Advanced

Graden av uppsåt - vilken inverkan har det på straffmätningen? - Om klandervärdhet och dess utfall i praktiken

Karlsson, Petronella LU (2017) LAGF03 20171
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
I svensk rätt krävs att gärningsmannen kan tillskrivas någon form av skuld för den begångna gärningen för att denne ska kunna dömas för brott, och för många brott krävs det även att det föreligger uppsåt. Uppsåt som skuldform klassificeras i tre grader, där varje grad definieras utifrån de avsikter gärningsmannen hade med sitt handlande eller de insikter han hade om följden av handlingen. Detta ska återspegla vilken grad av skuld som gärningsmannen har ådagalagt i gärningen. Syftet med denna rapport är att utreda hur graden av uppsåt, och därmed gärningsmannens skuld, påverkar den efterföljande straffmätningen.

För att man ska kunna prata om skuld måste man bestämma sig för vad som är klandervärt. Klandervärdheten ska sedan vara av viss... (More)
I svensk rätt krävs att gärningsmannen kan tillskrivas någon form av skuld för den begångna gärningen för att denne ska kunna dömas för brott, och för många brott krävs det även att det föreligger uppsåt. Uppsåt som skuldform klassificeras i tre grader, där varje grad definieras utifrån de avsikter gärningsmannen hade med sitt handlande eller de insikter han hade om följden av handlingen. Detta ska återspegla vilken grad av skuld som gärningsmannen har ådagalagt i gärningen. Syftet med denna rapport är att utreda hur graden av uppsåt, och därmed gärningsmannens skuld, påverkar den efterföljande straffmätningen.

För att man ska kunna prata om skuld måste man bestämma sig för vad som är klandervärt. Klandervärdheten ska sedan vara av viss betydelse för hur högt straffet blir för den begångna gärningen. I lagtext föreskrivs att straffmätningen ska utgå ifrån en bedömning av gärningens straffvärde. Straffvärdet innefattar en skulddimension och där ska gärningsmannens avsikter och motiv beaktas. I förarbetena till brottsbalken 29 kap. konstateras att graden av uppsåt spelar stor roll för denna bedömning. Gärningsmannens avsikter är en faktor som delvis är avgörande för vilket form av uppsåt som kan anses föreligga. En annan faktor som skiljer uppsåtsformerna åt är den likgiltighet som gärningsmannen påvisat inför att kränka ett rättsligt skyddat intresse. När Jareborg diskuterar vad som är det klandervärda är det just denna likgiltighet som man anser spela roll för hur stor grad av skuld gärningsmannen ska tillskrivas. I doktrin föreskrivs också att uppsåtsformerna definierar grader av likgiltighet, där en lägre grad är mindre klandervärd. Detta innebär att klandervärdheten tar sig uttryck i uppsåtsformerna, som sedermera bör påverka gärningens straffvärde.

Denna uppsats visar att det vid straffmätning i praxis varierar hur mycket utrymme graden av uppsåt får i straffvärdebedömningen, även om domstolen ofta diskuterar vilken grad av uppsåt som föreligger i det aktuella fallet. I vissa fall är det tydligt att den ovan beskrivna kedjan av faktorer går ihop till en enhet, och domstolen resonerar på ett konkret sätt angående graden av uppsåts påverkan för gärningens straffvärde. I andra fall blandas graden av uppsåt samman med försvårande eller förmildrande omständigheter, vilket innebär att det får en viss betydelse för utgången, om än på ett mindre tydligt sätt. Det finns emellertid också fall där domstolen menar att graden av uppsåt inte är av någon vikt, eller där man helt enkelt inte diskuterar det i straffmätningen. Vad som kan
konstateras är att när man beaktar graden av uppsåt verkar likgiltighetsuppsåt i mildrande riktning medan avsiktsuppsåt gör att man håller sig till utgångspunkten eller ser det som försvårande. (Less)
Abstract
In the Swedish legal system, a requirement for convicting a culprit of a crime is that some form of guilt can be attributed to said culprit, and many crimes require criminal intent as well. Criminal intent as a form of guilt is classified in three degrees, where every degree is defined by the culprit’s intentions when conducting his actions or by his understanding of the consequences that his actions would have. This represents/reflects the degree of liability that the culprit has exhibited in his actions. The purpose of this essay is to investigate how the level of criminal intent – and by extension the culprit’s guilt – affects the subsequent meting of punishment.

To be able to discuss guilt as a phenomenon, one has to decide what is... (More)
In the Swedish legal system, a requirement for convicting a culprit of a crime is that some form of guilt can be attributed to said culprit, and many crimes require criminal intent as well. Criminal intent as a form of guilt is classified in three degrees, where every degree is defined by the culprit’s intentions when conducting his actions or by his understanding of the consequences that his actions would have. This represents/reflects the degree of liability that the culprit has exhibited in his actions. The purpose of this essay is to investigate how the level of criminal intent – and by extension the culprit’s guilt – affects the subsequent meting of punishment.

