Målsägandens straffprocessuella ställning - rätten att biträda åtalet i ett rättsutvecklingsperspektiv
(2018) LAGF03 20182Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Idag gäller allmän åtalsrätt som huvudregel. Målsägandens åtalsrätt aktualiseras först då åklagaren beslutar att inte åtala. Den åklagarförda processen tillerkänner dock målsäganden möjlighet att biträda åtalet och vidta processhandlingar som kan påverka ansvarsfrågan. Rätten att biträda åtalet härstammar från 1948 och motiverades aldrig i förarbetena. Uppsatsen undersöker hur målsägandens straffprocessuella ställning har utformats från medeltid till idag. Analysen fokuserar på vad motiven till rätten att biträda åtalet kan vara, och hur de bör beaktas vid bedömning av ett eventuellt avskaffande.
Det var under medeltiden som den offentliga konfliktlösningen tog över den privata, till följd av statens ökade intresse i straffrätten.... (More) - Idag gäller allmän åtalsrätt som huvudregel. Målsägandens åtalsrätt aktualiseras först då åklagaren beslutar att inte åtala. Den åklagarförda processen tillerkänner dock målsäganden möjlighet att biträda åtalet och vidta processhandlingar som kan påverka ansvarsfrågan. Rätten att biträda åtalet härstammar från 1948 och motiverades aldrig i förarbetena. Uppsatsen undersöker hur målsägandens straffprocessuella ställning har utformats från medeltid till idag. Analysen fokuserar på vad motiven till rätten att biträda åtalet kan vara, och hur de bör beaktas vid bedömning av ett eventuellt avskaffande.
Det var under medeltiden som den offentliga konfliktlösningen tog över den privata, till följd av statens ökade intresse i straffrätten. Målsäganden behöll länge en stark ställning med rätt till andel i böter och viss bestämmanderätt över påföljden. Efter reformationen fick en ny ideologi inflytande över straffrätten som ställde krav på staten att ingripa mot brottslighet. Målsägandens intressen trängdes undan till förmån för statens. Enligt 1734 års lag hade målsäganden primär åtalsrätt men det framväxande åklagarväsendets åtalsrätt utvidgades successivt. I 1864 års strafflag jämställdes åklagarens och målsägandens åtalsrätt samtidigt som målsägandens anspråk i böter ersattes av skadeståndet. Målsägandens ställning försvagades successivt och genom 1900-talets rättegångsreform tillkom den primära åtalsrätten åklagaren. Under senare delen av 1900-talet uppmärksammandes brottsoffret i samhällsdebatten vilket stärkte målsägandens ställning utifrån föreställningen att den som utsatts för brott befinner sig i en svag position.
Uppsatsen visar att rätten att biträda åtalet är ett utflöde ur den subsidiära åtalsrätten och delar dess motiv. Målsägandens intresse i äldre rätt var vedergällning riktat mot gärningspersonen men 1900-talets politiska strömningar orsakade en skiftning till målsägarintressen av personlig upprättelse, grundat i målsägandens utsatthet. På grund av den långa traditionen av stark målsäganderätt måste upprättelsens innebörd förstås med beaktande av dess historiska utveckling. (Less) - Abstract
- The responsibility for the criminal procedure lies mainly on the state prosecutor. The plaintiff’s right of prosecution is depending on the prosecutor’s decision to waive indictment. However, the plaintiff may participate in a way that might affect the liability issue by assisting the prosecution. The right to assist the prosecution, originating from 1948, was never justified in its legislative history. This essay examines the evolution of the plaintiff’s position in criminal proceedings, from the Middle Ages to the present time. The subject to the analysis is finding out the motives of the right to assist the prosecution, and how they should be considered when assessing a possible abolition.
