Advanced

Fängelse på livstid - normalpåföljd vid mord?

Walkenfors, Martin LU (2017) LAGF03 20171
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Påföljden för mord ändrades år 2009 och en mer nyanserad påföljdsmodell infördes. Tidigare hade påföljden för mord antingen varit fängelse i 10 år eller på livstid, men nu infördes istället en modell, som gav domstolarna mer utrymme att utdöma tidsbestämda fängelsestraff mellan 10 och 18 år samt på livstid.

Rättspraxis har förändrats under årens lopp, men genomgående har det uttalats att livstidsstraffet ska vara förbehållet de allra allvarligaste formerna av mord.

Den sittande regeringen ansåg utifrån samhällsutvecklingen att det krävdes en skärpning av påföljden vid mord och att fängelse på livstid skulle vara normalstraffet, då det förelåg försvårande omständigheter.

Lagstiftningen ändrades år 2014, där intentionen från... (More)
Påföljden för mord ändrades år 2009 och en mer nyanserad påföljdsmodell infördes. Tidigare hade påföljden för mord antingen varit fängelse i 10 år eller på livstid, men nu infördes istället en modell, som gav domstolarna mer utrymme att utdöma tidsbestämda fängelsestraff mellan 10 och 18 år samt på livstid.

Rättspraxis har förändrats under årens lopp, men genomgående har det uttalats att livstidsstraffet ska vara förbehållet de allra allvarligaste formerna av mord.

Den sittande regeringen ansåg utifrån samhällsutvecklingen att det krävdes en skärpning av påföljden vid mord och att fängelse på livstid skulle vara normalstraffet, då det förelåg försvårande omständigheter.

Lagstiftningen ändrades år 2014, där intentionen från lagstiftarens sida var att normalpåföljden för mord med försvårande omständigheter skulle vara fängelse på livstid. I Högsta domstolens första avgörande med den nya lagstiftningen blev utfallet tvärtemot vad lagstiftaren hade tänkt, då lagtexten formulerats så att den inte kunde tolkas på något annat sätt än att en omformulering hade gjorts, men med samma innebörd som tidigare.

Både Petter Asp, professor i straffrätt och justitieråd och Anders Perklev, riksåklagare gav kort efter avgörandet sin tolkning av domen. I Petter Asps text i ”Juridisk publikation” nummer 1/2016 gick det att utläsa att han till stor del höll med Högsta domstolen i sitt avgörande. Anders Perklev var dock inte lika förtjust i Högsta domstolens resonemang vilket också kom till uttryck i hans svarsskrivelse till domstolen.

Avslutningsvis presenteras hur framtidsutsikterna ser ut för livstidsstraffet vid mord, där bl.a. en ny utredning påbörjades 2016 för att se över möjligheterna till en ny lagändring på området. (Less)
Abstract
The penalty for murder was modified in 2009 and a more nuanced model of penalty was introduced. Earlier the penalty for murder either was prison being jailed for 10 years or life imprisonment, but now there instead was a model introduced that gave the courts more space to judge fixed term sentences between 10 and 18 years as well as for life imprisonment.

Case law has been changed over the years, but has consistently expressed that the life sentence shall be reserved the most serious forms of murder.
The current government considered based upon community development that it was required a tightening of penalties for murder and life imprisonment should be standard sentence penalty when there were aggravating circumstances.

The... (More)
The penalty for murder was modified in 2009 and a more nuanced model of penalty was introduced. Earlier the penalty for murder either was prison being jailed for 10 years or life imprisonment, but now there instead was a model introduced that gave the courts more space to judge fixed term sentences between 10 and 18 years as well as for life imprisonment.

Case law has been changed over the years, but has consistently expressed that the life sentence shall be reserved the most serious forms of murder.
The current government considered based upon community development that it was required a tightening of penalties for murder and life imprisonment should be standard sentence penalty when there were aggravating circumstances.

The legislation was amended in 2014 with the intention from the legislature that normal penalty for murder with aggravating circumstances should be life imprisonment. The Supreme Court's first decision with the new legislation the outcome was contrary to what the legislature had in mind, when the text of the law had been formulated so that it could not be interpreted otherwise than that a reformulation had been done but with the same meaning as previously.

Both Peter Asp, professor of penal (criminal) law and justice of supreme court as well as Anders Perklev, prosecutor general gave shortly after the ruling their interpretation of the verdict. In Petter Asp´s text in “Legal publication” Number 1/2016 you could understand that he largely agreed with the Supreme Court in it´s ruling. Anders Perklev however was not as fond of the Supreme Court's reasoning that also was reflected in his reply to the Court.

To conclude is presented how the future prospects seems for the life sentence for murder, where inter alia a new investigation has been started to look into the possibilities to a new amendment of a law in the field. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Walkenfors, Martin LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20171
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Straffrätt
language
Swedish
id
8905060
date added to LUP
2017-04-21 11:30:26
date last changed
2017-04-21 11:30:26
@misc{8905060,
  abstract     = {The penalty for murder was modified in 2009 and a more nuanced model of penalty was introduced. Earlier the penalty for murder either was prison being jailed for 10 years or life imprisonment, but now there instead was a model introduced that gave the courts more space to judge fixed term sentences between 10 and 18 years as well as for life imprisonment.

Case law has been changed over the years, but has consistently expressed that the life sentence shall be reserved the most serious forms of murder.
The current government considered based upon community development that it was required a tightening of penalties for murder and life imprisonment should be standard sentence penalty when there were aggravating circumstances.

The legislation was amended in 2014 with the intention from the legislature that normal penalty for murder with aggravating circumstances should be life imprisonment. The Supreme Court's first decision with the new legislation the outcome was contrary to what the legislature had in mind, when the text of the law had been formulated so that it could not be interpreted otherwise than that a reformulation had been done but with the same meaning as previously.

Both Peter Asp, professor of penal (criminal) law and justice of supreme court as well as Anders Perklev, prosecutor general gave shortly after the ruling their interpretation of the verdict. In Petter Asp´s text in “Legal publication” Number 1/2016 you could understand that he largely agreed with the Supreme Court in it´s ruling. Anders Perklev however was not as fond of the Supreme Court's reasoning that also was reflected in his reply to the Court.

To conclude is presented how the future prospects seems for the life sentence for murder, where inter alia a new investigation has been started to look into the possibilities to a new amendment of a law in the field.},
  author       = {Walkenfors, Martin},
  keyword      = {Straffrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Fängelse på livstid - normalpåföljd vid mord?},
  year         = {2017},
}