Advanced

Borde djurplågeri anses vara ett artbrott? - En kritisk analys av rättsläget

Palm, Eline LU (2017) LAGF03 20171
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Djurplågeri ses i allmänhet inte som ett artbrott efter det prejudicerande rättsfallet NJA 2006 s.339. Min uppsats undersöker om det finns goda rättsliga skäl till att betrakta djurplågeri som ett artbrott.

Huruvida ett brott ska anses vara ett artbrott eller inte fastslås huvudsakligen av HD:s praxis, eftersom varken lag eller förarbeten ger uttömmande information kring begreppet. Huvudsakliga artbrottskriterier är om brottsligheten antagit en viss utbredning, elakartade former samt om brottet är svårförebyggt eller svårupptäckt. Det har också argumenterats att i begreppet intolkas kriminalpolitiska intressen, som att kunna styra den allmänna opinionen och skärpa synen på vissa brott.

Vid tiden för ovan rättsfall var mörkertalet... (More)
Djurplågeri ses i allmänhet inte som ett artbrott efter det prejudicerande rättsfallet NJA 2006 s.339. Min uppsats undersöker om det finns goda rättsliga skäl till att betrakta djurplågeri som ett artbrott.

Huruvida ett brott ska anses vara ett artbrott eller inte fastslås huvudsakligen av HD:s praxis, eftersom varken lag eller förarbeten ger uttömmande information kring begreppet. Huvudsakliga artbrottskriterier är om brottsligheten antagit en viss utbredning, elakartade former samt om brottet är svårförebyggt eller svårupptäckt. Det har också argumenterats att i begreppet intolkas kriminalpolitiska intressen, som att kunna styra den allmänna opinionen och skärpa synen på vissa brott.

Vid tiden för ovan rättsfall var mörkertalet stort vad gällde utbredningen och formerna av djurplågeri över landet. Samma år framkom nämligen i en rapport från Djurskyddsmyndigheten att kontrollerna av djurskyddet var allvarligt bristfälliga. Man förstatligade därför kontrollerna år 2009. Därefter såg man en statistisk ökning av förelägganden och omhändertaganden. Även brott mot djurskyddslagen och djurplågeribrott ökade. Polismyndigheten noterade att djurplågeriet börjat anta allvarliga former med sadistiska förtecken.

Det finns dessutom sekretessbestämmelser som omöjliggör för hälso-och sjukvårdspersonal samt socialtjänsten att lämna vidare uppgifter om djurskyddsproblem till berörd kontrollmyndighet. Detta har länge bidragit till ett mörkertal av husdjur som far illa i privata hem. Djuren har underskattats i riskbedömningar i våldsrelationer. Nyligen har riksdagen dock röstat igenom ett förslag om sekretessbrytande bestämmelse. I förslaget fokuseras på det kriminalpolitiska intresset av att komma åt djurplågeri, eftersom studier visat på ett starkt samband mellan våld i nära relationer och djurmisshandel.

Den statliga utredningen av en ny djurskyddslag har fastslagit att djurens välmående är viktig för folkhälsan. Vissa djurarter har till och med börjat få status som familjemedlemmar. Skyddsintresset för djurplågeri är enligt lagstiftning samhällets intresse av att djur behandlas väl. Då djuren inte anses som målsägande i djurplågerifall, befinner de sig i en utsatt brottsofferställning, utan möjlighet att hävda sin rätt. Eftersom vi människor och djuren har ett ömsesidigt beroende av varandra, finns det ett kriminalpolitiskt intresse i att skärpa synen på djurplågeri.

I Sverige bidrar vidare den juridiska statusen djur har till att de inte prioriteras i svenska rättssystemet, och straffvärdet blir lågt. HD hänvisade i NJA 2006 s.339 till bl a påföljdsstatistik för att dra slutsatser om djurplågeri och artbrott. Det har framförts att rätten undervärderar djurens lidande till förmån för gärningsmannens situation, och därför missbedömer straffvärdet. Kritiker har, som stöd för sin kritik, exemplifierat med ett enligt dem typiskt felbedömt vanvårdsfall. NJA 2006 s.339 delar många likheter med detta fall, och det är därför beklagligt att fallet fått prejudicerande verkan.

