Advanced

Konsumtionsförbudet - En analys av kriminaliseringens lämplighet och bestraffningens rättfärdigande

Grudén, Marcus LU (2019) LAGF03 20191
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Syftet med uppsatsen är att analysera argumentationen bakom kriminaliseringen av eget bruk av narkotika, det så kallade konsumtionsförbudet, vilket utgör en del utav brottet ringa narkotikabrott som återfinns i 2 § Narkotikastrafflagen.

För att analysera lagstiftarens argumentation i förarbetena ges i uppsatsen en rättsfilosofisk bakgrund till kriminaliseringens och bestraffningens rättfärdigande. Frågor om var gränsen för statens legislativa verksamhet bör dras och vad som rättfärdigar statens bestraffning av dess medborgare har genom historien delat filosofer och rättsteoretiker i olika läger. I uppsatsen avhandlas några av dessa läger samtidigt som det görs en ansats att närma sig svaret på varför staten kriminaliserar beteenden och... (More)
Syftet med uppsatsen är att analysera argumentationen bakom kriminaliseringen av eget bruk av narkotika, det så kallade konsumtionsförbudet, vilket utgör en del utav brottet ringa narkotikabrott som återfinns i 2 § Narkotikastrafflagen.

För att analysera lagstiftarens argumentation i förarbetena ges i uppsatsen en rättsfilosofisk bakgrund till kriminaliseringens och bestraffningens rättfärdigande. Frågor om var gränsen för statens legislativa verksamhet bör dras och vad som rättfärdigar statens bestraffning av dess medborgare har genom historien delat filosofer och rättsteoretiker i olika läger. I uppsatsen avhandlas några av dessa läger samtidigt som det görs en ansats att närma sig svaret på varför staten kriminaliserar beteenden och bestraffar individer.

För att beskriva den filosofiska och politiska gränsdragningen för statens inblandning i, och kontroll över, medborgarens liv avhandlas den klassiskt liberala skadeprincipen och sätts i kontrast till den legala moralismen. Straffets moraliska berättigande undersöks genom en jämförelse mellan och delvis en sammanfogning av vedergällningsteorin och preventionsteorin. I uppsatsen uppmärksammas att lagstiftaren givit uttryck för en mycket liberal uppfattning i förarbeten som handlar om just kriminaliseringens användningsområde och gränser, men sedan gått på en mer moraliserande linje i den specifika argumentationen kring konsumtionsförbudet.

Efter den rättsfilosofiska delen följer en rad allmänna krav på kriminaliseringar. Efter det visas hur lagstiftaren i förarbeten resonerat om kriminaliseringar av beteenden. Uppsatsen är ägnad att undersöka när det i teorin är lämpligt att använda kriminalisering som metod för social kontroll av medborgare samt att jämföra slutsatsen med lagstiftarens praktiska resonemang. Även motiveringen av bestraffning och hur straffvärdet kommer till uttryck i straffets verkställighet undersöks och jämförs med hur den tar sig i uttryck i praktiken. Uppsatsen visar att de principer och rekommendationer som doktrinen och lagstiftaren själv ställt upp för kriminaliseringars och bestraffningens lämplighet inte respekterades när lagförslaget om en utvidgning av det ringa narkotikabrottet drevs igenom.

Argumenten och lagstiftarens avvägningar sätts i kontext genom att en kort redogörelse för konsumtionsförbudets historia görs innan argumenten analyseras. Avslutningsvis görs en övergripande analys av det som berörts i uppsatsen. (Less)
Abstract
This essay aims to analyse the arguments leading up to the criminalisation of the use of narcotics, the so-called Consumption Ban, which is part of 2 § in the Swedish code (1968:64) on the Criminalisation of Narcotics.

In order to analyse the arguments made by the legislator in the preparatory work, this essay presents a legal philosophy background as to the justification of the criminalisation and use of punishment. Throughout history, the question of where the boundaries of the state's legislative activities should be drawn and what it is that justifies governments’ punishment of its citizens has divided legal philosophers into different groups. Going forward, a few of these groups will be discussed and the reason as to the why... (More)
This essay aims to analyse the arguments leading up to the criminalisation of the use of narcotics, the so-called Consumption Ban, which is part of 2 § in the Swedish code (1968:64) on the Criminalisation of Narcotics.

