Advanced

Idrott och straff - En studie om straffansvar vid idrottsvåld

Olsson, Ludvig LU (2017) LAGF03 20172
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Idrotten har en särskild position i samhället och behandlas därför därefter. T.ex. särbehandlas idrottsrörelsen genom att de allmänna och rättsliga reglernas tillämpningsområde begränsas gentemot idrotten. Detta är särskilt tydligt på straffrättens område då många idrotter utövas med olika grader av våld vilket accepteras av såväl samhället som rättsväsendet. Syftet med denna uppsats är därför att undersöka varför och på vilket sätt idrotten har en särställning samt varför idrottsvåld tillåts i större utsträckning än våldsanvändning i det vardagliga livet. Vidare syftar uppsatsen till att redogöra för gränsdragningen mellan tillåtet och otillåtet idrottsvåld och även undersöka huruvida rättsäkerheten uppfylls på idrottsvåldets område.

... (More)
Idrotten har en särskild position i samhället och behandlas därför därefter. T.ex. särbehandlas idrottsrörelsen genom att de allmänna och rättsliga reglernas tillämpningsområde begränsas gentemot idrotten. Detta är särskilt tydligt på straffrättens område då många idrotter utövas med olika grader av våld vilket accepteras av såväl samhället som rättsväsendet. Syftet med denna uppsats är därför att undersöka varför och på vilket sätt idrotten har en särställning samt varför idrottsvåld tillåts i större utsträckning än våldsanvändning i det vardagliga livet. Vidare syftar uppsatsen till att redogöra för gränsdragningen mellan tillåtet och otillåtet idrottsvåld och även undersöka huruvida rättsäkerheten uppfylls på idrottsvåldets område.

Av uppsatsen framgår att idrottens särställning beror dels på den grundlagsfästa föreningsfriheten, dels på dess samhällsnyttiga och positiva effekter. Vidare innebär dess särskilda ställning att idrotten i stor utsträckning tillåts lösa idrottsliga konflikter inom idrottsrörelsens självt, varför idrotten har tillåtits bygga upp ett eget rättsväsende med egna rättsregler. Trots detta har inte det allmänna för avsikt att helt lämna idrotten att sköta sig själv. Alltför grova gärningar accepteras inte och går inte fria från inblandning av det allmänna rättsväsendet och allmänt straffansvar.

Vidare kan konstateras att idrottsvåld kan delas in i tre kategorier: (1) Regelriktigt våld, (2) regelvidrigt våld och (3) idrottsfrämmande våld. De två förstnämnda anses vara straffria då våld som sker inom idrottens regler eller idé kan rättfärdigas av ansvarsfrihetsgrunderna samtycke eller principen om social adekvans. Vad gäller våldsgärningar som är idrottsfrämmande anses sådana inte kunna rättfärdigas och därmed inte undgå straffansvar då sådant våld anses strid mot idrottens regler och idé.

Någon universell och exakt gräns för tillåtet och otillåtet våld finns inte och kan svårligen fastslås av vad som framkommit av denna uppsats. Vidare saknas prejudikat från HD på området varför rättsläget för hur gränsdragningen ska lösas är aningen oklart. Dock råder tillsynes konsensus mellan doktrin och underrättspraxis om vissa principer. T.ex. anses att följande omständigheter bör beaktas vid bedömningen: (1) Idrottens egna regler, (2) idrottens karaktär, (3) gärningens idrottsligt motiverade syfte samt (4) skadans art.

Vad gäller rättssäkerheten på idrottsvåldets område kan av uppsatsen konstateras att det föreligger en viss problematik. Ett problem är att det finns två rättfärdigande omständigheter som kan tillämpas för att undanta våldsgärningar inom idrotten från straffansvar. Problemet är att det råder en viss osäkerhet angående hur dessa omständigheter förhåller sig till varandra och exakt vilken grund som bör tillämpas för att grunda straffrihet.

