Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Bevisvärdering av muntliga utsagor i mål om grov kvinnofridskränkning - en narrativanalytisk undersökning av berättelser om bevisvärdering och kärleksrelationer utifrån idén om juridiken som en språklig praktik

Herskovits, Joanna LU (2018) JURM02 20182
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
Gross violation of a woman’s integrity is one of the most difficult crimes to prove. Most often, one person's word stand against another. In such cases, the court has to prove the credibility and reliability of the plaintiff's oral statement in order to assess if it, together with the other circumstances of the case, can prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Due to the principle of free evaluation of evidence, it is not laid down in Swedish law how this evaluation should be done. The Supreme Court has however created a method for how it could be done, in a number of cases. This essay aims to explore how the evaluation of oral statements regarding this type of crime is done, on the basis of an idea about law as a linguistic practice. By... (More)
Gross violation of a woman’s integrity is one of the most difficult crimes to prove. Most often, one person's word stand against another. In such cases, the court has to prove the credibility and reliability of the plaintiff's oral statement in order to assess if it, together with the other circumstances of the case, can prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Due to the principle of free evaluation of evidence, it is not laid down in Swedish law how this evaluation should be done. The Supreme Court has however created a method for how it could be done, in a number of cases. This essay aims to explore how the evaluation of oral statements regarding this type of crime is done, on the basis of an idea about law as a linguistic practice. By using a discourse analytical approach and a method of narrative analysis, the reasoning of the cases is viewed as stories. The focus of the investigation is to research what stories about evaluation of evidence that comes from the reasoning and how the romantic relationship between the parties is portrayed. The purpose of the latter is to investigate if there is a connection between the understanding of the relationship between the parties and the understanding of the plaintiff.
The essay concludes that the lower courts most often follow the case law of the Supreme Court. At the same time, the lower courts show an inconsistency in their description of how the evaluation of evidence happened. Furthermore is the evaluation of credibility and reliability of the plaintiff's statement to some degree influenced by the courts' behavior of the injured party. This, in turn is evaluated on basis of what the court find is reasonable for the specific contextual situation of the plaintiff. The behavior of the accused party is not problematized in the same way. Depending on whether the court applies a gender perspective or not, the romantic relationship between the parties, and the plaintiff herself is portrayed in different ways. The author senses a tendency where the court on the basis of archetypal stories creates binary oppositions that are not allowed to coexist. In this way sense and sensibility, reason and intuition, objectivity and subjectivity are separated. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Grov kvinnofridskränkning är ett av de svåraste brotten att bevisa. Ofta är situationen sådan att ord står mot ord. Domstolen har då att bedöma trovärdigheten och tillförlitligheten i målsägandens utsaga, för att bedöma om utsagan, tillsammans med vad som övrigt visats i målet, kan styrka åtalet bortom rimligt tvivel. Hur denna bevisvärdering går till är i enlighet med den fria bevisprövningens princip inte lagstadgad i Sverige. Högsta Domstolen har dock i en rad fall sammanställt en metodik för hur den bör gå till. Denna framställning syftar till att undersöka hur bevisvärderingen av muntliga utsagor avseende denna brottstyp går till utifrån idén om juridiken som en språklig praktik. Detta görs genom att använda en diskursanalytisk ansats... (More)
Grov kvinnofridskränkning är ett av de svåraste brotten att bevisa. Ofta är situationen sådan att ord står mot ord. Domstolen har då att bedöma trovärdigheten och tillförlitligheten i målsägandens utsaga, för att bedöma om utsagan, tillsammans med vad som övrigt visats i målet, kan styrka åtalet bortom rimligt tvivel. Hur denna bevisvärdering går till är i enlighet med den fria bevisprövningens princip inte lagstadgad i Sverige. Högsta Domstolen har dock i en rad fall sammanställt en metodik för hur den bör gå till. Denna framställning syftar till att undersöka hur bevisvärderingen av muntliga utsagor avseende denna brottstyp går till utifrån idén om juridiken som en språklig praktik. Detta görs genom att använda en diskursanalytisk ansats och med narrativanalys som metod där domskälen betraktas som berättelser. Fokus i undersökningen ligger på vilka berättelser om bevisvärdering som framkommer ur domskälen samt hur kärleksrelationen parterna mellan framställs för att se vilken syn på målsäganden som rättssubjekt det vittnar om.
Uppsatsen finner att domstolarna oftast följer HD:s praxis, men att de är inkonsekventa i sina redogörelser för hur bevisvärderingen av muntliga utsagor gått till. Trovärdighets- och tillförlitlighetsbedömningarna präglas i viss mån av domstolens förståelse av målsägandens beteende. Detta beteende bedöms i sin tur utifrån vad domstolen finner rimligt i den specifika situation målsäganden befinner sig i. Den tilltalades beteende problematiseras inte på samma sätt. Beroende på om domstolen anammar ett könsmaktsperspektiv eller inte förstås också kärleksrelationen parterna emellan och rättssubjektet på olika sätt. Jag anar en tendens där rätten utifrån arketypiska berättelser skapar binära begreppspar som inte tillåts samverka. På så sätt skiljs kropp och känsla, förnuft och intuition, objektivitet och subjektivitet åt. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Herskovits, Joanna LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Evaluation of oral statements in cases regarding domestic violence
course
JURM02 20182
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
straffrätt, narrativanalys, språkliga praktiker, grov kvinnofridskränkning, bevisvärdering
language
Swedish
id
8965719
date added to LUP
2019-01-30 17:08:57
date last changed
2019-01-30 17:08:57
@misc{8965719,
  abstract     = {{Gross violation of a woman’s integrity is one of the most difficult crimes to prove. Most often, one person's word stand against another. In such cases, the court has to prove the credibility and reliability of the plaintiff's oral statement in order to assess if it, together with the other circumstances of the case, can prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Due to the principle of free evaluation of evidence, it is not laid down in Swedish law how this evaluation should be done. The Supreme Court has however created a method for how it could be done, in a number of cases. This essay aims to explore how the evaluation of oral statements regarding this type of crime is done, on the basis of an idea about law as a linguistic practice. By using a discourse analytical approach and a method of narrative analysis, the reasoning of the cases is viewed as stories. The focus of the investigation is to research what stories about evaluation of evidence that comes from the reasoning and how the romantic relationship between the parties is portrayed. The purpose of the latter is to investigate if there is a connection between the understanding of the relationship between the parties and the understanding of the plaintiff.
The essay concludes that the lower courts most often follow the case law of the Supreme Court. At the same time, the lower courts show an inconsistency in their description of how the evaluation of evidence happened. Furthermore is the evaluation of credibility and reliability of the plaintiff's statement to some degree influenced by the courts' behavior of the injured party. This, in turn is evaluated on basis of what the court find is reasonable for the specific contextual situation of the plaintiff. The behavior of the accused party is not problematized in the same way. Depending on whether the court applies a gender perspective or not, the romantic relationship between the parties, and the plaintiff herself is portrayed in different ways. The author senses a tendency where the court on the basis of archetypal stories creates binary oppositions that are not allowed to coexist. In this way sense and sensibility, reason and intuition, objectivity and subjectivity are separated.}},
  author       = {{Herskovits, Joanna}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Bevisvärdering av muntliga utsagor i mål om grov kvinnofridskränkning - en narrativanalytisk undersökning av berättelser om bevisvärdering och kärleksrelationer utifrån idén om juridiken som en språklig praktik}},
  year         = {{2018}},
}