Advanced

Ansvar för underlåtenhet att förhindra brott i sammanslutningar - en befogad kriminalisering?

Eskilsson, Kajsa LU (2017) LAGF03 20172
Faculty of Law
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
I svensk rätt finns det ett begränsat ansvar för underlåtenhet att förhindra andra personers brottsliga gärningar. Den 1 juli 2016 infördes ett nytt stycke i Brottsbalken, 23 kap. 6§ 2st. Lagen infördes för att kunna hålla ledare inom kriminella sammanslutningar ansvariga för brott som begås med deras vetskap inom sammanslutningen. Remissinstanserna till lagförslaget uttryckte kritik mot kriminaliseringen och menade bland annat att bestämmelsen inte skulle bli effektiv.
Denna uppsats diskuterar den nya bestämmelsens effektivitet i förhållande till andra ansvarsbestämmelser som medverkan, förberedelse och stämpling samt garantläran.

På grund av dessa andra ansvarsbestämmelsers vida tillämpning finns det endast ett begränsat utrymme... (More)
I svensk rätt finns det ett begränsat ansvar för underlåtenhet att förhindra andra personers brottsliga gärningar. Den 1 juli 2016 infördes ett nytt stycke i Brottsbalken, 23 kap. 6§ 2st. Lagen infördes för att kunna hålla ledare inom kriminella sammanslutningar ansvariga för brott som begås med deras vetskap inom sammanslutningen. Remissinstanserna till lagförslaget uttryckte kritik mot kriminaliseringen och menade bland annat att bestämmelsen inte skulle bli effektiv.
Denna uppsats diskuterar den nya bestämmelsens effektivitet i förhållande till andra ansvarsbestämmelser som medverkan, förberedelse och stämpling samt garantläran.

På grund av dessa andra ansvarsbestämmelsers vida tillämpning finns det endast ett begränsat utrymme för den nya bestämmelsen tillämpning. Framförallt medverkansreglerna har ett brett tillämpningsområde och därför kommer förmodligen användningen av den nya regeln bli begränsad, eftersom få fall kommer träffa den nya bestämmelsen utan att även träffa medverkansreglerna.

Uppsatsen tar även upp olika kriminaliseringsbegrepp för att kunna diskutera om kriminaliseringen av underlåtenhet att förhindra brott är godtagbar och befogad, främst ur effektivitetssynpunkt. På grund av olika tolkningar av begreppet effektivitet så kan den nya lagen vara effektiv om man väljer att se effektiviteten i form av en symbolisk funktion, och på så sätt är det en befogad kriminalisering. (Less)
Abstract
In the Swedish legal system there is limited responsibility for failure to hinder other people´s criminal acts. As of July 1st of 2016 there is a new paragraph in the 6th section of the 23rd chapter of the Swedish Penal Code. It was introduced in order to be able to keep leaders of organized crime responsible for the crimes that are, with them knowing, taking place within the organization. During the preparation of the law, critique was put forward considering the criminalization in relation to its expected efficiency.

This paper discusses the new paragraphs efficiency when compared to other regulations such as complicity, preparation- and conspiracy to commit crime as well as when a person has a special duty to act. Because of these... (More)
In the Swedish legal system there is limited responsibility for failure to hinder other people´s criminal acts. As of July 1st of 2016 there is a new paragraph in the 6th section of the 23rd chapter of the Swedish Penal Code. It was introduced in order to be able to keep leaders of organized crime responsible for the crimes that are, with them knowing, taking place within the organization. During the preparation of the law, critique was put forward considering the criminalization in relation to its expected efficiency.

This paper discusses the new paragraphs efficiency when compared to other regulations such as complicity, preparation- and conspiracy to commit crime as well as when a person has a special duty to act. Because of these regulation the area in which this new paragraph can be applied is limited. Especially the regulations about complicity are extensive and hence the use of the new paragraph will probably be limited, since there will be few cases whrere the new paragraph will be applied that does not also concern regulations about complicity.

This paper also discusses different theories about criminalization in order to be able to discuss if the criminalization of failure to hinder other people’s criminal acts is acceptable and justifiable, the main focus is on the term efficiency. Because of different interpretations of the meaning of the term efficiency the new regulation can be said to be efficient if one sees efficiency as a sort of symbolic figure, and in that sense be a justifiable criminalization. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Eskilsson, Kajsa LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20172
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
straffrätt
language
Swedish
id
8929980
date added to LUP
2018-02-06 12:00:03
date last changed
2018-02-06 12:00:03
@misc{8929980,
  abstract     = {In the Swedish legal system there is limited responsibility for failure to hinder other people´s criminal acts. As of July 1st of 2016 there is a new paragraph in the 6th section of the 23rd chapter of the Swedish Penal Code. It was introduced in order to be able to keep leaders of organized crime responsible for the crimes that are, with them knowing, taking place within the organization. During the preparation of the law, critique was put forward considering the criminalization in relation to its expected efficiency. 

This paper discusses the new paragraphs efficiency when compared to other regulations such as complicity, preparation- and conspiracy to commit crime as well as when a person has a special duty to act. Because of these regulation the area in which this new paragraph can be applied is limited. Especially the regulations about complicity are extensive and hence the use of the new paragraph will probably be limited, since there will be few cases whrere the new paragraph will be applied that does not also concern regulations about complicity. 

This paper also discusses different theories about criminalization in order to be able to discuss if the criminalization of failure to hinder other people’s criminal acts is acceptable and justifiable, the main focus is on the term efficiency. Because of different interpretations of the meaning of the term efficiency the new regulation can be said to be efficient if one sees efficiency as a sort of symbolic figure, and in that sense be a justifiable criminalization.},
  author       = {Eskilsson, Kajsa},
  keyword      = {straffrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Ansvar för underlåtenhet att förhindra brott i sammanslutningar - en befogad kriminalisering?},
  year         = {2017},
}