Den främsta rättssäkerhetsproblematiken är dock att det är oklart vilka principer som gäller vid gränsdragningen mellan tillåtet och otillåtet idrottsvåld. Avsaknaden av ett tydligt prejudikat gör att det råder oklarheter om hur gränsdragningen mellan tillåtet och otillåtet idrottsvåld ska göras och därmed vilka fall som bör tas upp till allmän prövning. Avsaknaden av ett sådant prejudikat har lett till att utrymmet för att bedöma en idrottslig gärning som straffri eller inte är väldigt stort och godtyckligt i praktiken. Detta har vidare inneburit att det råder en viss inkonsekvens angående vilka fall som blir föremål för allmän prövning och vilka som stannar inom idrotten. Således finns det uppenbara problem vad gäller förutsebarhetsprincipen och likhetsprincipen vilka torde kunna lösas om HD kunde leverera ett efterlängtat och välbehövligt prejudikat på området. (Less)
Abstract
Sports have a special position in the society and are therefore treated accordingly. For example does the community treat sport differently by limiting the scope of the general and legal rules towards the sports movement. This is particularly clear in criminal law, as many sports are exercised with different degrees of violence, which is accepted by both the society and the judiciary. The purpose of this paper is therefore to investigate why and in what way sports have a special position and why sports violence is allowed to a greater extent than violence in everyday life. Furthermore, the paper aims at explaining the boundaries between allowable and unallowable sports violence and also investigate whether legal certainty is met in the... (More)
Sports have a special position in the society and are therefore treated accordingly. For example does the community treat sport differently by limiting the scope of the general and legal rules towards the sports movement. This is particularly clear in criminal law, as many sports are exercised with different degrees of violence, which is accepted by both the society and the judiciary. The purpose of this paper is therefore to investigate why and in what way sports have a special position and why sports violence is allowed to a greater extent than violence in everyday life. Furthermore, the paper aims at explaining the boundaries between allowable and unallowable sports violence and also investigate whether legal certainty is met in the field of sports violence.

This survey shows that the special position of sports depends partly on the fundamental freedom of association and on its societal and positive effects. Furthermore, its special position means that sports are largely allowed to resolve sporting conflicts within the sports movement itself, why the sports movement have been allowed to build their own judicial system with their own legal rules. Nevertheless, there is no intention from the society to leave the sports movement to take care of itself completely. Excessive sports acts are not accepted and free from interference with the general judiciary and general criminal liability.

Furthermore, it can be noted that sports violence can be divided into three categories: (1) Violence according to the rules, (2) violence against the rules and (3) violence that are unknown to the particular sport. The first two are considered not punishable because the grounds of consent or the principle of social adequacy can justify violence that occurs according to the sports’ rules or the sports’ ideas. Acts of violence that are unknown to the particular sport are not considered to be able to be justified and thus do not avoid criminal liability since such violence is considered contrary to the sports’ rules and ideas.

It doesn’t exist a universal and precise line between permissible and unlawful sports violence and such line can hardly be established according to this survey. Furthermore, there is no precedent from the Supreme Court in the area, why the legal situation on how the problems of demarcation are to be solved is somewhat unclear. However, consensus between doctrine and case law from lower courts about certain principles can be observed. For example is it considered that the following considerations should be taken into consideration in the assessment: (1) The particular sport's own rules, (2) the nature of the particular sport, (3) the act’s motivated purpose and (4) the nature of the injury.

With regard to legal certainty in the field of sports violence, this paper finds that there are certain problems. One such problem is that there are two justifying circumstances that can be applied to exempt sports violence from criminal liability. This is because there is some uncertainty about how these circumstances relate to each other and exactly which of the reasons to apply for impunity.

