Advanced

När vetenskapen gör entré i rättssalen - Domstolens värdering av sakkunnigbevisning

Carlsson, Emma LU (2017) LAGF03 20171
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Inom ramen för den straffrättsliga processen i domstol kan det uppkomma situationer där domstolen behöver befatta sig med vetenskaplig information för att kunna ta ställning till de rättsliga frågorna som förekommer i målet. Den vetenskapliga information som domstolen behöver tillförs ofta målet genom sakkunnigbevisning i form av särskilda erfarenhetssatser och sakkunnigs slutsatser med stöd av dessa erfarenhetssatser. Eftersom detta tillförs genom en form av bevismedel ska domstolen också värdera sådan information.

Detta kan ge upphov till en rad olika problem eftersom att domstolens ledamöter inte själva är experter på det område de ska värdera och sedan eventuellt applicera på de rättsliga frågorna i målet. Det finns med detta sagt... (More)
Inom ramen för den straffrättsliga processen i domstol kan det uppkomma situationer där domstolen behöver befatta sig med vetenskaplig information för att kunna ta ställning till de rättsliga frågorna som förekommer i målet. Den vetenskapliga information som domstolen behöver tillförs ofta målet genom sakkunnigbevisning i form av särskilda erfarenhetssatser och sakkunnigs slutsatser med stöd av dessa erfarenhetssatser. Eftersom detta tillförs genom en form av bevismedel ska domstolen också värdera sådan information.

Detta kan ge upphov till en rad olika problem eftersom att domstolens ledamöter inte själva är experter på det område de ska värdera och sedan eventuellt applicera på de rättsliga frågorna i målet. Det finns med detta sagt både en risk att domstolen blir beroende av sakkunnigbevisningen men också att de missförstår informationen och därmed tillämpar den fel. Ett annat problem är det som består av de olika användningsområdena för både juridik och vetenskap. Eftersom att vetenskap och juridik har olika syften och verkar i olika kontexter kan det uppstå glapp när vetenskaplig information används inom ramen för domstolsprocessen. Det är därför inte helt lätt att varken värdera eller använda sig av sakkunnigbevisningen.

Eftersom detta vid första anblick kan framstå som problematiskt kan viktiga frågor bli huruvida den sakkunnige i fråga har tillräckliga kvalifikationer samt det vetenskapliga värdet på det som framförs. I den granskning som gjorts av några sexualbrottsdomar beträffande sakkunniga och sexomni, som innebär att man kan utföra sexuella handlingar i sömnen, visar på att både den sakkunniges kvalifikationer eller det vetenskapliga värdet inte står i fokus när domstolen värderar bevisningen trots att vissa frågetecken kan uppställas kring båda aspekter. Sammantaget skulle frånvaron av sådana resonemang kunna riskera domens riktighet. (Less)
Abstract
Within the scope of criminal proceedings in court, situations may arise where the court needs to concern itself with scientific information to address the legal questions in the case. The scientific information required by the court is often contributed to the case by means of expert witnesses in form of ‘specific experience’, which is a procedural Swedish concept, and the experts conclusions based on those experiences. As this is provided through a form of evidence the court is required to evaluate such information.

A variety of problems arise since the members of the court themselves are no scientific experts in the area that they are to evaluate, and later even apply such information on the legal issues in the case. With this said,... (More)
Within the scope of criminal proceedings in court, situations may arise where the court needs to concern itself with scientific information to address the legal questions in the case. The scientific information required by the court is often contributed to the case by means of expert witnesses in form of ‘specific experience’, which is a procedural Swedish concept, and the experts conclusions based on those experiences. As this is provided through a form of evidence the court is required to evaluate such information.

A variety of problems arise since the members of the court themselves are no scientific experts in the area that they are to evaluate, and later even apply such information on the legal issues in the case. With this said, there is a risk that the court either depend too much on the scientific information or misunderstand the information and therefor applies it incorrectly. Another problem is that both law and science has different aims and functions and operates in different contexts. Therefore, there is a risk that gaps occur when scientific information is used to try to answer legal questions in court. It becomes problematic both for the court to evaluate the scientific information, but also to use it.

Because this at first sight can appear to be problematic, important questions may be whether the expert has sufficient qualifications and what the scientific value is. The review done in this paper of some sexual offences including expert witnesses and Sexomnia, that means the possibility to carry out sexual acts during sleep, shows that the experts qualification or the scientific value is not focused upon when the expert evidence is being evaluated even though some question marks arise around those aspects. Overall, the absence of such reasoning could risk the accuracy of the judgement. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Carlsson, Emma LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20171
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Processrätt, Bevisvärdering, Sakkunnigbevisning, Vetenskap
language
Swedish
id
8907860
date added to LUP
2017-06-29 10:00:32
date last changed
2017-06-29 10:00:32
@misc{8907860,
  abstract     = {Within the scope of criminal proceedings in court, situations may arise where the court needs to concern itself with scientific information to address the legal questions in the case. The scientific information required by the court is often contributed to the case by means of expert witnesses in form of ‘specific experience’, which is a procedural Swedish concept, and the experts conclusions based on those experiences. As this is provided through a form of evidence the court is required to evaluate such information. 

A variety of problems arise since the members of the court themselves are no scientific experts in the area that they are to evaluate, and later even apply such information on the legal issues in the case. With this said, there is a risk that the court either depend too much on the scientific information or misunderstand the information and therefor applies it incorrectly. Another problem is that both law and science has different aims and functions and operates in different contexts. Therefore, there is a risk that gaps occur when scientific information is used to try to answer legal questions in court. It becomes problematic both for the court to evaluate the scientific information, but also to use it. 

Because this at first sight can appear to be problematic, important questions may be whether the expert has sufficient qualifications and what the scientific value is. The review done in this paper of some sexual offences including expert witnesses and Sexomnia, that means the possibility to carry out sexual acts during sleep, shows that the experts qualification or the scientific value is not focused upon when the expert evidence is being evaluated even though some question marks arise around those aspects. Overall, the absence of such reasoning could risk the accuracy of the judgement.},
  author       = {Carlsson, Emma},
  keyword      = {Processrätt,Bevisvärdering,Sakkunnigbevisning,Vetenskap},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {När vetenskapen gör entré i rättssalen - Domstolens värdering av sakkunnigbevisning},
  year         = {2017},
}