Advanced

En naturlig gränsdragning? - En kritisk analys av möjligheten att omrubricera medverkanden som (med)gärningsmän

Johansson, Hedvig LU (2018) LAGF03 20181
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Det finns idag en medverkansbestämmelse i brottsbalken som gör det möjligt att straffa andra deltagare i brott än bara gärningsmannen. De olika formerna av deltagande ska vidare separeras från varandra, hur detta ska göras verkar dock inte självklart vid en första anblick. Det finns bland annat en möjlighet att omrubricera främjare av brott som (med)gärningsmän, när denna omrubricering ska ske preciseras däremot inte i lagtexten. Mycket tyder vidare på att ett utvidgat (med)gärningsmannaskap börjat användas allt mer under de senaste åren. Syftet med uppsatsen är därför att undersöka möjligheten att fastställa gränsen mellan (med)gärningsmannaskap och straffbart främjande i övrigt.

Fokus har lagts på att undersöka möjligheterna att... (More)
Det finns idag en medverkansbestämmelse i brottsbalken som gör det möjligt att straffa andra deltagare i brott än bara gärningsmannen. De olika formerna av deltagande ska vidare separeras från varandra, hur detta ska göras verkar dock inte självklart vid en första anblick. Det finns bland annat en möjlighet att omrubricera främjare av brott som (med)gärningsmän, när denna omrubricering ska ske preciseras däremot inte i lagtexten. Mycket tyder vidare på att ett utvidgat (med)gärningsmannaskap börjat användas allt mer under de senaste åren. Syftet med uppsatsen är därför att undersöka möjligheten att fastställa gränsen mellan (med)gärningsmannaskap och straffbart främjande i övrigt.

Fokus har lagts på att undersöka möjligheterna att fastställa gränsen snarare än att faktiskt fastställa denna. Den metod som använts är rättsdogmatisk och det har vidare anlagts ett kritiskt perspektiv på uppsatsen. Materialet består av fyra utvalda rättsfall, erkänd doktrin samt förarbeten till lagen.

Dagens reglering tillkom i ett försök att göra medverkansläran mer flexibel genom att låta rättstillämparna avgöra hur deltagare i brott skulle rubriceras. Medverkande som ”anses” vara gärningsmän kan därför dömas som detta i fall där det ”ter sig naturligt”. Detta gäller även vid medgärningsmannaskap, de fall där flera begår brott ”tillsammans och i samförstånd” med varandra. Det är även möjligt att medverka till brott genom anstiftan eller medhjälp.

Två av de undersökta rättsfallen som behandlar gränsdragningen har främst fått kritik då de tilltalade borde ha dömts som medverkande istället för (med)gärningsmän. Domarna kritiseras även då det sägs tillämpas en slags kollektiv bedömning av de tilltalade för att kunna komma undan bevissvårigheter och på så vis luckra upp medverkansansvaret. Domskälen påstås även vara dåligt motiverade och oklara. En tänkbar anledning till denna utveckling kan vara att domstolen strävar efter att göra allmänheten tillfreds, särskilt i uppmärksammade mål.

Avslutningsvis konstateras att det går att utläsa urskilliga rekvisit ur de behandlade domarna, däremot tycks alltid olika omständigheter vara avgörande. Ibland har vissa faktorer stor betydelse och i ibland liten, vissa domar kan till och med sägas vara motsägelsefulla. Trots att det ska göras en skillnad mellan (med)gärningsmannaskap och medverkan till brott har denna distinktion alltså visat sig svår att göra. Gränsen tycks vara oklar och hållas flytande vilket kan anses vara rättsosäkert. (Less)
Abstract
In Swedish criminal law there is a regulation in brottsbalken where different kinds of participants in a crime can be punished together with the offender. These different kinds of participants needs to be separated from each other. Among other things there is a possibility to classify a contributor as an offender, yet it is not clear when this is possible only by studying the law. In recent times there has been indications of an extended interpretation of the concept “offender”. This extension has resulted in an increasing number of people convicted as “offenders” instead of contributors. The purpose of this essay is therefore to examine the possibility to determine the line between the extended interpretation of “offender” and other... (More)
In Swedish criminal law there is a regulation in brottsbalken where different kinds of participants in a crime can be punished together with the offender. These different kinds of participants needs to be separated from each other. Among other things there is a possibility to classify a contributor as an offender, yet it is not clear when this is possible only by studying the law. In recent times there has been indications of an extended interpretation of the concept “offender”. This extension has resulted in an increasing number of people convicted as “offenders” instead of contributors. The purpose of this essay is therefore to examine the possibility to determine the line between the extended interpretation of “offender” and other punishable contributions to a crime.

