Straffspark eller straffrätt? - En studie om gränsen mellan tillåtet och otillåtet idrottsvåld i ljuset av NJA 2018 s. 591
(2019) JURM02 20192Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- De övergripande syftena med denna uppsats har varit att undersöka hur den straffrättsliga gränsdragningen mellan tillåtet och otillåtet våld har tillämpats i en idrottslig kontext före NJA 2018 s. 591, och om rättsläget härom har ändrats i och med nämnda dom.
Det står klart att åtskilliga våldsgärningar på idrottens område är sådana att de uppfyller rekvisiten i misshandelsbestämmelsen. Trots detta kan många gärningar anses tillåtna med hänvisning till samtycke och social adekvans.
Utredningen har bland annat funnit våldsgärningar som är regelenliga enligt idrottens interna regler också är tillåtna i straffrättsligt hänseende. Det råder enighet i såväl förarbeten och doktrin om att samtycke som ansvarsfrihetsgrund gör dessa... (More) - De övergripande syftena med denna uppsats har varit att undersöka hur den straffrättsliga gränsdragningen mellan tillåtet och otillåtet våld har tillämpats i en idrottslig kontext före NJA 2018 s. 591, och om rättsläget härom har ändrats i och med nämnda dom.
Det står klart att åtskilliga våldsgärningar på idrottens område är sådana att de uppfyller rekvisiten i misshandelsbestämmelsen. Trots detta kan många gärningar anses tillåtna med hänvisning till samtycke och social adekvans.
Utredningen har bland annat funnit våldsgärningar som är regelenliga enligt idrottens interna regler också är tillåtna i straffrättsligt hänseende. Det råder enighet i såväl förarbeten och doktrin om att samtycke som ansvarsfrihetsgrund gör dessa våldsgärningar tillåtna. Utredningen pekar också på att sådana våldsgärningar som visserligen strider mot idrottens regler, men ligger inom dess idé, är att anse som tillåtna. Det råder dock osäkerhet hur långt samtycket har ansvarsbefriande verkan vad gäller detta våldet, varför ansvarsfriheten istället får sökas i den oskrivna regeln om social adekvans. De otillåtna gärningarna utgörs av idrottsfrämmande gärningar som strider mot idrottens idé.
HD behandlade för första gången idrottsvåld i NJA 2018 s. 591. Jag har funnit att domen på olika sätt varit klargörande, framförallt genom den i domen tillskapade undantagsregeln för idrott vilken gås igenom i uppsatsen. Vidare har jag funnit att det i domskälen till NJA 2018 s. 591 kan utläsas en tydlig struktur för hur prövningen mellan det tillåtna och otillåtna görs. (Less) - Abstract
- The overall purpose with this study has been to investigate how the judicial delineation between authorized and prohibited violence has been practiced in the sports context before NJA 2018 p. 591, and if the judicial position has changed because of the said ruling.
It is clear that several acts of violence within the sports context fulfill the requirements of assault. Despite this, many of the violent acts could still be considered acceptable in regards to consent and social adequacy.
The study has found, that acts of violence which are according to the rules within the sports context, also are allowed within the judicial practice. There is a mutual understanding in both preliminary work and doctrines that consent as a liability... (More) - The overall purpose with this study has been to investigate how the judicial delineation between authorized and prohibited violence has been practiced in the sports context before NJA 2018 p. 591, and if the judicial position has changed because of the said ruling.
It is clear that several acts of violence within the sports context fulfill the requirements of assault. Despite this, many of the violent acts could still be considered acceptable in regards to consent and social adequacy.
The study has found, that acts of violence which are according to the rules within the sports context, also are allowed within the judicial practice. There is a mutual understanding in both preliminary work and doctrines that consent as a liability discharge making these actions allowed. The study also points out that acts, which actually are prohibited also within the sports context, but within the general idea of the sport, is to be considered acceptable still. However, there are uncertainties on how much the act of consent gives more or less liability discharge in regards to this particular violence which means the liability discharge instead will have to be sought in the unwritten code of social adequacy. The prohibited actions is composed of elements which are counterintuitive to the sports context and directly opposes the founding idea of sports.
The Supreme Court of Sweden first tried sports related violence in NJA 2018 p. 591. I have found that the ruling in several ways gives clarification, especially the rule of exception for sports which was presented in the ruling, and is presented in the study more detailed. Further, I have found the reasons for the ruling in NJA 2018 p. 591, shows a clear structure for how the trial between acceptable and unacceptable. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9000558
- author
- Erlandsson, Emelie LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Foul or criminal law? - A study about the judicial delineation between authorized and prohibited violence in sports in the light of NJA 2018 s. 591
- course
- JURM02 20192
- year
- 2019
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- rättsvetenskap, straffrätt, criminal law
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9000558
- date added to LUP
- 2020-01-31 11:35:31
- date last changed
- 2020-01-31 11:35:31
@misc{9000558,
abstract = {{The overall purpose with this study has been to investigate how the judicial delineation between authorized and prohibited violence has been practiced in the sports context before NJA 2018 p. 591, and if the judicial position has changed because of the said ruling.
It is clear that several acts of violence within the sports context fulfill the requirements of assault. Despite this, many of the violent acts could still be considered acceptable in regards to consent and social adequacy.
The study has found, that acts of violence which are according to the rules within the sports context, also are allowed within the judicial practice. There is a mutual understanding in both preliminary work and doctrines that consent as a liability discharge making these actions allowed. The study also points out that acts, which actually are prohibited also within the sports context, but within the general idea of the sport, is to be considered acceptable still. However, there are uncertainties on how much the act of consent gives more or less liability discharge in regards to this particular violence which means the liability discharge instead will have to be sought in the unwritten code of social adequacy. The prohibited actions is composed of elements which are counterintuitive to the sports context and directly opposes the founding idea of sports.
The Supreme Court of Sweden first tried sports related violence in NJA 2018 p. 591. I have found that the ruling in several ways gives clarification, especially the rule of exception for sports which was presented in the ruling, and is presented in the study more detailed. Further, I have found the reasons for the ruling in NJA 2018 p. 591, shows a clear structure for how the trial between acceptable and unacceptable.}},
author = {{Erlandsson, Emelie}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Straffspark eller straffrätt? - En studie om gränsen mellan tillåtet och otillåtet idrottsvåld i ljuset av NJA 2018 s. 591}},
year = {{2019}},
}