Straffskärpning för brott med hatiska motiv - En kritisk granskning av rättssystemets praktiska tillämpning av 29 kap. 2 § 7 p. BrB
(2020) LAGF03 20202Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- I ett försök att kunna straffa brott med rasistiska motiv hårdare infördes den s.k. straffskärpningsregeln, i 29 kap. 2 § 7 p. BrB under 1990-talet. Den ger domstolen möjligheten att skärpa straffet för ett brott, om motivet varit helt eller delvis hatiskt. Lagstiftaren har infört regeln för att skapa ett mer enhetligt och frekvent beaktande av hatmotiv, samtidigt som den ska fungera som ett förlängt skydd mot hatbrott. Trots detta har många experter kritiserat bestämmelsen för att tillämpas för sällan och för olika. Därför undersöker uppsatsen hur straffskärpningsregeln ser ut i teorin respektive i praktiken, samt varför det möjligtvis kan finnas en diskrepans däremellan.
I uppsatsen testas enhetligheten i tillämpningen genom en... (More) - I ett försök att kunna straffa brott med rasistiska motiv hårdare infördes den s.k. straffskärpningsregeln, i 29 kap. 2 § 7 p. BrB under 1990-talet. Den ger domstolen möjligheten att skärpa straffet för ett brott, om motivet varit helt eller delvis hatiskt. Lagstiftaren har infört regeln för att skapa ett mer enhetligt och frekvent beaktande av hatmotiv, samtidigt som den ska fungera som ett förlängt skydd mot hatbrott. Trots detta har många experter kritiserat bestämmelsen för att tillämpas för sällan och för olika. Därför undersöker uppsatsen hur straffskärpningsregeln ser ut i teorin respektive i praktiken, samt varför det möjligtvis kan finnas en diskrepans däremellan.
I uppsatsen testas enhetligheten i tillämpningen genom en jämförelse av domar mellan tre liknande misshandelsfall. Det visar en väldigt splittrad tillämpning. Vidare undersöks tillämpningsfrekvensen genom att sammanställa de största hatbrottsundersökningar som gjorts i Sverige, och ur dessa läsa hur stor andel av åtalen och domarna som tillämpar straffskärpningsregeln. Även i denna del konstateras tillämpningen vara bristfällig. Utifrån undersökningarna, samt konstaterandena att regeln tillämpas olika respektive infrekvent, så dras även slutsatser om att bestämmelsen inte skapar något direkt starkt skydd.
Vad gäller anledningarna till den bristfälliga tillämpningen så undersöks regeln i sig, åklagarnas arbete och domstolarnas dömande. Här konstateras att regeln visserligen är lite för snäll, då den inte kräver att domarna ska skärpa straffet vid ett konstaterat hatmotiv. I övrigt så dras däremot slutsatserna att problemet snarare ligger på praktikernas slappa inställning till regeln, än regeln själv. Statistiken visar att många hatmotiv försvinner dels i åtalen, dels i domen. Vad gäller den oenhetliga tillämpningen så ligger problemet däremot främst hos domstolarna, och dess olika bedömning av rekvisiten i regeln. Straffskärpningsregeln kan få sitt ordentliga genomslag först när såväl åklagare som domare börjar tillämpa bestämmelsen på det sätt som lagstiftarna avsett. (Less) - Abstract
- In an attempt to enable to punish crimes with racist motives the so called punishment harshening rule was added to the Penal Code during the 1990s. It gives the court the opportunity to harshen the punishment for a crime, if the perpetrator have had a hateful motive, competely or partially. The rule is legislated to create a more uniform and frequent consideration of hateful motives throughout the legal system, while it at the same time should work as an extended protection against hate crimes. Despite this, many experts have criticized the rule for beging used to rarely and in very varying ways. That is why the article investigates what the rule looks like, in theory and in practice, and also why there might be a discrepancy between... (More)
- In an attempt to enable to punish crimes with racist motives the so called punishment harshening rule was added to the Penal Code during the 1990s. It gives the court the opportunity to harshen the punishment for a crime, if the perpetrator have had a hateful motive, competely or partially. The rule is legislated to create a more uniform and frequent consideration of hateful motives throughout the legal system, while it at the same time should work as an extended protection against hate crimes. Despite this, many experts have criticized the rule for beging used to rarely and in very varying ways. That is why the article investigates what the rule looks like, in theory and in practice, and also why there might be a discrepancy between these.
In the article, the uniformity in the usage is tested by comparing judgment from three resembling assault cases. This presents a varied use of the rule. Further, the frequency of use is investigated by compiling the largest hate crime surveys ever made in Sweden, to see how many of the prosecutions and judgments that actually use the rule. Also in this investigation, the the result shows that the usage is faulty. From these surveys, and the findings that the rule is used both rarely and in a varied way, conclussions are drawn that the regulation can not work as much of a protection either.
Regarding the reasons behind the faulty usage, the article investigates the rule itself, the prosecutors and the courts. It is here stated that the rule admittedly is a little too soft, when it does not demand the judges to harshen the punishment when a hatefule motive is found. Apart from that, conclussions are drawn that the problem is rather the practitioner’s slack attitude towards the rule, than the rule itself. Statistics show that many hateful motives vanish mainly in the prosecutions or the judgments. Regarding the non-uniform usage, it is especially caused by the courts, and their varied ways of interpreting the rule. The punishment harshening rule can get its proper breakthrough only when both prosecutors and judges start to use the rule in the way that the legislators intended. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9034139
- author
- Karlsson, Jonatan LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20202
- year
- 2020
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Straffrätt, Hatbrott, Straffskärpning, Straffskärpningsregeln, 29 kap. 2 § 7 p. BrB
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9034139
- date added to LUP
- 2021-02-09 11:45:39
- date last changed
- 2021-02-09 11:45:39
@misc{9034139,
abstract = {{In an attempt to enable to punish crimes with racist motives the so called punishment harshening rule was added to the Penal Code during the 1990s. It gives the court the opportunity to harshen the punishment for a crime, if the perpetrator have had a hateful motive, competely or partially. The rule is legislated to create a more uniform and frequent consideration of hateful motives throughout the legal system, while it at the same time should work as an extended protection against hate crimes. Despite this, many experts have criticized the rule for beging used to rarely and in very varying ways. That is why the article investigates what the rule looks like, in theory and in practice, and also why there might be a discrepancy between these.
In the article, the uniformity in the usage is tested by comparing judgment from three resembling assault cases. This presents a varied use of the rule. Further, the frequency of use is investigated by compiling the largest hate crime surveys ever made in Sweden, to see how many of the prosecutions and judgments that actually use the rule. Also in this investigation, the the result shows that the usage is faulty. From these surveys, and the findings that the rule is used both rarely and in a varied way, conclussions are drawn that the regulation can not work as much of a protection either.
Regarding the reasons behind the faulty usage, the article investigates the rule itself, the prosecutors and the courts. It is here stated that the rule admittedly is a little too soft, when it does not demand the judges to harshen the punishment when a hatefule motive is found. Apart from that, conclussions are drawn that the problem is rather the practitioner’s slack attitude towards the rule, than the rule itself. Statistics show that many hateful motives vanish mainly in the prosecutions or the judgments. Regarding the non-uniform usage, it is especially caused by the courts, and their varied ways of interpreting the rule. The punishment harshening rule can get its proper breakthrough only when both prosecutors and judges start to use the rule in the way that the legislators intended.}},
author = {{Karlsson, Jonatan}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Straffskärpning för brott med hatiska motiv - En kritisk granskning av rättssystemets praktiska tillämpning av 29 kap. 2 § 7 p. BrB}},
year = {{2020}},
}