In the essay the main focus has been to examine the possibility to determine the line rather than actually determining it. This has been carried out using a legal methodology and a critical perspective. The material consists of four chosen cases, recognized legal literature and legislative history.

The present regulation was created in an attempt to make the law of complicity more flexible by making the court able to determine how a participant to a crime were to be classified in the specific case. This is also the reason why it is possible to punish a contributor to a crime “as an” offender, in cases where it seems “natural”. There is also a way to punish people who commit crimes together as “co-offenders” and those who contribute to a crime through instigation or other complicity.

Two of the examined cases which deals with line has been criticized since the defendants should have been convicted as contributors instead of offenders. The cases has also been criticized since the courts is said to have applied a collective judgement of the defendants to get away with evidence difficulties and in that way extend the law of complicity. The courts ground for a decision is furthermore poverly motivated and unclear. A possible explanation could be that the court is trying to make the public satisfied, especially in big and well-known cases.

Although there is supposed to be a difference between offenders and contributors to a crime this distinction has been proven hard to make. The line seems to be both unclear and fluid. When examining the cases multiple factors indicating the existence of a line can be found. Still it always seems to be different factors which are the determining ones for whether someone is convicted as a contributor or an offender. Sometimes a factor is said to have had a great significance and other times none at all, some of the cases can even be said to be in contradiction to each other. It can be determined that it is probably impossible to make a clear demarcation and that this creates a legal uncertainty. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Johansson, Hedvig LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20181
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
straffrätt
language
Swedish
id
8941325
date added to LUP
2018-07-09 16:42:38
date last changed
2018-07-09 16:42:38
@misc{8941325,
  abstract     = {In Swedish criminal law there is a regulation in brottsbalken where different kinds of participants in a crime can be punished together with the offender. These different kinds of participants needs to be separated from each other. Among other things there is a possibility to classify a contributor as an offender, yet it is not clear when this is possible only by studying the law. In recent times there has been indications of an extended interpretation of the concept “offender”. This extension has resulted in an increasing number of people convicted as “offenders” instead of contributors. The purpose of this essay is therefore to examine the possibility to determine the line between the extended interpretation of “offender” and other punishable contributions to a crime.

In the essay the main focus has been to examine the possibility to determine the line rather than actually determining it. This has been carried out using a legal methodology and a critical perspective. The material consists of four chosen cases, recognized legal literature and legislative history.

The present regulation was created in an attempt to make the law of complicity more flexible by making the court able to determine how a participant to a crime were to be classified in the specific case. This is also the reason why it is possible to punish a contributor to a crime “as an” offender, in cases where it seems “natural”. There is also a way to punish people who commit crimes together as “co-offenders” and those who contribute to a crime through instigation or other complicity.

Two of the examined cases which deals with line has been criticized since the defendants should have been convicted as contributors instead of offenders. The cases has also been criticized since the courts is said to have applied a collective judgement of the defendants to get away with evidence difficulties and in that way extend the law of complicity. The courts ground for a decision is furthermore poverly motivated and unclear. A possible explanation could be that the court is trying to make the public satisfied, especially in big and well-known cases.

Although there is supposed to be a difference between offenders and contributors to a crime this distinction has been proven hard to make. The line seems to be both unclear and fluid. When examining the cases multiple factors indicating the existence of a line can be found. Still it always seems to be different factors which are the determining ones for whether someone is convicted as a contributor or an offender. Sometimes a factor is said to have had a great significance and other times none at all, some of the cases can even be said to be in contradiction to each other. It can be determined that it is probably impossible to make a clear demarcation and that this creates a legal uncertainty.},
  author       = {Johansson, Hedvig},
  keyword      = {straffrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {En naturlig gränsdragning? - En kritisk analys av möjligheten att omrubricera medverkanden som (med)gärningsmän},
  year         = {2018},
}