Är lagen otillräcklig för de otillräkneliga? - Om straffbarheten för psykiskt störda lagöverträdare
(2018) LAGF03 20181Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- As a result of the enforcement of the Swedish Penal Code 1965 the distinction between accountable and unaccountable offenders were taken away. Every individual was from here on to be considered responsible for their acts and were able to be brought to justice. This legal system has received a lot of critic during the past decades from both legal experts and from the Swedish Government Official Reports. A re-integration with accountability as a requirement for sentence has been advised during a long time, but for the present no major reform has taken place.
This legal history essay has had the purpose to examine what affected the legislator not to include the system with accountability in the new legal system, and why we in present day... (More) - As a result of the enforcement of the Swedish Penal Code 1965 the distinction between accountable and unaccountable offenders were taken away. Every individual was from here on to be considered responsible for their acts and were able to be brought to justice. This legal system has received a lot of critic during the past decades from both legal experts and from the Swedish Government Official Reports. A re-integration with accountability as a requirement for sentence has been advised during a long time, but for the present no major reform has taken place.
This legal history essay has had the purpose to examine what affected the legislator not to include the system with accountability in the new legal system, and why we in present day appear desirously to bring it back. The study has revealed that the legislator at the time for the reform considered the requirement of accountability to be superfluous, which makes todays discussion even more interesting. The study has shown that the debate between the classic criminal law ideology and the positive criminal law ideology played an essential role in the work with the criminal legislation reform. The positive ideology became predominant and the attitude of treatment became the beacon of the new criminal legislation.
The issue of responsibility and culpability for mentally ill offenders, the so- called “unaccountable”, has nevertheless been finished. The debaters and analyzers seem, in spite the fact that the model was considered unneeded in the 1960s, willing to go back to a criminal legislation with a requirement of accountability. Today’s attitude can according to this analysis presumably be explained to be a backlash against the positive criminal law ideology and a return to the classic criminal law ideology. The matter of the main purpose of criminal legislation has reverted to an image of retribution and public security. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- I samband med införandet av brottsbalken 1965 togs uppdelningen mellan otillräkneliga och tillräkneliga lagöverträdare bort. Alla människor skulle från och med reformen anses vara ansvariga för sina handlingar och kunna dömas i domstol. Denna modell har under de senaste decennierna fått stark kritik av både verksamma jurister och statliga utredningar. En återgång till ett tillräknelighetskrav i strafflagstiftningen har förespråkats under lång tid men ännu har ingen större reform vidtagits.
Denna rättshistoriska uppsats har haft till syfte att utreda vad det var som påverkade lagstiftaren att utesluta tillräknelighetskravet 1965, och varför flertalet samhällsdebattörer i dagsläget tycks angelägna att återinföra kravet. I undersökningen... (More) - I samband med införandet av brottsbalken 1965 togs uppdelningen mellan otillräkneliga och tillräkneliga lagöverträdare bort. Alla människor skulle från och med reformen anses vara ansvariga för sina handlingar och kunna dömas i domstol. Denna modell har under de senaste decennierna fått stark kritik av både verksamma jurister och statliga utredningar. En återgång till ett tillräknelighetskrav i strafflagstiftningen har förespråkats under lång tid men ännu har ingen större reform vidtagits.
Denna rättshistoriska uppsats har haft till syfte att utreda vad det var som påverkade lagstiftaren att utesluta tillräknelighetskravet 1965, och varför flertalet samhällsdebattörer i dagsläget tycks angelägna att återinföra kravet. I undersökningen har det kommit fram att lagstiftaren vid införandet av brottsbalken ansåg tillräknelighetskravet som överflödigt vilket gör dagens debatt än mer intressant. Undersökningen har visat att den ideologiska debatten mellan å ena sidan den klassiska straffrättsskolan, å andra sidan den positiva skolan kom att spela en avgörande roll vid reformarbetet av strafflagstiftningen. Den positiva skolan tog sedermera överhanden och vårdideologin fick vägleda den nya strafflagstiftningen.
Debatten om ansvar och skuld för psykiskt störda lagöverträdare, de så kallade ”otillräkneliga”, har däremot aldrig avstannat. Dagens samhällsdebattörer och utredare tycks, trots att modellen på 1960-talet ansågs obehövlig, vilja återgå till en strafflagstiftning med ett tillräknelighetskrav. Dagens syn kan enligt undersökningen förmodligen förklaras som en motreaktion på den positiva straffrättsskolan och en återgång till den klassiska straffrättsskolan. Synen på vad strafflagstiftningens huvudsakliga syfte är har återgått till en föreställning om vedergällning och skydd för samhället. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8940932
- author
- Hammarlund, Lisa LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20181
- year
- 2018
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- straffrätt, tillräknelighet, allvarlig psykisk störning
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8940932
- date added to LUP
- 2018-07-04 18:21:45
- date last changed
- 2018-07-04 18:21:45
@misc{8940932,
abstract = {{As a result of the enforcement of the Swedish Penal Code 1965 the distinction between accountable and unaccountable offenders were taken away. Every individual was from here on to be considered responsible for their acts and were able to be brought to justice. This legal system has received a lot of critic during the past decades from both legal experts and from the Swedish Government Official Reports. A re-integration with accountability as a requirement for sentence has been advised during a long time, but for the present no major reform has taken place.
This legal history essay has had the purpose to examine what affected the legislator not to include the system with accountability in the new legal system, and why we in present day appear desirously to bring it back. The study has revealed that the legislator at the time for the reform considered the requirement of accountability to be superfluous, which makes todays discussion even more interesting. The study has shown that the debate between the classic criminal law ideology and the positive criminal law ideology played an essential role in the work with the criminal legislation reform. The positive ideology became predominant and the attitude of treatment became the beacon of the new criminal legislation.
The issue of responsibility and culpability for mentally ill offenders, the so- called “unaccountable”, has nevertheless been finished. The debaters and analyzers seem, in spite the fact that the model was considered unneeded in the 1960s, willing to go back to a criminal legislation with a requirement of accountability. Today’s attitude can according to this analysis presumably be explained to be a backlash against the positive criminal law ideology and a return to the classic criminal law ideology. The matter of the main purpose of criminal legislation has reverted to an image of retribution and public security.}},
author = {{Hammarlund, Lisa}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Är lagen otillräcklig för de otillräkneliga? - Om straffbarheten för psykiskt störda lagöverträdare}},
year = {{2018}},
}