Advanced

Social adekvans - en (o)motiverad ansvarsfrihetsgrund? - En studie angående hanteringen av socialadekvata gärningar i svensk straffrätt

Petersson, Simon LU (2016) JURM02 20162
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
I den svenska straffrätten finns det en möjlighet att medge ansvarsfrihet för vissa gärningar med stöd av en allmän princip om social adekvans, vilken också kan beskrivas som en oskriven ansvarsfrihetsgrund. Principen, som har utvecklats i doktrin och rättspraxis, aktualiseras när det saknas stöd i andra undantagsregler för att en viss gärning ska vara fri från straffansvar, samtidigt som det framstår som orimligt att hålla någon ansvarig för gärningen. Syftet med denna uppsats är att problematisera kring användningen av principen om social adekvans som en oskriven ansvarsfrihetsgrund med hänsyn till kravet på rättssäkerhet.

Utredningen visar att det förutom med stöd av den allmänna principen om social adekvans även finns andra... (More)
I den svenska straffrätten finns det en möjlighet att medge ansvarsfrihet för vissa gärningar med stöd av en allmän princip om social adekvans, vilken också kan beskrivas som en oskriven ansvarsfrihetsgrund. Principen, som har utvecklats i doktrin och rättspraxis, aktualiseras när det saknas stöd i andra undantagsregler för att en viss gärning ska vara fri från straffansvar, samtidigt som det framstår som orimligt att hålla någon ansvarig för gärningen. Syftet med denna uppsats är att problematisera kring användningen av principen om social adekvans som en oskriven ansvarsfrihetsgrund med hänsyn till kravet på rättssäkerhet.

Utredningen visar att det förutom med stöd av den allmänna principen om social adekvans även finns andra godtagbara sätt att hantera ansvarsfrihet för socialadekvata gärningar på. För det första kan begreppet social adekvans även aktualiseras vid tolkningen straffbestämmelser. Det faktum att en gärning anses vara socialadekvat betraktas då som ett stöd för att göra så kallade reduktionsslut. Detta innebär att en straffbestämmelse tolkas på ett sådant sätt att en viss gärning faller utanför dess tillämpningsområde, även om denna gärning faktiskt kan anses rymmas inom bestämmelsens ordalydelse. För det andra medför kravet på gärningsculpa att det är möjligt att undanta socialadekvata gärningar som inte kan anses innefatta något otillåtet risktagande från straffansvar, vilket kan beskrivas som social adekvans genom bristande gärningsculpa.

I uppsatsens konstateras även att det med hänsyn till kravet på rättssäkerhet finns anledning att ställa sig kritisk till möjligheten att medge ansvarsfrihet med stöd av en allmän princip om social adekvans. Eftersom det saknas riktlinjer i både rättspraxis och doktrin för när social adekvans kan aktualiseras är det inte möjligt att på förhand avgöra huruvida en viss gärning kan vara fri från straffansvar med hänvisning till denna princip. Utifrån rådande rättsläge riskerar därför tillämpningen av social adekvans att leda till en oförutsebar och godtycklig rättstillämpning.

Slutsatserna som dras är att möjligheten att motivera ansvarsfrihet för socialadekvata gärningar, genom lagtolkning och krav på gärningsculpa, medför att det saknas behov av att tillämpa den allmänna principen om social adekvans som en oskriven ansvarsfrihetsgrund. Därmed framstår denna grund som omotiverad. Med hänsyn till kravet på rättssäkerhet får det dessutom anses lämpligare att hantera ansvarsfrihet för socialadekvata gärningar inom ramen för lagtolkning, istället för med hänvisning till social adekvans som en allmän princip. (Less)
Abstract
In the Swedish criminal law there is a possibility to exclude criminal liability for certain acts with the support of a general principle of social adequacy, which can be described as an unwritten ground for excluding criminal liability. The principle has been developed in doctrine and case-law and is taken into consideration when there are no other rules to explain why a certain act should be free from criminal liability, at the same as it is considered unreasonable that someone is to be held liable for the act. The purpose of this essay is to problematize the use of the principle of social adequacy as an unwritten ground for excluding criminal liability in relation to the importance of legal certainty.

The investigation shows that... (More)
In the Swedish criminal law there is a possibility to exclude criminal liability for certain acts with the support of a general principle of social adequacy, which can be described as an unwritten ground for excluding criminal liability. The principle has been developed in doctrine and case-law and is taken into consideration when there are no other rules to explain why a certain act should be free from criminal liability, at the same as it is considered unreasonable that someone is to be held liable for the act. The purpose of this essay is to problematize the use of the principle of social adequacy as an unwritten ground for excluding criminal liability in relation to the importance of legal certainty.

