2010 års straffmätningsreform utifrån ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv - Är bestämmelsen om synnerligen grov misshandel förutsebar?
(2014) JURM02 20141Department of Law
- Abstract
- In the year of 2010 the government implemented a criminal reform with the purpose of raising the punishments for the most severe crimes of violence. This reform involved, among other things, changes of the common rules of assessment of sentencing levels in chapter 29 BrB and a division of the rule about aggravated assault in chapter 3:6 § BrB. This division involved that the crime exceptional aggravated assault was introduced.
The government´s criminal reform has endured a lot of criticism. Above all has the criticism been directed at the technique of legislation chosen by the government. Many, among them the council of legislation, found that an increase in the severity of a penalty should be implemented through changes of the... (More) - In the year of 2010 the government implemented a criminal reform with the purpose of raising the punishments for the most severe crimes of violence. This reform involved, among other things, changes of the common rules of assessment of sentencing levels in chapter 29 BrB and a division of the rule about aggravated assault in chapter 3:6 § BrB. This division involved that the crime exceptional aggravated assault was introduced.
The government´s criminal reform has endured a lot of criticism. Above all has the criticism been directed at the technique of legislation chosen by the government. Many, among them the council of legislation, found that an increase in the severity of a penalty should be implemented through changes of the individual sentencing levels instead of chancing the common rules of assessment of sentencing levels in chapter 29 BrB. Also, the division of aggravated assault has been criticised. This criticism has among other things, been based on the fact that the rule of exceptional aggravated assault being unclear. In the essay this rule is analysed from a perspective on foreseeability.
In the essay the reader is also given an overall picture of the criminal reform of 2010. What does this reform mean for the foreseeability in criminal law? The conclusions the essay reaches are that the changes of the common rules of assessment of sentencing levels influences the foreseeability negatively. The main reason for this is that the law becomes misleading when the minimum punishment for severe crime of violence is only practised in mitigating circumstances after the reform. The division of severe assault involved that the new rule became unclear concerning the difference between severe and exceptional ruthlessness. The essay is discussing what this unclearness means for the foreseeability of the rule. The conclusions are that chapter 3:6 § BrB is lacking foreseeability. The unclearness of the rule may also lead to problems with the implementations made by the courts. The essay is pointing to the risk that similar cases can be treated in different ways and on the contrary, and the risk that the unclearness of the rule allows the courts to write their grounds of judgement in the same way. Therefor the essay comes to the conclusion that the reform of 2010 in some regards has decreased the foreseeability in the criminal legal system and that chapter 3:6 § BrB not can be considered as foreseeable. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- År 2010 genomförde regeringen en straffmätningsreform i syfte att höja straffen för de allvarligaste våldsbrotten. Denna reform innebar bl.a. ändringar av de allmänna reglerna om straffvärdesbedömning i 29 kap. BrB samt en uppdelning av bestämmelsen om grov misshandel i 3 kap. 6 § BrB. Denna uppdelning innebar att brottet synnerligen grov misshandel introducerades.
Regeringens straffmätningsreform har fått utstå en hel del kritik. Framförallt har kritik riktats mot den av regeringen valda lagstiftningstekniken. Många, däribland lagrådet, ansåg att en straffskärpning borde ha genomförts genom ändringar av de enskilda straffskalorna istället för att ändra i de allmänna bestämmelserna om straffvärde i 29 kap. BrB. Även uppdelningen av... (More) - År 2010 genomförde regeringen en straffmätningsreform i syfte att höja straffen för de allvarligaste våldsbrotten. Denna reform innebar bl.a. ändringar av de allmänna reglerna om straffvärdesbedömning i 29 kap. BrB samt en uppdelning av bestämmelsen om grov misshandel i 3 kap. 6 § BrB. Denna uppdelning innebar att brottet synnerligen grov misshandel introducerades.
Regeringens straffmätningsreform har fått utstå en hel del kritik. Framförallt har kritik riktats mot den av regeringen valda lagstiftningstekniken. Många, däribland lagrådet, ansåg att en straffskärpning borde ha genomförts genom ändringar av de enskilda straffskalorna istället för att ändra i de allmänna bestämmelserna om straffvärde i 29 kap. BrB. Även uppdelningen av grov misshandel har kritiserats, denna kritik har bl.a. gått ut på att bestämmelsen om synnerligen grov misshandel är otydlig. I uppsatsen analyseras 3 kap. 6 § BrB utifrån ett förutsebarhetsperspektiv.
