Barnet inom rättsväsendet
(2018) LAGF03 20181Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Vid brott mot barn och då barn står som vittne saknas ofta andra vittnen och annan teknisk bevisning. Här ställs inte bara krav på domstolarnas kompetens utan även den psykologiska kunskapen vid utredningar då barnets utsaga kan vara den enda bevisningen att tillgå. Det är av oerhörd vikt att alla aktörer inom rättsväsendet besitter kunskap att genomföra en korrekt bedömning i det enskilda fallet. Detta gäller allt från att utföra ett oklanderligt förhör under förundersökningen till att i domstolen värdera bevisning som anförts. En rättslig reglering och förtydligande kriterier för utförande och bedömning för detta finns att tillgå. När barnet står som målsägande eller vittne finns det en rad faktorer som kan inverka vid bedömning av... (More)
- Vid brott mot barn och då barn står som vittne saknas ofta andra vittnen och annan teknisk bevisning. Här ställs inte bara krav på domstolarnas kompetens utan även den psykologiska kunskapen vid utredningar då barnets utsaga kan vara den enda bevisningen att tillgå. Det är av oerhörd vikt att alla aktörer inom rättsväsendet besitter kunskap att genomföra en korrekt bedömning i det enskilda fallet. Detta gäller allt från att utföra ett oklanderligt förhör under förundersökningen till att i domstolen värdera bevisning som anförts. En rättslig reglering och förtydligande kriterier för utförande och bedömning för detta finns att tillgå. När barnet står som målsägande eller vittne finns det en rad faktorer som kan inverka vid bedömning av utsagan. Just barn är känsliga för suggestibilitet.
Det är utifrån dessa försvårande omständigheter som behovet av en sakkunnig grundar sig i, då rättsutövaren i regel inte besitter erforderlig kunskap. Trots detta råder en högst aktuell debatt angående sakkunnigas medverkan i rättsprocessen. Vissa menar att sakkunniga krävs för att ge domarna ett grundligt underlag att döma utifrån. Kritiker menar att rättskiparna blint följer de sakkunnigas bedömningar vilket kan leda till felaktiga domar.
Det råder inte enbart diskussioner angående sakkunniga utan de kriterier som Högsta domstolen har att tillämpa på barns utsagor och dess rättspsykologiska förankring är även det ett högst aktuellt ämne. Just detta möte är föremålet för uppsatsens analys vilket lämnar delvis otillfredsställande resultat. Kanske behöver rättssystemets mest fundamentala metod för bevisvärdering bytas ut.
Därför kom denna uppsats syfte att handla om huruvida barns trovärdighet kan nå upp till brottsmålets gällande beviskrav från ett juridiskt såväl som psykologiskt perspektiv. Utformningen är noggrant utvald efter relevant material och avgränsat för syftet med uppsatsen. Genomgående följer denna uppsats olika tillämpliga metoder för olika områden. (Less) - Abstract
- When it comes to crime against children the child is often the only witness and other evidence are not existing. In these cases, it’s not only the courts´ legal competence that is put to the test, but also their psychological ability of how to handle a case where a child is the only one with a statement. It is important that everyone in the legal system has this knowledge so that they can make a correct assessment in the individual case. This goes for everything from making an impeccably interrogation during the preliminary enquiry to being in court and evaluating the evidence that has been provided. A legal regulation and clarifying criteria for this purpose is available. When a child is a witness or the injured person there’s a whole... (More)
- When it comes to crime against children the child is often the only witness and other evidence are not existing. In these cases, it’s not only the courts´ legal competence that is put to the test, but also their psychological ability of how to handle a case where a child is the only one with a statement. It is important that everyone in the legal system has this knowledge so that they can make a correct assessment in the individual case. This goes for everything from making an impeccably interrogation during the preliminary enquiry to being in court and evaluating the evidence that has been provided. A legal regulation and clarifying criteria for this purpose is available. When a child is a witness or the injured person there’s a whole bunch of factors that can affect the judgment of the statement. Especially children are sensitive to suggestibility.
It is from these aggravating circumstances that there is a special need for an expert, because the judge in general does not have this kind of knowledge. Despite this, there is a hot debate regarding the legal experts participating in the legal process. Some say that the legal experts are required for the judges to be able to give a thorough basis to place their verdict from. Critics say that the administration of justice often blindly follows the judgments of the legal experts, which in some cases can lead to inaccurate verdicts.
There are not only discussions about the legal experts, but also the criteria the supreme court must apply to children’s statements and its physiological legal anchoring. It is this clash which is the foundation for the analysis in this essay and it is leaving some unsatisfying results. Maybe the legal system most fundamental method for evaluation of evidence needs to be changed.
The topic for this essay is about how a child’s credibility can meet the standards for evaluation of evidence in a case from a legal and physiological perspective. The layout and methods are based on carefully selected material and it is delimited for this essay. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8940772
- author
- Jansson, Emelie LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20181
- year
- 2018
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Processrätt, vittnespsykologi, straffrätt, sakkunniga
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8940772
- date added to LUP
- 2018-06-28 13:17:59
- date last changed
- 2018-06-28 13:17:59
@misc{8940772,
abstract = {{When it comes to crime against children the child is often the only witness and other evidence are not existing. In these cases, it’s not only the courts´ legal competence that is put to the test, but also their psychological ability of how to handle a case where a child is the only one with a statement. It is important that everyone in the legal system has this knowledge so that they can make a correct assessment in the individual case. This goes for everything from making an impeccably interrogation during the preliminary enquiry to being in court and evaluating the evidence that has been provided. A legal regulation and clarifying criteria for this purpose is available. When a child is a witness or the injured person there’s a whole bunch of factors that can affect the judgment of the statement. Especially children are sensitive to suggestibility.
It is from these aggravating circumstances that there is a special need for an expert, because the judge in general does not have this kind of knowledge. Despite this, there is a hot debate regarding the legal experts participating in the legal process. Some say that the legal experts are required for the judges to be able to give a thorough basis to place their verdict from. Critics say that the administration of justice often blindly follows the judgments of the legal experts, which in some cases can lead to inaccurate verdicts.
There are not only discussions about the legal experts, but also the criteria the supreme court must apply to children’s statements and its physiological legal anchoring. It is this clash which is the foundation for the analysis in this essay and it is leaving some unsatisfying results. Maybe the legal system most fundamental method for evaluation of evidence needs to be changed.
The topic for this essay is about how a child’s credibility can meet the standards for evaluation of evidence in a case from a legal and physiological perspective. The layout and methods are based on carefully selected material and it is delimited for this essay.}},
author = {{Jansson, Emelie}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Barnet inom rättsväsendet}},
year = {{2018}},
}