The investigation shows that there are other acceptable ways to exclude social adequate acts from criminal liability rather than using the general principle of social adequacy. Firstly, the term social adequacy can also be relevant when interpreting criminal provisions. The fact that a certain act is considered to be social adequate, is in these cases used as an argument to interpret the provisions in a restrictive manner. This means that a provision is interpreted in such a way that a certain act falls outside its scope, even though this act can be considered to be within the wording of the provision. Secondly, the requirement for ”gärningsculpa” makes it possible to exclude social adequate acts from criminal liability in situations where such acts do not constitute an unacceptable risk taking. This can be described as social adequacy because of the absence of ”gärningsculpa”.

In the essay it has also been noted that considering the requirement of legal certainty there is a reason to be critical of the possibility to use the principle of social adequacy as a ground for excluding criminal liability. Since there are no guidelines concerning the principle in doctrine or in case-law, it is not possible to foresee whether a certain act is free from criminal liability under social adequacy. Based on the current legal position there is, therefore, a risk that the use of the principle of social adequacy may lead to an unpredictable and arbitrary adjudication.

The conclusions that are drawn is that it is possible to motivate the exclusion of criminal liability for social adequate acts, with the use of the interpretation of the law and the requirement of ”gärningsculpa”. As a result of this, there is no need to apply the principle of social adequacy as an unwritten ground for excluding criminal liability. It is, therefore, concluded that there is no justifiable motivation for its use. With the importance of legal certainty, it is also considered more appropriate to handle the exclusion of criminal liability for social adequate acts within the framework of the interpretation of the law, instead of referring to social adequacy as a general principle. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Petersson, Simon LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
The use of social adequacy in Swedish criminal law
course
JURM02 20162
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
social adekvans, straffrätt, criminal law, socialadekvat, ansvarsfrihet
language
Swedish
id
8897536
date added to LUP
2017-01-26 07:53:35
date last changed
2017-01-26 07:53:35
@misc{8897536,
  abstract     = {In the Swedish criminal law there is a possibility to exclude criminal liability for certain acts with the support of a general principle of social adequacy, which can be described as an unwritten ground for excluding criminal liability. The principle has been developed in doctrine and case-law and is taken into consideration when there are no other rules to explain why a certain act should be free from criminal liability, at the same as it is considered unreasonable that someone is to be held liable for the act. The purpose of this essay is to problematize the use of the principle of social adequacy as an unwritten ground for excluding criminal liability in relation to the importance of legal certainty. 

The investigation shows that there are other acceptable ways to exclude social adequate acts from criminal liability rather than using the general principle of social adequacy. Firstly, the term social adequacy can also be relevant when interpreting criminal provisions. The fact that a certain act is considered to be social adequate, is in these cases used as an argument to interpret the provisions in a restrictive manner. This means that a provision is interpreted in such a way that a certain act falls outside its scope, even though this act can be considered to be within the wording of the provision. Secondly, the requirement for ”gärningsculpa” makes it possible to exclude social adequate acts from criminal liability in situations where such acts do not constitute an unacceptable risk taking. This can be described as social adequacy because of the absence of ”gärningsculpa”. 

In the essay it has also been noted that considering the requirement of legal certainty there is a reason to be critical of the possibility to use the principle of social adequacy as a ground for excluding criminal liability. Since there are no guidelines concerning the principle in doctrine or in case-law, it is not possible to foresee whether a certain act is free from criminal liability under social adequacy. Based on the current legal position there is, therefore, a risk that the use of the principle of social adequacy may lead to an unpredictable and arbitrary adjudication.

The conclusions that are drawn is that it is possible to motivate the exclusion of criminal liability for social adequate acts, with the use of the interpretation of the law and the requirement of ”gärningsculpa”. As a result of this, there is no need to apply the principle of social adequacy as an unwritten ground for excluding criminal liability. It is, therefore, concluded that there is no justifiable motivation for its use. With the importance of legal certainty, it is also considered more appropriate to handle the exclusion of criminal liability for social adequate acts within the framework of the interpretation of the law, instead of referring to social adequacy as a general principle.},
  author       = {Petersson, Simon},
  keyword      = {social adekvans,straffrätt,criminal law,socialadekvat,ansvarsfrihet},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Social adekvans - en (o)motiverad ansvarsfrihetsgrund? - En studie angående hanteringen av socialadekvata gärningar i svensk straffrätt},
  year         = {2016},
}