Advanced

Förtroendebevisning i mål om våldtäkt och i mål om olaga hot

Korths-Aspegren, Andreas LU (2017) JURM02 20171
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
I förevarande arbete utreds dels, i arbetets första del, huruvida förtroendebevisning i praktiken får olika effekt i mål om våldtäkt och i mål om olaga hot, dels, i arbetets andra del, huruvida det resultat som arbetets första del utmynnat i kan förklaras eller rättfärdigas genom att argumentera för att förtroendebevisning har olika beviskraft i mål om våldtäkt och i mål om olaga hot eller att det föreligger differentierade beviskrav brotten emellan.

För att avgöra huruvida förtroendebevisning får samma effekt i mål om våldtäkt som i mål om olaga hot företas i arbetets första del en rättsfallsstudie. I rättsfallsstudien jämförs tio olika tingsrätters bedömning av vittnesmål i mål om våldtäkt och i mål om olaga hot, vari det som... (More)
I förevarande arbete utreds dels, i arbetets första del, huruvida förtroendebevisning i praktiken får olika effekt i mål om våldtäkt och i mål om olaga hot, dels, i arbetets andra del, huruvida det resultat som arbetets första del utmynnat i kan förklaras eller rättfärdigas genom att argumentera för att förtroendebevisning har olika beviskraft i mål om våldtäkt och i mål om olaga hot eller att det föreligger differentierade beviskrav brotten emellan.

För att avgöra huruvida förtroendebevisning får samma effekt i mål om våldtäkt som i mål om olaga hot företas i arbetets första del en rättsfallsstudie. I rättsfallsstudien jämförs tio olika tingsrätters bedömning av vittnesmål i mål om våldtäkt och i mål om olaga hot, vari det som förmedlas av vittnena uteslutande utgör förtroendebevisning. Syftet har därvid varit att skapa två närmast identiska typsituationer i bevishänseende, för att det sedermera ska vara möjligt att avgöra huruvida domstolarna kommit till likartade slutsatser i mål om våldtäkt som i mål om olaga hot. Resultatet av rättsfallsstudien synes innebära att tingsrätter är betydligt mer restriktiva att meddela fällande domar på grundval av bevisning som uteslutande består av förtroendebevisning i mål om olaga hot än i mål om våldtäkt. Bevisning som uteslutande består av förtroendebevisning synes vara tillräcklig för att döma någon för våldtäkt, men ej för olaga hot. Slutsatsen i arbetets första del är således att förtroendebevisning i de undersökta domarna har olika effekt i mål om våldtäkt och i mål om olaga hot.

I arbetets andra del undersöks huruvida det resultat som arbetets första del utmynnat i kan förklaras genom att argumentera för att det föreligger olika beviskraft för förtroendebevisning i mål om våldtäkt och i mål om olaga hot eller om det föreligger differentierade beviskrav brotten emellan. Det söks dels svar på huruvida någon av förklaringarna är riktig, dels huruvida någon av förklaringarna är rättfärdig. Det konstateras att det inte finns anledning att tillmäta förtroendebevisning olika beviskraft för de båda brottstyperna, eftersom det inte kan antas vara mer komplicerat att fara med osanning om att ha blivit utsatt för något av brotten. Det konstateras även att då det talas om brotten olaga hot och våldtäkt synes stöd för att tillämpa ett differentierat beviskrav saknas. Ingen av förklaringarna kan således rättfärdiga det resultat som arbetets första del utmynnat i. Utifrån vad som kan utläsas ur domsmotiveringar som redogjorts för i arbetets första del kan det konstateras att det inte är möjligt att avgöra vilken av förklaringarna som är riktig. Det synes dock föreligga mer stöd för att domstolarna de facto tillmäter förtroendebevisning olika beviskraft i mål om våldtäkt och i mål om olaga hot än att de tillämpar olika beviskrav brotten emellan. (Less)
Abstract
In the first part of this essay, the author examines if trust evidence has the same effect in cases concerning rape as in cases concerning unlawful threats. In the second part of the essay, the author investigates if the results in the first part of the essay can be explained by arguing that trust evidence has a different probative value in cases concerning rape than in cases concerning unlawful threats or that the evidentiary requirement is differentiated between the two crimes.

To determine whether trust evidence has the same effect in cases concerning rape as in cases concerning unlawful threats a case study is conducted in the first part of the essay. In the case study, a comparison is made of how ten different district courts have... (More)
In the first part of this essay, the author examines if trust evidence has the same effect in cases concerning rape as in cases concerning unlawful threats. In the second part of the essay, the author investigates if the results in the first part of the essay can be explained by arguing that trust evidence has a different probative value in cases concerning rape than in cases concerning unlawful threats or that the evidentiary requirement is differentiated between the two crimes.

