Strafflindring vid provokativa åtgärder - En rättsideologisk analys med utgångspunkt i NJA 2011 s. 638
(2014) JURM02 20142Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Att polisen använder sig av provokativa åtgärder i brottsbekämpningen är i viss mån accepterat i Sverige. Brottsprovokation och bevisprovokation anses vara nödvändiga metoder för att bekämpa allvarlig och organiserad brottslighet och har blivit ett allt vanligare inslag i polisens arbete sedan början av 1980-talet. Sedan dess har även en förändring skett vad gäller inställningen till den provocerades straffrättsliga ansvar. Tidigare kunde provokativa åtgärder beaktas i den straffrättsliga prövningen endast i extrema fall av provokation, då polisen agerat uppenbart otillbörligt.
Efter ett antal domar från Europadomstolen, särskilt i fallet Teixeira de Castro mot Portugal, stod det klart att provokativa åtgärder som innehåller... (More) - Att polisen använder sig av provokativa åtgärder i brottsbekämpningen är i viss mån accepterat i Sverige. Brottsprovokation och bevisprovokation anses vara nödvändiga metoder för att bekämpa allvarlig och organiserad brottslighet och har blivit ett allt vanligare inslag i polisens arbete sedan början av 1980-talet. Sedan dess har även en förändring skett vad gäller inställningen till den provocerades straffrättsliga ansvar. Tidigare kunde provokativa åtgärder beaktas i den straffrättsliga prövningen endast i extrema fall av provokation, då polisen agerat uppenbart otillbörligt.
Efter ett antal domar från Europadomstolen, särskilt i fallet Teixeira de Castro mot Portugal, stod det klart att provokativa åtgärder som innehåller otillbörliga inslag kan innebära en kränkning av den misstänktes rättigheter enligt artikel 6 i Europakonventionen. Efter dessa avgöranden har flera svenska fall av provokation prövats i högre instanser i ljuset av Europakonventionen. Idag är ett möjligt resultat av en otillbörlig provokation att den tilltalade medges strafflindring enligt 29 kap. 5 § BrB, på grund av att dennes rättigheter enligt artikel 6 i Europakonventionen har kränkts. Om rätten till en rättvis rättegång blivit oåterkalleligen undergrävd kan dock inte strafflindring bli aktuellt, då åtalet i en sådan situation ska lämnas utan bifall.
I denna uppsats undersöks förutsättningarna för att strafflindring ska medges då en otillbörlig provokation förekommit, samt vilka argument som presenterats för en sådan lösning. Jag undersöker även de rättsideologiska syftena bakom såväl straffet i stort som strafflindringsgrunderna i 29 kap. 5 § BrB. I analysen diskuteras om inte strafflindring vid provokativa åtgärder rimmar illa med de rättsfilosofiska syftena bakom straffet. Jag argumenterar även för att det i den straffrättsliga bedömningen bör göras en tydligare åtskillnad mellan å ena sidan bevisprovokation och å andra sidan brottsprovokation. (Less) - Abstract
- The use of provocative investigative measures is in Sweden an accepted method in the control of crime. These measures are considered to be essential parts in the fight against serious and organized criminality and have become a more commonly used instrument for the police since the early 1980’s. Since then, there has been a change concerning how a criminal is treated legally after being subject to provocative investigative measures. Before, such measures could affect the legal responsibility for the criminal only in extreme cases, when the police had acted evidentially inappropriate.
After a number of judgements from the European court of human rights, especially the case Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, it was clarified that provocative... (More) - The use of provocative investigative measures is in Sweden an accepted method in the control of crime. These measures are considered to be essential parts in the fight against serious and organized criminality and have become a more commonly used instrument for the police since the early 1980’s. Since then, there has been a change concerning how a criminal is treated legally after being subject to provocative investigative measures. Before, such measures could affect the legal responsibility for the criminal only in extreme cases, when the police had acted evidentially inappropriate.
After a number of judgements from the European court of human rights, especially the case Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, it was clarified that provocative investigative measures in some cases can cause a violation of the criminal’s right to a fair trial according to article 6 in the European convention on human rights. Since these judgements, a number of cases concerning provocative investigative measures have been brought before Swedish courts. Today, a possible result of an inappropriate provocative measure is that the criminal’s sentence is reduced according to chapter 29 paragraph 5 in the Swedish penal code, due to a violation of article 6 in the convention. However, if the right to a fair trial is violated beyond recall, the criminal shall not be held legally responsible at all.
In this essay I investigate the conditions for the reduction of sentence due to provocative investigative measures, and what arguments that have been presented in favour of this solution. I also look at the ideological purposes behind the punishment as such (in Sweden), as well as behind the possibility to reduce the sentence. In the analysis, I argue that the reduction of sentence due to investigative provocative measures do not correspond with these ideological purposes. I also argue for a more explicit distinction between such provocative measures that impel someone to commit a crime and such that aim to reveal already committed criminal acts. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4914259
- author
- Thelvén, Frida LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Reduction of sentence due to provocative investigative measures - An ideological analysis based on the case NJA 2011 s. 638
- course
- JURM02 20142
- year
- 2014
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- provokativa åtgärder, strafflindring, Straffrätt, bevisprovokation, brottsprovokation
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 4914259
- date added to LUP
- 2015-01-23 13:15:45
- date last changed
- 2015-01-23 13:15:45
@misc{4914259,
abstract = {{The use of provocative investigative measures is in Sweden an accepted method in the control of crime. These measures are considered to be essential parts in the fight against serious and organized criminality and have become a more commonly used instrument for the police since the early 1980’s. Since then, there has been a change concerning how a criminal is treated legally after being subject to provocative investigative measures. Before, such measures could affect the legal responsibility for the criminal only in extreme cases, when the police had acted evidentially inappropriate.
After a number of judgements from the European court of human rights, especially the case Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, it was clarified that provocative investigative measures in some cases can cause a violation of the criminal’s right to a fair trial according to article 6 in the European convention on human rights. Since these judgements, a number of cases concerning provocative investigative measures have been brought before Swedish courts. Today, a possible result of an inappropriate provocative measure is that the criminal’s sentence is reduced according to chapter 29 paragraph 5 in the Swedish penal code, due to a violation of article 6 in the convention. However, if the right to a fair trial is violated beyond recall, the criminal shall not be held legally responsible at all.
In this essay I investigate the conditions for the reduction of sentence due to provocative investigative measures, and what arguments that have been presented in favour of this solution. I also look at the ideological purposes behind the punishment as such (in Sweden), as well as behind the possibility to reduce the sentence. In the analysis, I argue that the reduction of sentence due to investigative provocative measures do not correspond with these ideological purposes. I also argue for a more explicit distinction between such provocative measures that impel someone to commit a crime and such that aim to reveal already committed criminal acts.}},
author = {{Thelvén, Frida}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Strafflindring vid provokativa åtgärder - En rättsideologisk analys med utgångspunkt i NJA 2011 s. 638}},
year = {{2014}},
}