Advanced

Gängledarens straffrättsliga ansvar - Om olika perspektiv på gärningsmannaskap och medverkan

Olander, Hampus LU (2018) JURM02 20181
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Organiserad brottslighet är ett problem som på senare år tilltagit i Sverige, och detta har redan återspeglats i lagändringar. Vid hanteringen av denna typ av brottslighet ställs vissa straffrättsliga frågor på sin spets, och det finns anledning att fråga sig i vilken mån en ledare i ett välorganiserat kriminellt gäng kan hållas ansvarig för gärningar utförda av hans undersåtar. Särskilt intressant är frågan om en gängledare som beordrat ett mord kan hållas ansvarig som gärningsman i strikt mening, och hur mycket påverkan och inblandning som krävs för att en gängledare ska kunna hållas ansvarig för medhjälp till ett mord som utförts av hand undersåtar.

Inom tysk rätt existerar doktrinen Tatherrschaft, enligt vilken personen som beordrat... (More)
Organiserad brottslighet är ett problem som på senare år tilltagit i Sverige, och detta har redan återspeglats i lagändringar. Vid hanteringen av denna typ av brottslighet ställs vissa straffrättsliga frågor på sin spets, och det finns anledning att fråga sig i vilken mån en ledare i ett välorganiserat kriminellt gäng kan hållas ansvarig för gärningar utförda av hans undersåtar. Särskilt intressant är frågan om en gängledare som beordrat ett mord kan hållas ansvarig som gärningsman i strikt mening, och hur mycket påverkan och inblandning som krävs för att en gängledare ska kunna hållas ansvarig för medhjälp till ett mord som utförts av hand undersåtar.

Inom tysk rätt existerar doktrinen Tatherrschaft, enligt vilken personen som beordrat en gärning i vissa fall kan ses som gärningsman, om graden av kontroll är tillräcklig. Principen har främst tillämpats efter fallet av det totalitära östtyskland, och det är tveksamt om denna något kontroversiella idé är tillämpbar på organiserad brottslighet. Graden av kontroll som en gängledare har över sin undersåte är förmodligen otillräcklig, men frågan är öppen.

Enligt engelsk rätt och svensk rätt är möjligheterna att göra en sådan vid tolkning av gärningsmannaskapet mer begränsade, då gärningsmannaskap enligt dessa system är starkt knutet till de specifika straffbuden. För svensk rätt innebär detta att tolkningen av verbet "beröva" är avgörande, och inom engelsk rätt så är det avgränsningen av de typer av "causation" som är relevanta som sätter gränsen för gärningsmannaskapet. Vidare är det enligt engelsk rätt inte heller lika viktigt att göra avgränsningen mellan gärningsmän och medverkande, då brottet man döms för är detsamma.

Inom samtliga rättssystem krävs någon form av aktivitet, eller positiv gärning, för att medhjälpsansvar ska vara aktuellt, även om gränsdragningen därefter varierar. Ren passivitet eller en underlåtenhet att protestera eller förhindra brottslighet kan inte leda till medverkansansvar; en ansvarsform som redan idag enligt många är orimligt bred. (Less)
Abstract
Organised crime is a problem on the uprise in Sweden, a fact that has already been reflected in steps taken by the Swedish legislator to combat the problem. When dealing with this type of criminality certain fundamental questions regarding criminal law arise. To what degree is it reasonable to hold the leader of a well organized criminal gang as primarily responsible for crimes committed by his subjects. In particular one might ask oneself if such a leader can be held responsible, as a perpetrator, for a murder ordered by him but executed by his subjects, and what degree of involvement is needed to hold him responsible as an accomplice for murders in which his involvement is minimal.

In german law, the theory of Tatherrschaft allows for... (More)
Organised crime is a problem on the uprise in Sweden, a fact that has already been reflected in steps taken by the Swedish legislator to combat the problem. When dealing with this type of criminality certain fundamental questions regarding criminal law arise. To what degree is it reasonable to hold the leader of a well organized criminal gang as primarily responsible for crimes committed by his subjects. In particular one might ask oneself if such a leader can be held responsible, as a perpetrator, for a murder ordered by him but executed by his subjects, and what degree of involvement is needed to hold him responsible as an accomplice for murders in which his involvement is minimal.

In german law, the theory of Tatherrschaft allows for the possibility to regard the person behind the scenes during a crime as the perpetrator, if the degree of control is sufficient. This idea was primarily applied in the aftermath of the fall of the totalitarian East Germany, and it is questionable if this controversial doctrine is applicable on organized crime. Most of the time the degree of control the boss of a criminal organization has over his subjects will be insufficient, but the possibility cannot be discarded wholly.

According to English and Swedish law the possibilities to make such an extension of the concept of the perpetrator is limited, since the concept of the perpetration is tightly tied to the specific statutes. In Swedish law the interpretation of the verb “beröva” is critical, and in English law the concept of “causation” puts a limit on what actions can constitute perpetration. Futhermore this question doesn’t carry the same significance in English law since perpetrators and accomplices alike are sentenced for the same crime under the common law system.

Finally, all three legal systems require some form of positive action before a person can be held responsible as an aider of a crime, albeit it varies exactly where the line is drawn. Pure passivity or an omission to protest or prevent crimes cannot lead to complicity; a form of criminal responsibility that is already today criticized for being unreasonably wide. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Olander, Hampus LU
supervisor
organization
course
JURM02 20181
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Straffrätt, komparativ rätt
language
Swedish
id
8941886
date added to LUP
2018-06-11 10:05:30
date last changed
2018-06-11 10:05:30
@misc{8941886,
  abstract     = {Organised crime is a problem on the uprise in Sweden, a fact that has already been reflected in steps taken by the Swedish legislator to combat the problem. When dealing with this type of criminality certain fundamental questions regarding criminal law arise. To what degree is it reasonable to hold the leader of a well organized criminal gang as primarily responsible for crimes committed by his subjects. In particular one might ask oneself if such a leader can be held responsible, as a perpetrator, for a murder ordered by him but executed by his subjects, and what degree of involvement is needed to hold him responsible as an accomplice for murders in which his involvement is minimal.

In german law, the theory of Tatherrschaft allows for the possibility to regard the person behind the scenes during a crime as the perpetrator, if the degree of control is sufficient. This idea was primarily applied in the aftermath of the fall of the totalitarian East Germany, and it is questionable if this controversial doctrine is applicable on organized crime. Most of the time the degree of control the boss of a criminal organization has over his subjects will be insufficient, but the possibility cannot be discarded wholly.

According to English and Swedish law the possibilities to make such an extension of the concept of the perpetrator is limited, since the concept of the perpetration is tightly tied to the specific statutes. In Swedish law the interpretation of the verb “beröva” is critical, and in English law the concept of “causation” puts a limit on what actions can constitute perpetration. Futhermore this question doesn’t carry the same significance in English law since perpetrators and accomplices alike are sentenced for the same crime under the common law system.

Finally, all three legal systems require some form of positive action before a person can be held responsible as an aider of a crime, albeit it varies exactly where the line is drawn. Pure passivity or an omission to protest or prevent crimes cannot lead to complicity; a form of criminal responsibility that is already today criticized for being unreasonably wide.},
  author       = {Olander, Hampus},
  keyword      = {Straffrätt,komparativ rätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Gängledarens straffrättsliga ansvar - Om olika perspektiv på gärningsmannaskap och medverkan},
  year         = {2018},
}