I uppsatsen ges läsaren även en helhetsbild av 2010 års straffmätningsreform. Vad innebar denna reform för förutsebarheten inom straffrätten? De slutsatser som uppsatsen kommer fram till är att ändringen av de allmänna bestämmelserna om straffvärde påverkade förutsebarheten negativt. Den största anledningen till detta är att lagtexten blev missvisande då minimistraffen för de grova våldsbrotten endast tillämpas vid förmildrande omständigheter efter straffmätningsreformen. Uppdelningen av grov misshandel innebar att den nya bestämmelsen blev otydlig vad gäller skillnaden mellan särskild och synnerlig hänsynslöshet. I uppsatsen diskuteras vilka konsekvenser denna otydlighet får för förutsebarheten i bestämmelsen. Slutsatserna är att 3 kap. 6 § BrB brister i förutsebarhet. Bestämmelsens otydlighet kan även leda till problem i domstolarnas tillämpning. Uppsatsen pekar på risker med att lika fall kan behandlas olika och tvärtom samt risker med att bestämmelsens otydlighet tillåter domstolarna att skriva sina domskäl på samma sätt. Således kommer uppsatsen fram till att 2010 års straffmätningsreform i vissa hänseenden minskade förutsebarheten i straffsystemet och att 3 kap. 6 § BrB inte kan anses vara förutsebar. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4450859
- author
- Hermansson, Jakob LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- The criminal reform of 2010 from a perspective on foreseeability - Is the rule of exceptional aggravated assault unclear?
- course
- JURM02 20141
- year
- 2014
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- straffrätt, synnerligen grov misshandel, förutsebarhet
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 4450859
- date added to LUP
- 2014-06-12 08:43:46
- date last changed
- 2014-06-12 08:43:46
@misc{4450859,
abstract = {{In the year of 2010 the government implemented a criminal reform with the purpose of raising the punishments for the most severe crimes of violence. This reform involved, among other things, changes of the common rules of assessment of sentencing levels in chapter 29 BrB and a division of the rule about aggravated assault in chapter 3:6 § BrB. This division involved that the crime exceptional aggravated assault was introduced.
The government´s criminal reform has endured a lot of criticism. Above all has the criticism been directed at the technique of legislation chosen by the government. Many, among them the council of legislation, found that an increase in the severity of a penalty should be implemented through changes of the individual sentencing levels instead of chancing the common rules of assessment of sentencing levels in chapter 29 BrB. Also, the division of aggravated assault has been criticised. This criticism has among other things, been based on the fact that the rule of exceptional aggravated assault being unclear. In the essay this rule is analysed from a perspective on foreseeability.
In the essay the reader is also given an overall picture of the criminal reform of 2010. What does this reform mean for the foreseeability in criminal law? The conclusions the essay reaches are that the changes of the common rules of assessment of sentencing levels influences the foreseeability negatively. The main reason for this is that the law becomes misleading when the minimum punishment for severe crime of violence is only practised in mitigating circumstances after the reform. The division of severe assault involved that the new rule became unclear concerning the difference between severe and exceptional ruthlessness. The essay is discussing what this unclearness means for the foreseeability of the rule. The conclusions are that chapter 3:6 § BrB is lacking foreseeability. The unclearness of the rule may also lead to problems with the implementations made by the courts. The essay is pointing to the risk that similar cases can be treated in different ways and on the contrary, and the risk that the unclearness of the rule allows the courts to write their grounds of judgement in the same way. Therefor the essay comes to the conclusion that the reform of 2010 in some regards has decreased the foreseeability in the criminal legal system and that chapter 3:6 § BrB not can be considered as foreseeable.}},
author = {{Hermansson, Jakob}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{2010 års straffmätningsreform utifrån ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv - Är bestämmelsen om synnerligen grov misshandel förutsebar?}},
year = {{2014}},
}