To determine whether trust evidence has the same effect in cases concerning rape as in cases concerning unlawful threats a case study is conducted in the first part of the essay. In the case study, a comparison is made of how ten different district courts have evaluated trust evidence in cases concerning rape and unlawful threats. Thus, the purpose of the study is to create two similar situations given the evidence adduced at trial. Subsequently, it is possible to determine whether the courts have reached the same conclusions in cases concerning rape as they have in cases concerning unlawful threats. The case study concludes that district courts seem far more restrictive to convict someone based on evidence that solely consists of trust evidence in cases concerning unlawful threats than in cases concerning rape. Evidence that solely consists of trust evidence thus seem sufficient to convict someone of rape, but not to convict someone of unlawful threats. Trust evidence therefore has a different effect in cases concerning rape than in cases concerning unlawful threats in the judgments examined.

In the second part of the essay, the author investigates if the results in the first part of the essay can be explained by arguing that trust evidence has a different probative value in cases concerning rape than in cases concerning unlawful threats or that the evidentiary requirement is differentiated between the two crimes. The aim in the second part of the essay is to answer if any of the two explanations are correct and if any of the two explanations can justify the results in the first part of the essay. It can be concluded that there is no reason to award trust evidence a higher probative value in cases concerning rape than in cases concerning unlawful threats, since there is no reason to believe that it is more difficult to lie about being a victim of any of the crimes. It can also be concluded that in cases concerning rape and unlawful threats, there is no support in relevant case law or in legal doctrine that the evidentiary requirement may be differentiated. Thus, none of the explanations can justify the results in the first part of the essay. Based on what can be read in judgments that has been presented in the first part of the essay it can be concluded that it is impossible to determine if any of the explanations are correct. However, it seems to exist more support for the explanation that trust evidence has a different probative value than the explanation that the evidentiary requirement is higher in cases concerning unlawful threats than in cases concerning rape. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Korths-Aspegren, Andreas LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Trust evidence in cases concerning rape and unlawful threats
course
JURM02 20171
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Allmän rättslära, Straffrätt, Jurisprudence, Criminal law, Muntlig stödbevisning, Förtroendebevisning, Rättssäkerhet, Beviskrav, Differentierade beviskrav, Våldtäkt, Olaga hot, Rättsfallsstudie
language
Swedish
id
8909095
date added to LUP
2017-06-16 15:55:52
date last changed
2017-06-16 15:55:52
@misc{8909095,
  abstract     = {In the first part of this essay, the author examines if trust evidence has the same effect in cases concerning rape as in cases concerning unlawful threats. In the second part of the essay, the author investigates if the results in the first part of the essay can be explained by arguing that trust evidence has a different probative value in cases concerning rape than in cases concerning unlawful threats or that the evidentiary requirement is differentiated between the two crimes. 

To determine whether trust evidence has the same effect in cases concerning rape as in cases concerning unlawful threats a case study is conducted in the first part of the essay. In the case study, a comparison is made of how ten different district courts have evaluated trust evidence in cases concerning rape and unlawful threats. Thus, the purpose of the study is to create two similar situations given the evidence adduced at trial. Subsequently, it is possible to determine whether the courts have reached the same conclusions in cases concerning rape as they have in cases concerning unlawful threats. The case study concludes that district courts seem far more restrictive to convict someone based on evidence that solely consists of trust evidence in cases concerning unlawful threats than in cases concerning rape. Evidence that solely consists of trust evidence thus seem sufficient to convict someone of rape, but not to convict someone of unlawful threats. Trust evidence therefore has a different effect in cases concerning rape than in cases concerning unlawful threats in the judgments examined. 

In the second part of the essay, the author investigates if the results in the first part of the essay can be explained by arguing that trust evidence has a different probative value in cases concerning rape than in cases concerning unlawful threats or that the evidentiary requirement is differentiated between the two crimes. The aim in the second part of the essay is to answer if any of the two explanations are correct and if any of the two explanations can justify the results in the first part of the essay. It can be concluded that there is no reason to award trust evidence a higher probative value in cases concerning rape than in cases concerning unlawful threats, since there is no reason to believe that it is more difficult to lie about being a victim of any of the crimes. It can also be concluded that in cases concerning rape and unlawful threats, there is no support in relevant case law or in legal doctrine that the evidentiary requirement may be differentiated. Thus, none of the explanations can justify the results in the first part of the essay. Based on what can be read in judgments that has been presented in the first part of the essay it can be concluded that it is impossible to determine if any of the explanations are correct. However, it seems to exist more support for the explanation that trust evidence has a different probative value than the explanation that the evidentiary requirement is higher in cases concerning unlawful threats than in cases concerning rape.},
  author       = {Korths-Aspegren, Andreas},
  keyword      = {Allmän rättslära,Straffrätt,Jurisprudence,Criminal law,Muntlig stödbevisning,Förtroendebevisning,Rättssäkerhet,Beviskrav,Differentierade beviskrav,Våldtäkt,Olaga hot,Rättsfallsstudie},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Förtroendebevisning i mål om våldtäkt och i mål om olaga hot},
  year         = {2017},
}