To be able to discuss guilt as a phenomenon, one has to decide what is reprehensible and what is not. Thereafter, the reprehensibility matters in regards to how great the punishment is to be for a certain deed. Swedish legal text stipulates that the meting of punishment shall have its basis in an assessment of the penal value of the criminal act. The penal value contains a dimension of guilt where the culprit’s intentions and motives are taken into account. In the legislative history of BRB chapter 29 it is ascertained that the degree of criminal intent matters to a large extent in this assessment. The culprit’s intentions is a factor that is partly decisive for the kind of criminal intent that could be considered to be at hand. Another factor that differentiates the three forms of criminal intent is the indifference that the culprit may have shown in regards to having violated a legally protected interest. When Jareborg discusses what is to be regarded as reprehensible, this indifference is what matters for the degree of guilt that should be attributed to the culprit. Doctrine also states that the different forms of criminal intent define different degrees of indifference, where a lower level of indifference is less reprehensible. This means that the reprehensibility is expressed in the different forms of criminal intent, which subsequently should affect the deed’s penal value.

This essay shows that in practice, when meting out the punishment, the impact that the degree of criminal intent has varies, even though the court often discusses which degree of criminal intent is at hand. In some cases it is clear that the described chain of affecting factors described above acts uniformly and the court reasons distinct way in regards to the effect the degree of intent has on the penal value. In other cases the degree of criminal intent is fused together with aggravating or extenuating circumstances, which means it has an impact on the outcome, although in a less apparent manner. There are however cases where the court either deems the degree of intent as irrelevant or simply just ignores it in the meting out of punishment. What can be concluded is that
when the degree of intent is taken into account during the assessment of the meting out of punishment, indifferential intent extenuates the punishment while direct intension aggravates the punishment. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Karlsson, Petronella LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20171
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Straffrätt, uppsåt, straffmätning
language
Swedish
id
8908285
date added to LUP
2017-06-29 16:14:29
date last changed
2017-06-29 16:14:29
@misc{8908285,
  abstract     = {In the Swedish legal system, a requirement for convicting a culprit of a crime is that some form of guilt can be attributed to said culprit, and many crimes require criminal intent as well. Criminal intent as a form of guilt is classified in three degrees, where every degree is defined by the culprit’s intentions when conducting his actions or by his understanding of the consequences that his actions would have. This represents/reflects the degree of liability that the culprit has exhibited in his actions. The purpose of this essay is to investigate how the level of criminal intent – and by extension the culprit’s guilt – affects the subsequent meting of punishment.

To be able to discuss guilt as a phenomenon, one has to decide what is reprehensible and what is not. Thereafter, the reprehensibility matters in regards to how great the punishment is to be for a certain deed. Swedish legal text stipulates that the meting of punishment shall have its basis in an assessment of the penal value of the criminal act. The penal value contains a dimension of guilt where the culprit’s intentions and motives are taken into account. In the legislative history of BRB chapter 29 it is ascertained that the degree of criminal intent matters to a large extent in this assessment. The culprit’s intentions is a factor that is partly decisive for the kind of criminal intent that could be considered to be at hand. Another factor that differentiates the three forms of criminal intent is the indifference that the culprit may have shown in regards to having violated a legally protected interest. When Jareborg discusses what is to be regarded as reprehensible, this indifference is what matters for the degree of guilt that should be attributed to the culprit. Doctrine also states that the different forms of criminal intent define different degrees of indifference, where a lower level of indifference is less reprehensible. This means that the reprehensibility is expressed in the different forms of criminal intent, which subsequently should affect the deed’s penal value.

This essay shows that in practice, when meting out the punishment, the impact that the degree of criminal intent has varies, even though the court often discusses which degree of criminal intent is at hand. In some cases it is clear that the described chain of affecting factors described above acts uniformly and the court reasons distinct way in regards to the effect the degree of intent has on the penal value. In other cases the degree of criminal intent is fused together with aggravating or extenuating circumstances, which means it has an impact on the outcome, although in a less apparent manner. There are however cases where the court either deems the degree of intent as irrelevant or simply just ignores it in the meting out of punishment. What can be concluded is that
when the degree of intent is taken into account during the assessment of the meting out of punishment, indifferential intent extenuates the punishment while direct intension aggravates the punishment.},
  author       = {Karlsson, Petronella},
  keyword      = {Straffrätt,uppsåt,straffmätning},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Graden av uppsåt - vilken inverkan har det på straffmätningen? - Om klandervärdhet och dess utfall i praktiken},
  year         = {2017},
}