Advanced

Andra gången gillt - Om 29 kap. 4 § BrB:s förenlighet med principerna om proportionalitet och ekvivalens

Nilsson, Evelina LU (2017) LAGF03 20171
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
A general idea in criminal law has always been that a person who repeatedly commits crime also deserves a harsher penalty. In 1989, a reform was completed which resulted in two new chapters in the Criminal Code: chapter 29 on meting out of punishment & remission of sanctions and chapter 30 on choice of penalties. This essay will focus on chapter 29 section 4 BrB, which was rephrased into its current wording in 2010. At present, a recidivists previous convictions can be taken into account as a factor for harsher punishment when determining a sentence. Past crime should primarily be taken into account when determining the sentence to imprisonment or by declaring forfeiture of conditional release. Previous convictions should only during... (More)
A general idea in criminal law has always been that a person who repeatedly commits crime also deserves a harsher penalty. In 1989, a reform was completed which resulted in two new chapters in the Criminal Code: chapter 29 on meting out of punishment & remission of sanctions and chapter 30 on choice of penalties. This essay will focus on chapter 29 section 4 BrB, which was rephrased into its current wording in 2010. At present, a recidivists previous convictions can be taken into account as a factor for harsher punishment when determining a sentence. Past crime should primarily be taken into account when determining the sentence to imprisonment or by declaring forfeiture of conditional release. Previous convictions should only during certain circumstances be taken into consideration in the meting of punishment with accordance to Chapter 29. Section 4 Criminal Code.

Aggravating a punishment because of recidivism is problematic from several point of views. The legislative history of 29 chap. Section 4 Criminal Code motivates the harsher punishment of persistent offenders with the fact that a crime is more blameworthy the second time it is committed . Therefore the society must state this by a harsher punishment and thereby state that repeated criminal behavior is wrong.
In the doctrine, these arguments are put to the fore when compared with the basic principles of the penalty system.

Harsher punishment for recidivists has been argued as incompatible with the principles of proportionality and equivalence. The purpose of this essay is to clarify the compatibility of the statutory provisions with the relevant principles and to view them from a criminal theory perspective in order to determine whether there is or is not any clarity to arise in this matter. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
En allmän tanke inom straffrätten har alltid varit att den som upprepat begår brott också förtjänar ett strängare straff. 1989 stod en reform klar som bland annat resulterade i två nya kapitel i brottsbalken: kapitel 29 om straffmätning och påföljdseftergift och kapitel 30 om påföljdsval. Fokus för denna framställning är 29 kap. 4 § BrB som fick sin nuvarande ordalydelse 2010. I dagsläget får den tilltalades tidigare brottslighet beaktas i flera olika avseenden vid påföljdsbestämningen. I huvudsak ska tidigare brottslighet beaktas genom att bestämma påföljden till fängelse eller genom att förklara villkorligt medgiven frihet förverkad. Utöver dessa stadganden ska tidigare brottslighet, under vissa förutsättningar, beaktas i skärpande... (More)
En allmän tanke inom straffrätten har alltid varit att den som upprepat begår brott också förtjänar ett strängare straff. 1989 stod en reform klar som bland annat resulterade i två nya kapitel i brottsbalken: kapitel 29 om straffmätning och påföljdseftergift och kapitel 30 om påföljdsval. Fokus för denna framställning är 29 kap. 4 § BrB som fick sin nuvarande ordalydelse 2010. I dagsläget får den tilltalades tidigare brottslighet beaktas i flera olika avseenden vid påföljdsbestämningen. I huvudsak ska tidigare brottslighet beaktas genom att bestämma påföljden till fängelse eller genom att förklara villkorligt medgiven frihet förverkad. Utöver dessa stadganden ska tidigare brottslighet, under vissa förutsättningar, beaktas i skärpande riktning vid straffmätningen med stöd av 29 kap. 4 § BrB.

Att skärpa ett straff på grund av återfall i brottslighet är problematiskt ur flera perspektiv. I förarbetena till 29 kap. 4 § BrB motiveras straffskärpning av återfallsbrottslingar med att brottslighet anses mer klandervärt andra gången det begås och därför måste samhället kunna visa brottslingen detta genom ett skärpt straff. Straffskärpning skapar en tilltro för straffsystemet vilket är så centralt för samhället att bestämmelsen inte kan avskaffas. I doktrin ställs dessa argument på sin spets när de jämförs med de grundläggande principer straffsystemet vilar på. Straffskärpning är svårförenligt med principerna om proportionalitet och ekvivalens och doktrinen ställer sig skeptisk till bestämmelsen. Framställningens ändamål utgör att närmare klargöra förhållandet mellan lagbestämmelsen och principerna för att se huruvida en förenlighet är möjlig. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Nilsson, Evelina LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20171
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Straffrätt, straffskärpning, återfall
language
Swedish
id
8908185
date added to LUP
2017-06-29 13:10:15
date last changed
2017-06-29 13:10:15
@misc{8908185,
  abstract     = {A general idea in criminal law has always been that a person who repeatedly commits crime also deserves a harsher penalty. In 1989, a reform was completed which resulted in two new chapters in the Criminal Code: chapter 29 on meting out of punishment & remission of sanctions and chapter 30 on choice of penalties. This essay will focus on chapter 29 section 4 BrB, which was rephrased into its current wording in 2010. At present, a recidivists previous convictions can be taken into account as a factor for harsher punishment when determining a sentence. Past crime should primarily be taken into account when determining the sentence to imprisonment or by declaring forfeiture of conditional release. Previous convictions should only during certain circumstances be taken into consideration in the meting of punishment with accordance to Chapter 29. Section 4 Criminal Code.

Aggravating a punishment because of recidivism is problematic from several point of views. The legislative history of 29 chap. Section 4 Criminal Code motivates the harsher punishment of persistent offenders with the fact that a crime is more blameworthy the second time it is committed . Therefore the society must state this by a harsher punishment and thereby state that repeated criminal behavior is wrong.
In the doctrine, these arguments are put to the fore when compared with the basic principles of the penalty system. 

Harsher punishment for recidivists has been argued as incompatible with the principles of proportionality and equivalence. The purpose of this essay is to clarify the compatibility of the statutory provisions with the relevant principles and to view them from a criminal theory perspective in order to determine whether there is or is not any clarity to arise in this matter.},
  author       = {Nilsson, Evelina},
  keyword      = {Straffrätt,straffskärpning,återfall},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Andra gången gillt - Om 29 kap. 4 § BrB:s förenlighet med principerna om proportionalitet och ekvivalens},
  year         = {2017},
}