En hjälpande hand? - Moralfilosofiska perspektiv på medverkan till självmord i brottsbalken och dess förarbeten
(2017) LAGF03 20171Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- I svensk rätt är inte medverkan till självmord straffbart annat än i de fall då agerandet kan anses falla inom ordalydelsen för mordparagrafen i BrB. Men varför är inte medverkan till självmord kriminaliserat när samtyckesdödande alltid är det? I denna framställning undersöks gällande rätt avseende gränsdragningen mellan medverkan till självmord och samtyckesdödande. Dessutom undersöks Straffrättskommitténs lagförslag till kriminalisering som lades fram i SOU 1953:14 och som sedermera förkastades i propositionen till BrB. Förslaget innehöll en paragraf som likställde medverkan till självmord och självskada med samtyckesdödande och skadande med samtycke. Det saknades skäl att skilja på de olika agerandena, menade kommittén.
I samband med... (More) - I svensk rätt är inte medverkan till självmord straffbart annat än i de fall då agerandet kan anses falla inom ordalydelsen för mordparagrafen i BrB. Men varför är inte medverkan till självmord kriminaliserat när samtyckesdödande alltid är det? I denna framställning undersöks gällande rätt avseende gränsdragningen mellan medverkan till självmord och samtyckesdödande. Dessutom undersöks Straffrättskommitténs lagförslag till kriminalisering som lades fram i SOU 1953:14 och som sedermera förkastades i propositionen till BrB. Förslaget innehöll en paragraf som likställde medverkan till självmord och självskada med samtyckesdödande och skadande med samtycke. Det saknades skäl att skilja på de olika agerandena, menade kommittén.
I samband med förkastandet av förslaget i propositionen angavs mycket få skäl till varför det inte antogs. Det framstår som att det var främst formella överväganden, inte egentligen moraliska dito, som ledde till att förslaget ströks. Eftersom moraliska överväganden inte finns i propositionen får sådana uppfattningar sökas i moralfilosofin. Tre olika moralfilosofiska uppfattningar, framlagda av Torbjörn Tännsjö, kring dödande och då främst samtyckesdödande och medverkan till självmord behandlas; den pragmatiska uppfattningen (regelutilitarism), läran om livets helgd (pliktetik) samt läran om rätten till liv. Utifrån dessa läror analyseras gällande rätt (och till viss del också förslaget) för att se hur väl rätten överensstämmer med de moraliska uppfattningarna. Slutsatsen i uppsatsen är att lagförslaget lättare går att motivera utifrån de valda filosofiska lärorna. Dagens reglering innehåller betydande inslag av inkonsekvens och kan svårligen förklaras utifrån uppfattningarna. (Less) - Abstract
- By Swedish criminal law it is illegal to take someone’s life regardless of consent. However, abetment of suicide is not criminalized apart from cases in which the action or omission can be implicated in the wording of the Penal Code. Why is not abetment of suicide as such criminalised when consensual homicide in all cases is unlawful? The established law regarding the distinction between abetment of suicide and consensual homicide will be examined in this essay. Furthermore, the rule proposed by the Committee of Penal law in the Swedish Government Official Report (SOU) 1953:14 is examined, a proposal which later was rejected in the bill for the new Penal Code (which entered into force 1965). The proposal contained an article which equated... (More)
- By Swedish criminal law it is illegal to take someone’s life regardless of consent. However, abetment of suicide is not criminalized apart from cases in which the action or omission can be implicated in the wording of the Penal Code. Why is not abetment of suicide as such criminalised when consensual homicide in all cases is unlawful? The established law regarding the distinction between abetment of suicide and consensual homicide will be examined in this essay. Furthermore, the rule proposed by the Committee of Penal law in the Swedish Government Official Report (SOU) 1953:14 is examined, a proposal which later was rejected in the bill for the new Penal Code (which entered into force 1965). The proposal contained an article which equated abetment of suicide or self-harm with consensual homicide or harm. The committee meant that there were no reason to distinguish one from the other.
In connection to the rejection of the proposal the head of department named very few reasons for discarding the article. In the bill the reasons for rejection are mainly formal, and not moral. Since moral reasons may not be found in the bill one may have to turn to moral philosophy instead. Torbjörn Tännsjö presents three different approaches based in moral philosophy. These approaches concern questions of killing, consensual homicide and abetting suicide. Tännsjö calls them the pragmatic approach (rule-utilitarianism), the doctrine of the sanctity of life (moral obligation) and the doctrine of the right to life.
The law (and partially also the proposal) is analyzed based on these approaches to see how well the law matches these moral viewpoints. The conclusion drawn is that the proposal more easily can be justified based on the chosen doctrines and that the current regulation contains a great deal of inconsistencies. The established law is harder to justify when examining these approaches, compared to the proposed regulation. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8908099
- author
- Johansson, Oscar LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20171
- year
- 2017
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Straffrätt, criminal law, självmord, suicide, medhjälp, medverkan, moralfilosofi, brottsbalken, straffbarhet, samtycke
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8908099
- date added to LUP
- 2017-06-29 11:10:16
- date last changed
- 2017-06-29 11:10:16
@misc{8908099,
abstract = {{By Swedish criminal law it is illegal to take someone’s life regardless of consent. However, abetment of suicide is not criminalized apart from cases in which the action or omission can be implicated in the wording of the Penal Code. Why is not abetment of suicide as such criminalised when consensual homicide in all cases is unlawful? The established law regarding the distinction between abetment of suicide and consensual homicide will be examined in this essay. Furthermore, the rule proposed by the Committee of Penal law in the Swedish Government Official Report (SOU) 1953:14 is examined, a proposal which later was rejected in the bill for the new Penal Code (which entered into force 1965). The proposal contained an article which equated abetment of suicide or self-harm with consensual homicide or harm. The committee meant that there were no reason to distinguish one from the other.
In connection to the rejection of the proposal the head of department named very few reasons for discarding the article. In the bill the reasons for rejection are mainly formal, and not moral. Since moral reasons may not be found in the bill one may have to turn to moral philosophy instead. Torbjörn Tännsjö presents three different approaches based in moral philosophy. These approaches concern questions of killing, consensual homicide and abetting suicide. Tännsjö calls them the pragmatic approach (rule-utilitarianism), the doctrine of the sanctity of life (moral obligation) and the doctrine of the right to life.
The law (and partially also the proposal) is analyzed based on these approaches to see how well the law matches these moral viewpoints. The conclusion drawn is that the proposal more easily can be justified based on the chosen doctrines and that the current regulation contains a great deal of inconsistencies. The established law is harder to justify when examining these approaches, compared to the proposed regulation.}},
author = {{Johansson, Oscar}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{En hjälpande hand? - Moralfilosofiska perspektiv på medverkan till självmord i brottsbalken och dess förarbeten}},
year = {{2017}},
}