Medgärningsmannaskap och skuldprincipen
(2018) LAGF03 20182Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Brott begås ofta av en grupp individer samtidigt som brottsbeskrivningarna är utformade på ett sådant sätt att de enbart tar sikte på en enskild individs handling. För att en individ som varit delaktig i ett brott begånget med andra inte skall undkomma ansvar om denne inte uppfyller samtliga rekvisit i den aktuella brottsbeskrivningen återfinns de vidare gärningsmannabegreppen
medgärningsmannaskap och utvidgat (med)gärningsmannaskap.
Uppsatsens syfte är att med utgångspunkt i rättsdogmatisk metod och ett
rättssäkerhetsperspektiv analysera och besvara när en medverkande kan
ansvara som medgärningsman. Vidare är syftet med uppsatsen att analysera
hur skuldbedömningar skall göras vid medgärningsmannaskap och utvidgat
... (More) - Brott begås ofta av en grupp individer samtidigt som brottsbeskrivningarna är utformade på ett sådant sätt att de enbart tar sikte på en enskild individs handling. För att en individ som varit delaktig i ett brott begånget med andra inte skall undkomma ansvar om denne inte uppfyller samtliga rekvisit i den aktuella brottsbeskrivningen återfinns de vidare gärningsmannabegreppen
medgärningsmannaskap och utvidgat (med)gärningsmannaskap.
Uppsatsens syfte är att med utgångspunkt i rättsdogmatisk metod och ett
rättssäkerhetsperspektiv analysera och besvara när en medverkande kan
ansvara som medgärningsman. Vidare är syftet med uppsatsen att analysera
hur skuldbedömningar skall göras vid medgärningsmannaskap och utvidgat
(med)gärningsmannaskap och vilka risker det finns med dessa
skuldbedömningar samt att utreda vilka konsekvenser ett
medgärningsmannaskap respektive utvidgat (med)gärningsmannaskap
medför utifrån ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv.
I analysen konstateras att Högsta domstolen angivit vissa kriterier och viss vägledning när det finns grund för att omrubricera en medverkande till att istället svara som gärningsman. Denna omrubricering kan ske när det ter sig naturligt att döma den medverkande som gärningsman under förutsättning att denne har haft en central roll för brottets förverkligande. Emellertid finns det behov av närmre vägledning för att förtydliga rättsläget och undanröja de gråzoner som förekommer mellan medverkan- och gärningsmannaskapsläran. Vidare konstateras det att skuldbedömningar vid medgärningsmannaskap och utvidgat (med)gärningsmannaskap bör göras på individnivå för att stå i överrensstämmelse med täckningsprincipen vilket domstolar emellanåt undviker att göra. En skuldbedömning bör även göras i de fall då de tilltalade handlat tillsammans och i samförstånd, då detta samförstånd kan skifta eller sträcka sig olika långt.
Avslutningsvis konstateras det i analysen att lagstödet för det vidare
gärningsmannaskapet är vagt och således är det ur legalitetssynpunkt
nödvändigt med lagstiftning på området. Vidare föreligger risk att
rättskiparen använder det vidare gärningsmannaskapet och utdömer ett
kollektivt straffansvar då det inte går att utreda respektive individs
handlingar eller skuld. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Crime is often committed by a group of individuals while criminal
descriptions are designed in such a way that they only aim at the action of an individual. For individuals that have committed a crime with others, but do not meet all the requirements in the current crime description and therefore would avoid responsibility, there are extended perpetrator terms applicable, extending the penal responsibility.
The purpose of this thesis is to analyze when a participant can be
responsible as a perpetrator based on the legal-mathematical method and a
legal certainty perspective. Furthermore, the purpose of the paper is to
analyze how guilt assessments are to be made in the case of coperpetratorship and extended perpetratorship and... (More) - Crime is often committed by a group of individuals while criminal
descriptions are designed in such a way that they only aim at the action of an individual. For individuals that have committed a crime with others, but do not meet all the requirements in the current crime description and therefore would avoid responsibility, there are extended perpetrator terms applicable, extending the penal responsibility.
The purpose of this thesis is to analyze when a participant can be
responsible as a perpetrator based on the legal-mathematical method and a
legal certainty perspective. Furthermore, the purpose of the paper is to
analyze how guilt assessments are to be made in the case of coperpetratorship and extended perpetratorship and identify the risks in these guilt assessments. Lastly the purpose is to identify the consequences of coperpetratorship and extended perpetratorship from a perspective of legal certainty.
In the analysis, it is stated that the Supreme Court of Sweden specified
certain criteria and some guidance when there is reason to re-classify a
participant to instead consider as a perpetrator. Re-classification can occur when it appears natural to judge the participant as a perpetrator, provided that he has had a central role in the realization of the crime. However, there is a need for closer guidance to clarify the legal situation and eliminate the gray areas between the participation and the perpetrator's doctrine.
Furthermore, it is stated that guilt assessments in the co-perpetratorship and extended perpetratorship should be done on an individual level in order to comply with the principle of coverage, which courts sometimes avoid. A guilt assessment should also be made in cases where the defendants acted together and in agreement, as this agreement can extend in different ways.
In conclusion, it is stated in the analysis that legislative support for a wider perpetrator concept is vague in written law and it is therefore necessary, from a legal point, with legislative measures. Furthermore, there is a risk that the courts use the co-perpetratorship and the extended perpetratorship to impose a collective criminal liability when it is not possible to investigate the individual's actions or guilt. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8964967
- author
- Nilsson, Johan LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20182
- year
- 2018
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Straffrätt, criminal law
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8964967
- date added to LUP
- 2019-03-10 13:51:10
- date last changed
- 2019-03-10 13:51:10
@misc{8964967,
abstract = {{Crime is often committed by a group of individuals while criminal
descriptions are designed in such a way that they only aim at the action of an individual. For individuals that have committed a crime with others, but do not meet all the requirements in the current crime description and therefore would avoid responsibility, there are extended perpetrator terms applicable, extending the penal responsibility.
The purpose of this thesis is to analyze when a participant can be
responsible as a perpetrator based on the legal-mathematical method and a
legal certainty perspective. Furthermore, the purpose of the paper is to
analyze how guilt assessments are to be made in the case of coperpetratorship and extended perpetratorship and identify the risks in these guilt assessments. Lastly the purpose is to identify the consequences of coperpetratorship and extended perpetratorship from a perspective of legal certainty.
In the analysis, it is stated that the Supreme Court of Sweden specified
certain criteria and some guidance when there is reason to re-classify a
participant to instead consider as a perpetrator. Re-classification can occur when it appears natural to judge the participant as a perpetrator, provided that he has had a central role in the realization of the crime. However, there is a need for closer guidance to clarify the legal situation and eliminate the gray areas between the participation and the perpetrator's doctrine.
Furthermore, it is stated that guilt assessments in the co-perpetratorship and extended perpetratorship should be done on an individual level in order to comply with the principle of coverage, which courts sometimes avoid. A guilt assessment should also be made in cases where the defendants acted together and in agreement, as this agreement can extend in different ways.
In conclusion, it is stated in the analysis that legislative support for a wider perpetrator concept is vague in written law and it is therefore necessary, from a legal point, with legislative measures. Furthermore, there is a risk that the courts use the co-perpetratorship and the extended perpetratorship to impose a collective criminal liability when it is not possible to investigate the individual's actions or guilt.}},
author = {{Nilsson, Johan}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Medgärningsmannaskap och skuldprincipen}},
year = {{2018}},
}