Advanced

Påföljden för mord - standardfall och normalstraff

Olafsson, Stefan LU (2016) LAGF03 20162
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Straffvärdet intar en central position inom det svenska straffsystemet. Det abstrakta värdet, eller straffskalan, ger en utgångspunkt för beräkningen av straffvärde. Med denna av lagstiftaren fastställda ram som bakgrund ska domstolen i nästa steg, i ljuset av försvårande och förmildrande omständigheter, bedöma en specifik gärnings konkreta straffvärde. Av avgörande betydelse för bedömningen är den position i straffskalan som utgör startpunkt. Detta är standardfallet, som anger straffvärdet för en kriminaliserad gärning av viss brottstyp som saknar försvårande och förmildrande omständigheter. Normalstraffet är den påföljd som majoriteten av domar inom en viss brottstyp leder till.

Från brottsbalkens ikraftträdande 1965 och fram till 1... (More)
Straffvärdet intar en central position inom det svenska straffsystemet. Det abstrakta värdet, eller straffskalan, ger en utgångspunkt för beräkningen av straffvärde. Med denna av lagstiftaren fastställda ram som bakgrund ska domstolen i nästa steg, i ljuset av försvårande och förmildrande omständigheter, bedöma en specifik gärnings konkreta straffvärde. Av avgörande betydelse för bedömningen är den position i straffskalan som utgör startpunkt. Detta är standardfallet, som anger straffvärdet för en kriminaliserad gärning av viss brottstyp som saknar försvårande och förmildrande omständigheter. Normalstraffet är den påföljd som majoriteten av domar inom en viss brottstyp leder till.

Från brottsbalkens ikraftträdande 1965 och fram till 1 juli 2009 var straffskalan för mord fängelse i antingen 10 år eller på livstid. Reformen 2009 syftade till en mer nyanserad straffmätning och höjd straffnivå för det tidsbestämda straffet, varför straffskalan utökades med intervallet 11 – 18 år. Därefter följde två mer renodlade straffskärpningsreformer. Den första genomfördes 2010 och syftade till en generell höjning av straffvärdet för allvarliga våldsbrott. En konsekvens av detta blev att standardfallet flyttades uppåt i straffskalan. Reformen 2014 hade som uttalade motiv att standardfallets straffvärde skulle vara än högre och att livstids fängelse skulle bli normalstraffet för mord. Denna sista reform fick hård kritik. Dels menade kritikerna att straffskärpningarna gick för fort, dels att formuleringen av mordparagrafens lagtext var otydlig. Kritikens krona utgjordes av rättsfallet NJA 2016 s. 3, där Högsta domstolen i princip underkände reformen. Man uttalade att den praxis som gällde före lagändringen, närmare bestämt det uppmärksammade Bajonettmordet, skulle vara fortsatt gällande. Standardfallet för mord skulle därmed ha ett straffvärde motsvarande 14 års fängelse, och livstidsstraffet användas endast vid synnerligen försvårande omständigheter.

Två trender kan utläsas av den beskrivna utvecklingen. Det är uppenbart att lagstiftaren skärper såväl straffvärdet för standardfallet som normalstraffet. Det är vidare märkbart att lagstiftaren försöker dra isär standardfallet och normalstraffet. I förarbetena till reformen 2014 uttalades att normalstraffet för mord ska vara livstids fängelse, men att standardfallet ska ligga inom visstidsramen. Uppsatsen menar att detta är en ologisk och rättsosäker utveckling, grundad på politiskt poängplockande som saknar goda skäl för sig.

För att kasta ljus över problematiken är straffideologin relevant. I det svenska straffsystemet blandas flera bestraffningsideologier och Jareborg talar om en defensiv modell som utmanas av en offensivare inriktning. Uppsatsen använder dessa som perspektiv på rättsutvecklingen och drar slutsatsen att den offensivare och mindre rättssäkra inriktningen vinner mark på bekostnad av en mer human och eftertänksam. (Less)
Abstract
Penal value occupies a central position in the Swedish penal system. The abstract value, or range of punishment, provides a basis for the calculation of the penalty. With this frame of legislation established, the court will in the next step assess a specific perpetrators concrete penalty. The assessment of the specific penalty amount will be made in light of how aggravating and mitigating the circumstances are. Of crucial importance for this assessment is the position of the starting point within the range of punishment. This is the standardcase, indicating the penalty for a criminal offense that lacks aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The normal penalty is the sanction that the majority of decisions in court for a given crime... (More)
Penal value occupies a central position in the Swedish penal system. The abstract value, or range of punishment, provides a basis for the calculation of the penalty. With this frame of legislation established, the court will in the next step assess a specific perpetrators concrete penalty. The assessment of the specific penalty amount will be made in light of how aggravating and mitigating the circumstances are. Of crucial importance for this assessment is the position of the starting point within the range of punishment. This is the standardcase, indicating the penalty for a criminal offense that lacks aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The normal penalty is the sanction that the majority of decisions in court for a given crime leads to.

