (idag typiskt sett en garantställning) ofta med att fråga är om ett ’oäkta underlåtenhetsbrott’.

Trots att indelningen således har en mycket central roll att spela så saknas det än idag någon vedertagen, enhetlig, definition av underlåtenhetens ansvarsformer. Inte heller har frågan undersökts om... (More)
Under stora delar av det senaste århundradet har indelningen i ‘äkta’ och ‘oäkta’ underlåtenhetsbrott varit frekvent förkommande inom den svenska straffrättsvetenskapen. De moderna standardverken, inom straffrättens allmänna del, tenderar till och med att bygga upp sin presentation av underlåtenhetsansvaret kring en dylik indelning. Dessutom associeras det för underlåtenhetsansvar stundvis tillkommande kravet på en ’särskild handlingsplikt’ (idag typiskt sett en garantställning) ofta med att fråga är om ett ’oäkta underlåtenhetsbrott’.

Trots att indelningen således har en mycket central roll att spela så saknas det än idag någon vedertagen, enhetlig, definition av underlåtenhetens ansvarsformer. Inte heller har frågan undersökts om vilken funktion dylika indelningar kan fylla, vilken roll de bör eftersträva att spela, eller vilka krav som i övrigt bör uppställas på en rättsvetenskaplig definition av underlåtenhetens ansvarsformer. I denna framställning görs därför ett försök att såväl besvara dessa frågor som att konstruera sådana ansvarsformer som motsvarar en uppställd idealmodell.

Av undersökningen framkommer sammanfattningsvis att rättsvetenskapen har en mycket central roll att spela på underlåtenhetsansvarets område. Genom att dela in underlåtenhetsansvaret i olika former har man inte bara möjlighet att förtydliga hur existerande ansvarsformer ser ut. I själva verket kan och bör man, genom att bilda begrepp såsom ’äkta’ och ’oäkta underlåtenhetsbrott’, även bidra till att definiera underlåtenhetsansvarets omfattning. Analysen av rättskällematerialet leder dock inte mer omedelbart fram till någon sådan begreppsbildning som uppfyller de uppställda önskemålen på en indelning. Istället bör framtida studier anlägga ett mer normativt perspektiv på underlåtenhetsansvarets lämpliga omfattning och dess former, i syfte att fullfölja klassificeringen. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Bergkvist, Tor LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Criminal Responsibility for Omissions - A Conceptual Analysis
course
JURM01 20141
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
straffrätt, allmän rättslära, underlåtenhet, begrepp
language
Swedish
id
4360227
date added to LUP
2014-04-08 08:03:49
date last changed
2014-04-08 08:03:49
@misc{4360227,
  abstract     = {The concepts of ‘authentic’ and ‘inauthentic’ crimes of omission have been frequently used by Swedish criminal law writers during the larger part of the last century. As of today, these concepts tend to be essential for the representation of criminal responsibility for omissions in the legal literature. Their importance cannot be understated, especially since the requirement of a ‘special duty to act’ (cf special legal duty), only applicable to certain crimes of omission, tend to be associated with the concept of inauthentic omissions (cf commission by omission). 

Despite this, there has been no agreement on the definitions of the concepts of authentic and inauthentic crimes of omission. In addition, the criminal literature lacks an understanding of the function of this differentiation between separate forms of omission liability. Neither has one agreed upon the requirements for the definition of the distinctive forms of liability. In this thesis an attempt is made to clarify the possible functions and to make suggestions for the needed requirements. Moreover, an effort is made to construct such different forms of omission liability that complies with the preferred function and requirements. 

The conclusion is that the legal literature has a much greater role to play than might be expected. It is not only able to identify separate forms of omission liability but also, by defining the involved concepts, to modify the extension of criminal responsibility for omissions. No adequate forms of responsibility could however be inferred more directly from the investigated legal sources. Future studies should aim to further develop current law and its categories of omission responsibility, by incorporating a normative perspective on omission liability and its different shapes.},
  author       = {Bergkvist, Tor},
  keyword      = {straffrätt,allmän rättslära,underlåtenhet,begrepp},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Underlåtenhetens ansvarsformer - till frågan om underlåtenhetsansvarets systematik},
  year         = {2014},
}