Advanced

Straffrättslig reglering av diskriminering? Hatbrott och strukturer

Forsblad, Ellen LU (2016) JURM02 20161
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Ett hatbrott är något utöver andra brottsliga gärningar. Hatbrott bygger på sociala kategoriseringar i negativ bemärkelse, där gärningspersonens upp-fattning om rättsskyddsubjektet som normbrytande leder till ett brottsligt angrepp. Sociala kategoriseringar speglar bakomliggande samhällsstrukturer, och gärningen drabbar indirekt hela den grupp som individen anses tillhöra. Den här uppsatsen syftar främst till att utreda och problematisera hatbrottets rättsliga konstruktion i en svensk straffrättslig kontext, men i uppsatsen utreds också vem som är att anse som skyddsvärd och hur den rättsliga diskursen om hatbrott ser ut. Tyngdpunkten ligger på straffskärpningsregeln i 29 kap. 2 § 7 p. BrB. Regeln innebär att straffvärdet för en gärning... (More)
Ett hatbrott är något utöver andra brottsliga gärningar. Hatbrott bygger på sociala kategoriseringar i negativ bemärkelse, där gärningspersonens upp-fattning om rättsskyddsubjektet som normbrytande leder till ett brottsligt angrepp. Sociala kategoriseringar speglar bakomliggande samhällsstrukturer, och gärningen drabbar indirekt hela den grupp som individen anses tillhöra. Den här uppsatsen syftar främst till att utreda och problematisera hatbrottets rättsliga konstruktion i en svensk straffrättslig kontext, men i uppsatsen utreds också vem som är att anse som skyddsvärd och hur den rättsliga diskursen om hatbrott ser ut. Tyngdpunkten ligger på straffskärpningsregeln i 29 kap. 2 § 7 p. BrB. Regeln innebär att straffvärdet för en gärning ska höjas om det förelegat ett hatbrottsmotiv. För att kunna problematisera och nyansera förståelsen av hatbrott i svensk straffrätt tillämpas intersektionell teori.

I svensk rätt hanteras hatbrott som motivbrottslighet genom det som i dagligt tal kallas för hatbrottsbestämmelserna. Hatbrottsbestämmelserna består av hets mot folkgrupp 16 kap. 8 § BrB, olaga diskriminering 16 kap. 9 § BrB och straffskärpningsregeln. Till följd av reglernas utformning som motivbrott är de svårtillämpade. Det är svårt att bevisa att en specifik gärning har begåtts på grund av ett visst motiv. Rättssystemet är således inte rustat för att hantera brottslighet som kan kopplas till bakomliggande strukturer, särskilt inte om personen blir kränkt för att hen uppfattas tillhöra mer än en skyddsvärd grupp.

För att beskriva hur domstolen talar om personen som utsatts för ett hatbrott, gärningspersonen och gärningspersonens motiv används kritisk diskursanalys. En diskurs är ett sätt att tala om något, som ger betydelse åt upplevelser utifrån ett bestämt perspektiv. Diskursanalys har gjorts av elva domar där hatbrottsmotiv har aktualiserats och sex diskurser har identifierats. Bland dessa framkom bland annat hur domstolen avgränsar beskrivningar av händelseförloppen på ett sådant sätt att det inte går att koppla motivet till gärningen. Det kallar jag diskursen om det neutrala motivet. Vidare handlar diskursen om det typiska hatbrottsmotivet om att domstolen har lättare att identifiera ett hatbrott om det uppfyller stereotypa förväntningar på vad ett hatbrott är. Om domstolen identifierar ett motiv utöver hatbrottsmotivet, eller en alternativ förklaring till varför en viss gärning har begåtts, så bortser domstolen från hatbrottsmotivet. Det benämns som diskursen om konflikten eller den brottsliga gärningens upprinnelse. Sammantaget visar diskursanalysen att domstolen döljer sin position och sina utgångspunkter. Utgångspunkterna består i att gärningar begås av autonoma individer opåverkade av strukturer och att brottslighet som kan kopplas till strukturer svårligen kan hanteras i det straffrättsliga systemet. (Less)
Abstract
Hate crimes are predicated on different motives than ‘other’ criminal offenses. Hate crimes are based on social categories in a negative sense, where the offense is committed due to the perpetrator’s prejudice or bias against a group of people. This type of prejudice reflects underlying social structures. This thesis aims primarily to investigate and review hate crime as a legal construction in a Swedish criminal context, but will also investigate which groups of individual are regarded to be worthy of protection as well as the legal discourse of hate crime. The emphasis is laid on the so-called straff¬skärpning rule in Chapter 29, section 2 of the Penal Code. It stipulates that the punishment for any crime should be more severe if it is... (More)
Hate crimes are predicated on different motives than ‘other’ criminal offenses. Hate crimes are based on social categories in a negative sense, where the offense is committed due to the perpetrator’s prejudice or bias against a group of people. This type of prejudice reflects underlying social structures. This thesis aims primarily to investigate and review hate crime as a legal construction in a Swedish criminal context, but will also investigate which groups of individual are regarded to be worthy of protection as well as the legal discourse of hate crime. The emphasis is laid on the so-called straff¬skärpning rule in Chapter 29, section 2 of the Penal Code. It stipulates that the punishment for any crime should be more severe if it is shown that a person was motivated by prejudice when committing the crime. In order to gain a nuanced understanding of hate crime in Swedish criminal law, an inter¬sectional theory is applied throughout the thesis. Intersectionality is a way of understanding how social identities and systems of oppression intersect.