Sammanfattningsvis anser jag att min uppsats visar att djurplågeri är utbrett, har antagit allvarliga former med sadistiska förtecken samt har ökat sedan rättsfallet NJA 2006 s.339. Djurplågeri är dessutom svårupptäckt och viktigt att förebygga, både med hänsyn till folkhälsan och för att förebygga och komma åt våldsrelationer.

Avslutningsvis anser jag att det finns starka rättsliga skäl till att djurplågeri borde ses som artbrott, med presumtion för fängelse. (Less)
Abstract
In general, animal cruelty is not seen as a crime that should result in imprisonment (Sw. ’artbrott’), as a consequence of the case NJA 2006 page 339. This essay examines whether there are good reasons for animal cruelty to be considered as artbrott.

Whether or not a crime is to be considered as an ’artbrott’ is mainly established by HD, since neither the law nor preparatory work give any exhaustive information about its applicability. Main criterias for ’artbrott’ are whether the crime has assumed a certain spreading or malignant form, and if the crime is difficult to prevent or hard to discover. It has also been argued that the concept includes other criminal political interests, for example to better reflect the public opinion on... (More)
In general, animal cruelty is not seen as a crime that should result in imprisonment (Sw. ’artbrott’), as a consequence of the case NJA 2006 page 339. This essay examines whether there are good reasons for animal cruelty to be considered as artbrott.

Whether or not a crime is to be considered as an ’artbrott’ is mainly established by HD, since neither the law nor preparatory work give any exhaustive information about its applicability. Main criterias for ’artbrott’ are whether the crime has assumed a certain spreading or malignant form, and if the crime is difficult to prevent or hard to discover. It has also been argued that the concept includes other criminal political interests, for example to better reflect the public opinion on certain crimes. In this sense, ’artbrott’ can be used to sharpen the view on certain crimes.

At the time of NJA 2006 page 339, the number of unrecorded cases was considerable, as regards the spread and the form of animal cruelty over the country. The same year it was revealed in a report from the Animal Welfare Agency that the controls of the animal protection were seriously inadequate. In 2009 the responsibility for the controls was nationalized, and thereafter a statistic increase of injunctions and detentions could be seen. Moreover, violations of the Animal welfare Act and cases of animal cruelty increased. The police authority also noted that animal cruelty cases began to adopt more serious forms of sadistic nature.

Moreover, there are confidentiality regulations rendering it impossible for the health- and medical staff as well as social workers to forward information on animal cruelty to the concerned authority. For a long time the confidentiality has contributed to a number of unrecorded cases of pets being ill-treated in private homes. It has, however, recently been voted on a removal of certain secrecy breaching provisions. The proposal focuses upon the criminal political interest of disclosing animal cruelty. Studies have shown a strong link between the family’s pet being subject to violence or ill treatment, and the partner being subject to physical abuse.

The state investigator of a new animal protection law has established that the well-being of the animals is important to the public health. Certain species have even been granted status as family members. The interest in preventing animal cruelty is, according to legislation, the community’s interest in animals being well treated. Since animals are not regarded as plaintiffs in animal cruelty cases, animals are in a vulnerable position, unable to assert themselves legally. People and animals are mutually dependent on each other - this should be reflected in the penalty.

Since HD in NJA 2006 page 339 refers to the penalty statistics when deciding whether animal cruelty is an ’artbrott’ or not, it is vital to analyze these penalties. It has developed a too mild a penalty practice which has been critizised. It has been argued that the court underestimates the suffering of the animals in favour of the perpetrator’s situation, and therefore misjudges the penal value. Critics have exemplified with, according to them, a typical case of neglect. NJA 2006 page 339 shares many similarities with this case.

