Advanced

Vårdnadshavares skärpta ansvar när barn begår brott - ett ekonomiskt incitament att minska ungdomsbrottsligheten

Hartmeier, Fredrik LU (2017) LAGF03 20172
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Svensk rätt innehåller ingen uttrycklig bestämmelse beträffande vårdnadshavares skadeståndsskyldighet när barn orsakar skada. Vårdnadshavare har en tillsynsplikt att iaktta, åsidosätts denna uppsåtligen eller genom oaktsamhet riskerar vårdnadshavare bli skadeståndsskyldiga enligt allmänna ansvarsregler.

2010 valde lagstiftaren att tydliggöra vårdnadshavares ansvar när barn begår brott. En särskild regel infördes vilken innebar ett strikt ansvar för föräldrar när barn begår brott. Åläggs barn skadestånd är föräldrar solidariskt ansvariga oberoende av om de kan anses varit vållande eller inte. Det strikta ansvaret är ovanligt i svensk rätt, det är en avvikelse från den grundläggande principen om att man ansvarar för eget vållande, det man... (More)
Svensk rätt innehåller ingen uttrycklig bestämmelse beträffande vårdnadshavares skadeståndsskyldighet när barn orsakar skada. Vårdnadshavare har en tillsynsplikt att iaktta, åsidosätts denna uppsåtligen eller genom oaktsamhet riskerar vårdnadshavare bli skadeståndsskyldiga enligt allmänna ansvarsregler.

2010 valde lagstiftaren att tydliggöra vårdnadshavares ansvar när barn begår brott. En särskild regel infördes vilken innebar ett strikt ansvar för föräldrar när barn begår brott. Åläggs barn skadestånd är föräldrar solidariskt ansvariga oberoende av om de kan anses varit vållande eller inte. Det strikta ansvaret är ovanligt i svensk rätt, det är en avvikelse från den grundläggande principen om att man ansvarar för eget vållande, det man kan kontrollera och försöka påverka. Regeln är kontroversiell, den har utsatts för mycket kritik i media och av remissinstanser redan vid framtagandet. Det främsta motivet till regleringen har varit att skapa ett ekonomiskt incitament för föräldrarna att försöka nå större insyn i sina barns liv och försöka påverka dem från att inträda i vanemässig kriminalitet.

Att det brottsförebyggande syftet skulle haft någon effekt har inte kunnat påvisas, istället kan regeln sägas kunna få oönskade effekter. Forskning har visat att ungdomar som begår brott redan kommer ifrån resurssvaga familjer, åläggs föräldrar att betala för deras skadestånd riskerar man en kontraproduktiv effekt. Det har framhållits vikten att kunna jämka oskäligt betungande skadestånd, men på grund av dålig information och att beloppsbegränsningar har domstolarna sällan tillämpat ekonomisk jämkning. Det är enligt mig en reglering med goda intentioner men som har och riskerar fortsatt att slå fel. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Swedish legislation does not contain an explicit regulation regarding legal guardians’ liability to pay indemnity when children cause damage. The legal guardian has a supervision duty to observe, if violating this intentionally or by either negligence or willfulness the legal guardian risks liability for damages according to public liability.

In 2010, the legislature chose to clarify the responsibility of legal guardians when children commit crimes. A special rule was introduced which implied strict responsibility for parents when children commit crimes. Parents are jointly and severally liable for their children’s damages regardless whether or not it can be seen as provoked or not. Strict responsibility is unusual in Swedish law, it is... (More)
Swedish legislation does not contain an explicit regulation regarding legal guardians’ liability to pay indemnity when children cause damage. The legal guardian has a supervision duty to observe, if violating this intentionally or by either negligence or willfulness the legal guardian risks liability for damages according to public liability.

In 2010, the legislature chose to clarify the responsibility of legal guardians when children commit crimes. A special rule was introduced which implied strict responsibility for parents when children commit crimes. Parents are jointly and severally liable for their children’s damages regardless whether or not it can be seen as provoked or not. Strict responsibility is unusual in Swedish law, it is a deviation from the fundamental principle of being responsible for oneself, what you can control and try to influence. The rule is controversial, it has been subjected to much criticism in the media and by referral agencies already in the process of development. The main motive for the regulation has been to create an economic incentive for parents to seek greater transparency in their children's lives and try to influence them to not enter into habitual criminality.

The fact that the purpose of crime prevention could have had an effect has not been proven, instead the regulation can be said to have undesirable effects. Research has shown that adolescents who commit crimes already come from resource-poor families, requiring parents to pay for their damages, risking a counterproductive effect. The importance of being able to compensate for unreasonably burdensome damages has been emphasized, but due to poor information and the amount of restrictions, the courts rarely apply economic adjustment. In my opinion, it is a regulation with good intentions that can still be considered in danger of failing. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Hartmeier, Fredrik LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20172
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
skadeståndsrätt
language
Swedish
id
8930465
date added to LUP
2018-02-06 14:27:05
date last changed
2018-02-06 14:27:05
@misc{8930465,
  abstract     = {Swedish legislation does not contain an explicit regulation regarding legal guardians’ liability to pay indemnity when children cause damage. The legal guardian has a supervision duty to observe, if violating this intentionally or by either negligence or willfulness the legal guardian risks liability for damages according to public liability.

In 2010, the legislature chose to clarify the responsibility of legal guardians when children commit crimes. A special rule was introduced which implied strict responsibility for parents when children commit crimes. Parents are jointly and severally liable for their children’s damages regardless whether or not it can be seen as provoked or not. Strict responsibility is unusual in Swedish law, it is a deviation from the fundamental principle of being responsible for oneself, what you can control and try to influence. The rule is controversial, it has been subjected to much criticism in the media and by referral agencies already in the process of development. The main motive for the regulation has been to create an economic incentive for parents to seek greater transparency in their children's lives and try to influence them to not enter into habitual criminality.

The fact that the purpose of crime prevention could have had an effect has not been proven, instead the regulation can be said to have undesirable effects. Research has shown that adolescents who commit crimes already come from resource-poor families, requiring parents to pay for their damages, risking a counterproductive effect. The importance of being able to compensate for unreasonably burdensome damages has been emphasized, but due to poor information and the amount of restrictions, the courts rarely apply economic adjustment. In my opinion, it is a regulation with good intentions that can still be considered in danger of failing.},
  author       = {Hartmeier, Fredrik},
  keyword      = {skadeståndsrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Vårdnadshavares skärpta ansvar när barn begår brott - ett ekonomiskt incitament att minska ungdomsbrottsligheten},
  year         = {2017},
}