There is no explicit ‘hate crime’ provision in Swedish criminal law, but there are three provisions that are known as the hate crime provisions. They consist of: hate speech, unlawful discrimination and the straffskärpning rule. The provisions have been added primarily to combat racist crime, and all three protect the same groups: people of race, colour, national or ethnic origin, religious belief and sexual orientation. To describe the way in which the court talks about victims of hate crime, perpetrator and perpetrator's’ motives, I have used a critical discourse analysis. Discourse analysis is based on social constructionist theory and argues that legal discourse creates and reinforces social norms, relationships, and power structures. In my study of eleven judgements involving hate or bias as a criminal motive I have identified six different discourses.

Among these is what I call the discourse of the neutralized motive, which describes how the court defines the course of events in such a way that makes it impossible to link the subject to the act. A second discourse the discourse of the typical hate crime, makes it easier for the court to identify a hate crime if it meets the stereotypical expectations of what constitutes a hate crime. A third discourse is when the court identifies a motive beyond the hate crime motive, or identifies an alternative explanation for why a particular offense has been committed which compels the court to ignore the hate crime motive. It is referred to as the discourse on how the criminal offense originated. Overall, the discourse analysis deconstructs the court’s position and its starting points. The court assumes that every criminal offense is committed by an autonomous individual who is unaffected by surrounding social structures. Crimes, which can be connected to an underlying structure, are therefore hard to address in the dynamic matter as would be preferred in the criminal justice system. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Forsblad, Ellen LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Judicial regulation of discrimination? Hate crime and social structures
course
JURM02 20161
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
straffrätt, hatbrott, intersektionalitet, socialkonstruktionism, straffskärpningsregeln
language
Swedish
id
8874179
date added to LUP
2016-08-02 14:32:30
date last changed
2016-08-02 14:32:30
@misc{8874179,
  abstract     = {Hate crimes are predicated on different motives than ‘other’ criminal offenses. Hate crimes are based on social categories in a negative sense, where the offense is committed due to the perpetrator’s prejudice or bias against a group of people. This type of prejudice reflects underlying social structures. This thesis aims primarily to investigate and review hate crime as a legal construction in a Swedish criminal context, but will also investigate which groups of individual are regarded to be worthy of protection as well as the legal discourse of hate crime. The emphasis is laid on the so-called straff¬skärpning rule in Chapter 29, section 2 of the Penal Code. It stipulates that the punishment for any crime should be more severe if it is shown that a person was motivated by prejudice when committing the crime. In order to gain a nuanced understanding of hate crime in Swedish criminal law, an inter¬sectional theory is applied throughout the thesis. Intersectionality is a way of understanding how social identities and systems of oppression intersect.

There is no explicit ‘hate crime’ provision in Swedish criminal law, but there are three provisions that are known as the hate crime provisions. They consist of: hate speech, unlawful discrimination and the straffskärpning rule. The provisions have been added primarily to combat racist crime, and all three protect the same groups: people of race, colour, national or ethnic origin, religious belief and sexual orientation. To describe the way in which the court talks about victims of hate crime, perpetrator and perpetrator's’ motives, I have used a critical discourse analysis. Discourse analysis is based on social constructionist theory and argues that legal discourse creates and reinforces social norms, relationships, and power structures. In my study of eleven judgements involving hate or bias as a criminal motive I have identified six different discourses.

Among these is what I call the discourse of the neutralized motive, which describes how the court defines the course of events in such a way that makes it impossible to link the subject to the act. A second discourse the discourse of the typical hate crime, makes it easier for the court to identify a hate crime if it meets the stereotypical expectations of what constitutes a hate crime. A third discourse is when the court identifies a motive beyond the hate crime motive, or identifies an alternative explanation for why a particular offense has been committed which compels the court to ignore the hate crime motive. It is referred to as the discourse on how the criminal offense originated. Overall, the discourse analysis deconstructs the court’s position and its starting points. The court assumes that every criminal offense is committed by an autonomous individual who is unaffected by surrounding social structures. Crimes, which can be connected to an underlying structure, are therefore hard to address in the dynamic matter as would be preferred in the criminal justice system.},
  author       = {Forsblad, Ellen},
  keyword      = {straffrätt,hatbrott,intersektionalitet,socialkonstruktionism,straffskärpningsregeln},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Straffrättslig reglering av diskriminering? Hatbrott och strukturer},
  year         = {2016},
}