In my essay I come to the conclusion that animal cruelty is widely spread, has adopted more serious forms with sadistic traits, and has increased, in relation to the premises presented in NJA 2006 page 339. Moreover, animal cruelty is hard to discover and important to prevent, in regard of public health and in order to prevent domestic violence.

Finally, I consider there to be strong legal reasons to consider animal cruelty as ’artbrott’ with the presumption of imprisonment. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Palm, Eline LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20171
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Djurplågeri
language
Swedish
id
8908415
date added to LUP
2017-06-30 12:55:45
date last changed
2017-07-04 04:09:52
@misc{8908415,
  abstract     = {In general, animal cruelty is not seen as a crime that should result in imprisonment (Sw. ’artbrott’), as a consequence of the case NJA 2006 page 339. This essay examines whether there are good reasons for animal cruelty to be considered as artbrott.

Whether or not a crime is to be considered as an ’artbrott’ is mainly established by HD, since neither the law nor preparatory work give any exhaustive information about its applicability. Main criterias for ’artbrott’ are whether the crime has assumed a certain spreading or malignant form, and if the crime is difficult to prevent or hard to discover. It has also been argued that the concept includes other criminal political interests, for example to better reflect the public opinion on certain crimes. In this sense, ’artbrott’ can be used to sharpen the view on certain crimes.

At the time of NJA 2006 page 339, the number of unrecorded cases was considerable, as regards the spread and the form of animal cruelty over the country. The same year it was revealed in a report from the Animal Welfare Agency that the controls of the animal protection were seriously inadequate. In 2009 the responsibility for the controls was nationalized, and thereafter a statistic increase of injunctions and detentions could be seen. Moreover, violations of the Animal welfare Act and cases of animal cruelty increased. The police authority also noted that animal cruelty cases began to adopt more serious forms of sadistic nature.

Moreover, there are confidentiality regulations rendering it impossible for the health- and medical staff as well as social workers to forward information on animal cruelty to the concerned authority. For a long time the confidentiality has contributed to a number of unrecorded cases of pets being ill-treated in private homes. It has, however, recently been voted on a removal of certain secrecy breaching provisions. The proposal focuses upon the criminal political interest of disclosing animal cruelty. Studies have shown a strong link between the family’s pet being subject to violence or ill treatment, and the partner being subject to physical abuse.

The state investigator of a new animal protection law has established that the well-being of the animals is important to the public health. Certain species have even been granted status as family members. The interest in preventing animal cruelty is, according to legislation, the community’s interest in animals being well treated. Since animals are not regarded as plaintiffs in animal cruelty cases, animals are in a vulnerable position, unable to assert themselves legally. People and animals are mutually dependent on each other - this should be reflected in the penalty.

Since HD in NJA 2006 page 339 refers to the penalty statistics when deciding whether animal cruelty is an ’artbrott’ or not, it is vital to analyze these penalties. It has developed a too mild a penalty practice which has been critizised. It has been argued that the court underestimates the suffering of the animals in favour of the perpetrator’s situation, and therefore misjudges the penal value. Critics have exemplified with, according to them, a typical case of neglect. NJA 2006 page 339 shares many similarities with this case.

In my essay I come to the conclusion that animal cruelty is widely spread, has adopted more serious forms with sadistic traits, and has increased, in relation to the premises presented in NJA 2006 page 339. Moreover, animal cruelty is hard to discover and important to prevent, in regard of public health and in order to prevent domestic violence. 

Finally, I consider there to be strong legal reasons to consider animal cruelty as ’artbrott’ with the presumption of imprisonment.},
  author       = {Palm, Eline},
  keyword      = {Djurplågeri},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Borde djurplågeri anses vara ett artbrott? - En kritisk analys av rättsläget},
  year         = {2017},
}