However, the main legal security issue is that it’s unclear which principles shall be applied to determine the line between allowable and unallowable sports violence. The lack of a clear precedent makes it unclear how the boundaries between permitted and unauthorized violence should be done and thus which cases should be taken for public review. The absence of such a precedent has led to the fact that the space for judging sporting acts as punishable or not in practice is very large and thus quite arbitrary. This also means that there is some inconsistency regarding which cases are subject to public examination and which are dealt with only within the sports movement. Thus, there are obvious problems regarding the predictability principle and the principle of equality that could be solved if the Supreme Court could deliver a long-awaited and much-needed precedent in this area. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Olsson, Ludvig LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20172
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Straffrätt, idrottsjuridik, idrottsvåld, regelriktigt våld, regelvidrigt våld, idrottsfrämmande våld, samtycke, social adekvans, rättssäkerhet, formell rättssäkerhet.
language
Swedish
id
8930166
date added to LUP
2018-02-06 11:54:28
date last changed
2018-02-06 11:54:28
@misc{8930166,
  abstract     = {Sports have a special position in the society and are therefore treated accordingly. For example does the community treat sport differently by limiting the scope of the general and legal rules towards the sports movement. This is particularly clear in criminal law, as many sports are exercised with different degrees of violence, which is accepted by both the society and the judiciary. The purpose of this paper is therefore to investigate why and in what way sports have a special position and why sports violence is allowed to a greater extent than violence in everyday life. Furthermore, the paper aims at explaining the boundaries between allowable and unallowable sports violence and also investigate whether legal certainty is met in the field of sports violence.

This survey shows that the special position of sports depends partly on the fundamental freedom of association and on its societal and positive effects. Furthermore, its special position means that sports are largely allowed to resolve sporting conflicts within the sports movement itself, why the sports movement have been allowed to build their own judicial system with their own legal rules. Nevertheless, there is no intention from the society to leave the sports movement to take care of itself completely. Excessive sports acts are not accepted and free from interference with the general judiciary and general criminal liability.

Furthermore, it can be noted that sports violence can be divided into three categories: (1) Violence according to the rules, (2) violence against the rules and (3) violence that are unknown to the particular sport. The first two are considered not punishable because the grounds of consent or the principle of social adequacy can justify violence that occurs according to the sports’ rules or the sports’ ideas. Acts of violence that are unknown to the particular sport are not considered to be able to be justified and thus do not avoid criminal liability since such violence is considered contrary to the sports’ rules and ideas.

It doesn’t exist a universal and precise line between permissible and unlawful sports violence and such line can hardly be established according to this survey. Furthermore, there is no precedent from the Supreme Court in the area, why the legal situation on how the problems of demarcation are to be solved is somewhat unclear. However, consensus between doctrine and case law from lower courts about certain principles can be observed. For example is it considered that the following considerations should be taken into consideration in the assessment: (1) The particular sport's own rules, (2) the nature of the particular sport, (3) the act’s motivated purpose and (4) the nature of the injury.

With regard to legal certainty in the field of sports violence, this paper finds that there are certain problems. One such problem is that there are two justifying circumstances that can be applied to exempt sports violence from criminal liability. This is because there is some uncertainty about how these circumstances relate to each other and exactly which of the reasons to apply for impunity.

However, the main legal security issue is that it’s unclear which principles shall be applied to determine the line between allowable and unallowable sports violence. The lack of a clear precedent makes it unclear how the boundaries between permitted and unauthorized violence should be done and thus which cases should be taken for public review. The absence of such a precedent has led to the fact that the space for judging sporting acts as punishable or not in practice is very large and thus quite arbitrary. This also means that there is some inconsistency regarding which cases are subject to public examination and which are dealt with only within the sports movement. Thus, there are obvious problems regarding the predictability principle and the principle of equality that could be solved if the Supreme Court could deliver a long-awaited and much-needed precedent in this area.},
  author       = {Olsson, Ludvig},
  keyword      = {Straffrätt,idrottsjuridik,idrottsvåld,regelriktigt våld,regelvidrigt våld,idrottsfrämmande våld,samtycke,social adekvans,rättssäkerhet,formell rättssäkerhet.},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Idrott och straff - En studie om straffansvar vid idrottsvåld},
  year         = {2017},
}