Dolus eventualis - 15 år senare
(2019) LAGF03 20192Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- The purpose of this essay is to investigate the disappearance of dolus eventualis from the Swedish legal system, and if the legislator’s intentions have been fulfilled. To do so, one must understand the origin of dolus eventualis, its effects and the problems that arose therewith. A comparison has then been made with the current intent of indifference to find out if the legal application differs from the previous legal situation. The results of this comparison have then been analysed and discussed.
For nearly half a century, dolus eventualis with a hypothetical test constituted the lower limit of intent in Swedish law. This construction of intent was widely debated and criticized already when it was introduced but was not replaced until... (More) - The purpose of this essay is to investigate the disappearance of dolus eventualis from the Swedish legal system, and if the legislator’s intentions have been fulfilled. To do so, one must understand the origin of dolus eventualis, its effects and the problems that arose therewith. A comparison has then been made with the current intent of indifference to find out if the legal application differs from the previous legal situation. The results of this comparison have then been analysed and discussed.
For nearly half a century, dolus eventualis with a hypothetical test constituted the lower limit of intent in Swedish law. This construction of intent was widely debated and criticized already when it was introduced but was not replaced until 2004 by the intent of indifference, which still is in force today.
The criticism was based on the fact that this construction of intent was very theoretical and permeated by theories from the second half of the 19th century, making it difficult to apply and understand when assessed by the courts.
The two constructions of intent are similar in many aspects, but the intent of indifference has shifted the assessment from the criminal to the criminal act.This has led to more appropriate and structured assessments, and an increased legal certainty. As a result of this many of the problems that characterized the dolus eventualis do not exist with the current applicable law; however, the intent of indifference still needs to be developed and clarified. This development should clarify the importance of the indicators of indifference and the defendant’s supposition for the assessment of indifference. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka det eventuella uppsåtets försvinnande ur svensk rätt och om lagstiftarens intentioner med detta har uppfyllts. Förståelse för det eventuella uppsåtets ursprung, dess tillämpning i praktiken, dess effekter och de problem som uppkom i samband med dessa undersöks för att besvara syftet. En jämförelse har sedan gjorts med det idag gällande likgiltighetsuppsåtet för att utröna om rättstillämpningen skiljer sig från tidigare rättsläge. Slutligen har jämförelsens resultat analyserats och diskuterats.
Det eventuella uppsåtet med hypotetiskt prov utgjorde under närmare ett
halvt sekel uppsåtets nedre gräns inom svensk rätt. Uppsåtsformen var
mycket omdiskuterad och kritiserad redan när den infördes men... (More) - Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka det eventuella uppsåtets försvinnande ur svensk rätt och om lagstiftarens intentioner med detta har uppfyllts. Förståelse för det eventuella uppsåtets ursprung, dess tillämpning i praktiken, dess effekter och de problem som uppkom i samband med dessa undersöks för att besvara syftet. En jämförelse har sedan gjorts med det idag gällande likgiltighetsuppsåtet för att utröna om rättstillämpningen skiljer sig från tidigare rättsläge. Slutligen har jämförelsens resultat analyserats och diskuterats.
Det eventuella uppsåtet med hypotetiskt prov utgjorde under närmare ett
halvt sekel uppsåtets nedre gräns inom svensk rätt. Uppsåtsformen var
mycket omdiskuterad och kritiserad redan när den infördes men ersattes
först 2004 av likgiltighetsuppsåtet som idag utgör gällande rätt.
Kritiken grundades i att uppsåtsformen var mycket teoretisk och genomsyrades av tankar från 1800-talets andra hälft, vilket ledde till en svårtillämplig och svårförståelig uppsåtsbedömning i praxis.
Uppsåtsformerna liknar varandra på många punkter men med likgiltighetsuppsåtet har bedömningen förskjutits från gärningspersonen närmare gärningen som sådan. I diskussionen framhävs att likgiltighetsuppsåtet lett till lämpligare och mer strukturerade bedömningar med ökad förutsägbarhet som följd. Många av de problem som karaktäriserade det eventuella uppsåtet förekommer därför inte i nu gällande rätt, även om likgiltighetsuppsåtet fortfarande bör utvecklas och preciseras. Främst bör denna utveckling precisera vilken betydelse likgiltighetsmarkörerna och gärningspersonens tro har för likgiltighetsbedömningen. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8999956
- author
- Rosenberg, Erik LU
- supervisor
-
- Per Nilsén LU
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20192
- year
- 2019
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Straffrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8999956
- date added to LUP
- 2020-04-06 11:32:05
- date last changed
- 2020-04-06 11:32:05
@misc{8999956,
abstract = {{The purpose of this essay is to investigate the disappearance of dolus eventualis from the Swedish legal system, and if the legislator’s intentions have been fulfilled. To do so, one must understand the origin of dolus eventualis, its effects and the problems that arose therewith. A comparison has then been made with the current intent of indifference to find out if the legal application differs from the previous legal situation. The results of this comparison have then been analysed and discussed.
For nearly half a century, dolus eventualis with a hypothetical test constituted the lower limit of intent in Swedish law. This construction of intent was widely debated and criticized already when it was introduced but was not replaced until 2004 by the intent of indifference, which still is in force today.
The criticism was based on the fact that this construction of intent was very theoretical and permeated by theories from the second half of the 19th century, making it difficult to apply and understand when assessed by the courts.
The two constructions of intent are similar in many aspects, but the intent of indifference has shifted the assessment from the criminal to the criminal act.This has led to more appropriate and structured assessments, and an increased legal certainty. As a result of this many of the problems that characterized the dolus eventualis do not exist with the current applicable law; however, the intent of indifference still needs to be developed and clarified. This development should clarify the importance of the indicators of indifference and the defendant’s supposition for the assessment of indifference.}},
author = {{Rosenberg, Erik}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Dolus eventualis - 15 år senare}},
year = {{2019}},
}