In order to analyse the arguments made by the legislator in the preparatory work, this essay presents a legal philosophy background as to the justification of the criminalisation and use of punishment. Throughout history, the question of where the boundaries of the state's legislative activities should be drawn and what it is that justifies governments’ punishment of its citizens has divided legal philosophers into different groups. Going forward, a few of these groups will be discussed and the reason as to the why states choose to criminalise certain behaviours and punish individuals will be discussed in further detail.

In describing where the philosophical and political boundaries of the state’s involvement in – and subsequent control over – the life of individual citizens, the classical liberal harm principle will be explained and contrasted to legal moralism. The moral justification of the punishment will be examined by comparing the retaliation theory and the prevention theory. The essay draws attention to the fact that the legislator expresses a very liberal view in the preparatory works, but then argues in a more moralizing direction in the specific discussion about the Consumption Ban.

After the legal philosophy part of the essay, a series of general requirements for criminalizing behaviours will follow. Thereafter, it will be explained how the legislator reasoned when it comes to criminalizing behaviours in the preparatory works. The purpose of this essay is to examine when criminalisation in theory is appropriate as a method of social control over a populous, as well as to compare the conclusion to the legislators practical reasoning. The justification of punishment and how the penal value is expressed in the execution of the penalty will also be examined and compared to how it is expressed in real world legal practice. Furthermore, the essay will show that the principles and recommendations for criminalisation and the suitability of the punishment which the doctrine and the legislator advocates, was not given any influence when the Consumption Ban was written into law and prison was included as a way of punishment for crimes detailed therein.

Before the arguments are analysed, the arguments and considerations made by the legislator is put into context by a short account of the history of the Consumption Ban. Finally, an overall analysis is done over what has been discussed in the essay. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Grudén, Marcus LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20191
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
allmän rättslära, jurisprudence, straffrätt, criminal law, processrätt, criminal procedure
language
Swedish
id
8976883
date added to LUP
2019-09-16 10:41:25
date last changed
2019-09-16 10:41:25
@misc{8976883,
  abstract     = {This essay aims to analyse the arguments leading up to the criminalisation of the use of narcotics, the so-called Consumption Ban, which is part of 2 § in the Swedish code (1968:64) on the Criminalisation of Narcotics. 

In order to analyse the arguments made by the legislator in the preparatory work, this essay presents a legal philosophy background as to the justification of the criminalisation and use of punishment. Throughout history, the question of where the boundaries of the state's legislative activities should be drawn and what it is that justifies governments’ punishment of its citizens has divided legal philosophers into different groups. Going forward, a few of these groups will be discussed and the reason as to the why states choose to criminalise certain behaviours and punish individuals will be discussed in further detail.

In describing where the philosophical and political boundaries of the state’s involvement in – and subsequent control over – the life of individual citizens, the classical liberal harm principle will be explained and contrasted to legal moralism. The moral justification of the punishment will be examined by comparing the retaliation theory and the prevention theory. The essay draws attention to the fact that the legislator expresses a very liberal view in the preparatory works, but then argues in a more moralizing direction in the specific discussion about the Consumption Ban.

After the legal philosophy part of the essay, a series of general requirements for criminalizing behaviours will follow. Thereafter, it will be explained how the legislator reasoned when it comes to criminalizing behaviours in the preparatory works. The purpose of this essay is to examine when criminalisation in theory is appropriate as a method of social control over a populous, as well as to compare the conclusion to the legislators practical reasoning. The justification of punishment and how the penal value is expressed in the execution of the penalty will also be examined and compared to how it is expressed in real world legal practice. Furthermore, the essay will show that the principles and recommendations for criminalisation and the suitability of the punishment which the doctrine and the legislator advocates, was not given any influence when the Consumption Ban was written into law and prison was included as a way of punishment for crimes detailed therein.

Before the arguments are analysed, the arguments and considerations made by the legislator is put into context by a short account of the history of the Consumption Ban. Finally, an overall analysis is done over what has been discussed in the essay.},
  author       = {Grudén, Marcus},
  keyword      = {allmän rättslära,jurisprudence,straffrätt,criminal law,processrätt,criminal procedure},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Konsumtionsförbudet - En analys av kriminaliseringens lämplighet och bestraffningens rättfärdigande},
  year         = {2019},
}