In the Middle Ages the public conflict... (More) - The responsibility for the criminal procedure lies mainly on the state prosecutor. The plaintiff’s right of prosecution is depending on the prosecutor’s decision to waive indictment. However, the plaintiff may participate in a way that might affect the liability issue by assisting the prosecution. The right to assist the prosecution, originating from 1948, was never justified in its legislative history. This essay examines the evolution of the plaintiff’s position in criminal proceedings, from the Middle Ages to the present time. The subject to the analysis is finding out the motives of the right to assist the prosecution, and how they should be considered when assessing a possible abolition.
In the Middle Ages the public conflict resolution took over the private as a result of the state’s increased interest in criminal law. The plaintiff kept a strong position with the right to a share in criminal fines and certain authority over the sanction. After the Reformation, a new ideology gained influence over the penal law, which required the state to intervene against crime. The interest of the plaintiff was displaced in favor of the state’s interest. In the eighteenth century, the plaintiff had the primary prosecution right, but the state prosecutor’s right developed gradually. In the penal code of 1864, the prosecutor’s and the plaintiff’s prosecution rights were equated. At the same time, the plaintiff’s claim in the criminal fines were abolished and replaced by damages. The plaintiff’s position was gradually weakened and when the rules of judicial procedure was subject to a large reform in the early twentieth century, the primary prosecution right was given to the state prosecutor. The public debate in the later twentieth century focused on victim rights and the plaintiff’s position was strengthened based on the notion that the exposure to crime puts the victim in a frail position.
The essay shows that the right to assist the prosecution is an outflow from the subsidiary prosecution right and shares its motives. The plaintiff’s interest according to previous legislation was retaliation directed at the perpetrator. The political ideas of the late twentieth-century caused a change in interests, to personal redress based on the victim's vulnerable position. Because of the long tradition of strong plaintiff rights, the meaning of the personal redress must be understood with regard to its historical development. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8965642
- author
- Lindén, Carolina LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20182
- year
- 2018
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- processrätt, rättshistoria, straffrätt, åtalsrätt, åtal, målsägande
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8965642
- date added to LUP
- 2019-03-13 12:12:13
- date last changed
- 2019-03-13 12:12:13
@misc{8965642,
abstract = {{The responsibility for the criminal procedure lies mainly on the state prosecutor. The plaintiff’s right of prosecution is depending on the prosecutor’s decision to waive indictment. However, the plaintiff may participate in a way that might affect the liability issue by assisting the prosecution. The right to assist the prosecution, originating from 1948, was never justified in its legislative history. This essay examines the evolution of the plaintiff’s position in criminal proceedings, from the Middle Ages to the present time. The subject to the analysis is finding out the motives of the right to assist the prosecution, and how they should be considered when assessing a possible abolition.
In the Middle Ages the public conflict resolution took over the private as a result of the state’s increased interest in criminal law. The plaintiff kept a strong position with the right to a share in criminal fines and certain authority over the sanction. After the Reformation, a new ideology gained influence over the penal law, which required the state to intervene against crime. The interest of the plaintiff was displaced in favor of the state’s interest. In the eighteenth century, the plaintiff had the primary prosecution right, but the state prosecutor’s right developed gradually. In the penal code of 1864, the prosecutor’s and the plaintiff’s prosecution rights were equated. At the same time, the plaintiff’s claim in the criminal fines were abolished and replaced by damages. The plaintiff’s position was gradually weakened and when the rules of judicial procedure was subject to a large reform in the early twentieth century, the primary prosecution right was given to the state prosecutor. The public debate in the later twentieth century focused on victim rights and the plaintiff’s position was strengthened based on the notion that the exposure to crime puts the victim in a frail position.
The essay shows that the right to assist the prosecution is an outflow from the subsidiary prosecution right and shares its motives. The plaintiff’s interest according to previous legislation was retaliation directed at the perpetrator. The political ideas of the late twentieth-century caused a change in interests, to personal redress based on the victim's vulnerable position. Because of the long tradition of strong plaintiff rights, the meaning of the personal redress must be understood with regard to its historical development.}},
author = {{Lindén, Carolina}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Målsägandens straffprocessuella ställning - rätten att biträda åtalet i ett rättsutvecklingsperspektiv}},
year = {{2018}},
}