From the entry into force of brottsbalken in 1965 and until July 1, 2009, the scale of penalties for murder was imprisonment for either 10 years or for life. The reform in 2009 aimed at a more nuanced sentencing and heightened levels of penalty, and consequently the sentencing range was expanded to the range of 11 - 18 years. This was followed by two further reforms aiming at heightened levels of penalty. The first one was conducted in 2010 and aimed at a general increase in the penalty for serious crimes of violence. One consequence of this was that the standardcase moved upwards in the scale of penalties. The reform in 2014 had the stated motive that the standard penalty would be even higher and that life imprisonment would be the normal penalty for murder. This last reform was severely criticized. Critics felt that the heightened levels were introduced too fast, and that the formulation of the legal text was fuzzy. The crown of criticism consisted of the case NJA 2016 p. 3, in which the Supreme Court rejected the reform. It stated that the practice in force before the amendment, namely the acclaimed Bayonet murder, would remain in force. A standardcase of murder would thus continue to have a penalty equivalent to 14 years in prison, and life imprisonment would be used only if the circumstances were exceptionally aggravating.

Two trends can be inferred from the described development. It is clear that the legislature sharpens both the penalty for the standardcase and the normal penalty. It is also noticeable that the legislator tries to pull apart the standardcase and the normal penalty. In the preparatory work for the reform in 2014 it was stated that the normal penalty for murder should be life imprisonment, but the standardcase should be positioned within the temporary framework. It is the author´s view that this is an illogical and uncertain legal development based on political pointpicking, rather than rational reasons.

In order to shed light on the problem it is relevant to study criminal ideology. The Swedish penal system mixes multiple punishment ideologies and Jareborg talks about a defensive model challenged by a more aggressive approach. This illustrates different perspectives on the development of law and concludes that the more aggressive and less legally safe direction is gaining ground at the expense of a more humane and thoughtful one. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Olafsson, Stefan LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20162
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Straffrätt
language
Swedish
id
8896938
date added to LUP
2017-02-13 08:21:58
date last changed
2017-02-13 08:21:58
@misc{8896938,
  abstract     = {Penal value occupies a central position in the Swedish penal system. The abstract value, or range of punishment, provides a basis for the calculation of the penalty. With this frame of legislation established, the court will in the next step assess a specific perpetrators concrete penalty. The assessment of the specific penalty amount will be made in light of how aggravating and mitigating the circumstances are. Of crucial importance for this assessment is the position of the starting point within the range of punishment. This is the standardcase, indicating the penalty for a criminal offense that lacks aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The normal penalty is the sanction that the majority of decisions in court for a given crime leads to.

From the entry into force of brottsbalken in 1965 and until July 1, 2009, the scale of penalties for murder was imprisonment for either 10 years or for life. The reform in 2009 aimed at a more nuanced sentencing and heightened levels of penalty, and consequently the sentencing range was expanded to the range of 11 - 18 years. This was followed by two further reforms aiming at heightened levels of penalty. The first one was conducted in 2010 and aimed at a general increase in the penalty for serious crimes of violence. One consequence of this was that the standardcase moved upwards in the scale of penalties. The reform in 2014 had the stated motive that the standard penalty would be even higher and that life imprisonment would be the normal penalty for murder. This last reform was severely criticized. Critics felt that the heightened levels were introduced too fast, and that the formulation of the legal text was fuzzy. The crown of criticism consisted of the case NJA 2016 p. 3, in which the Supreme Court rejected the reform. It stated that the practice in force before the amendment, namely the acclaimed Bayonet murder, would remain in force. A standardcase of murder would thus continue to have a penalty equivalent to 14 years in prison, and life imprisonment would be used only if the circumstances were exceptionally aggravating.

Two trends can be inferred from the described development. It is clear that the legislature sharpens both the penalty for the standardcase and the normal penalty. It is also noticeable that the legislator tries to pull apart the standardcase and the normal penalty. In the preparatory work for the reform in 2014 it was stated that the normal penalty for murder should be life imprisonment, but the standardcase should be positioned within the temporary framework. It is the author´s view that this is an illogical and uncertain legal development based on political pointpicking, rather than rational reasons.

In order to shed light on the problem it is relevant to study criminal ideology. The Swedish penal system mixes multiple punishment ideologies and Jareborg talks about a defensive model challenged by a more aggressive approach. This illustrates different perspectives on the development of law and concludes that the more aggressive and less legally safe direction is gaining ground at the expense of a more humane and thoughtful one.},
  author       = {Olafsson, Stefan},
  keyword      = {Straffrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Påföljden för mord - standardfall och normalstraff},
  year         = {2016},
}