Uppsåtsprövning vid självförvållat rus
(2021) LAGF03 20212Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Skuldprincipen uttrycker att det krävs skuld för att en person ska straffas för ett brott. Huvudregeln i den svenska straffrätten är att uppsåt krävs för att skuld ska anses föreligga. Det har funnits ett undantag från denna huvudregel då domstolen haft möjlighet att presumera uppsåt i fall då en person begått ett brott under påverkan av ett självförvållat rus eller ett liknande tillstånd. Genom att domstolen år 1973 tolkade det andra stycket i 1 kap. 2 § Brottsbalken (BrB) för att undvika att berusade personer som begår brott går ostraffade. Tolkningen låg i linje med sin tids straffrättsliga ideologier och tankegångar. Efter en tid av osäkerhet och debatt kring hur undantaget praktiskt skulle tillämpas så ändrade Högsta domstolen sin... (More)
- Skuldprincipen uttrycker att det krävs skuld för att en person ska straffas för ett brott. Huvudregeln i den svenska straffrätten är att uppsåt krävs för att skuld ska anses föreligga. Det har funnits ett undantag från denna huvudregel då domstolen haft möjlighet att presumera uppsåt i fall då en person begått ett brott under påverkan av ett självförvållat rus eller ett liknande tillstånd. Genom att domstolen år 1973 tolkade det andra stycket i 1 kap. 2 § Brottsbalken (BrB) för att undvika att berusade personer som begår brott går ostraffade. Tolkningen låg i linje med sin tids straffrättsliga ideologier och tankegångar. Efter en tid av osäkerhet och debatt kring hur undantaget praktiskt skulle tillämpas så ändrade Högsta domstolen sin praxis år 2011. Efter ändringen finns det inte någon möjlighet att presumera uppsåt, trots att lagtexten inte har ändrats. Istället ska uppsåtsprövning ske med vanliga regler, även i fall då en person varit under självförvållad berusning. Ändringen har lett till debatt inom doktrinen, men ligger även den i linje med sin tids straffrättsliga tankegångar. Fokuset har sedan 70-talet skiftat från preventionsintressen till ett större fokus på rättsstaten och skuldprincipen. Det syfte som 1 kap. 2 § andra stycket BrB fyller i dagens rättsläge är främst som ett konstaterande om att berusning inte ska ses som en grund för ansvarsfrihet. (Less)
- Abstract
- The principle of guilt states that guilt is required for a person to be punished for a crime. The main rule in Swedish criminal law is that intent is required for a person to be held guilty for a crime. There has been an exception to this main rule as the court has had an opportunity to presume intent in cases where a person has committed a crime under the influence of a self-inflicted intoxication or a similar condition. After the Supreme court in 1973 interpreted the second part of the second paragraph in chapter 1 of the Swedish Criminal Code to prevent intoxicated people who commit crimes from going unpunished. This interpretation of the law was in line with the present ideologies in criminal law and of its time. After a period of... (More)
- The principle of guilt states that guilt is required for a person to be punished for a crime. The main rule in Swedish criminal law is that intent is required for a person to be held guilty for a crime. There has been an exception to this main rule as the court has had an opportunity to presume intent in cases where a person has committed a crime under the influence of a self-inflicted intoxication or a similar condition. After the Supreme court in 1973 interpreted the second part of the second paragraph in chapter 1 of the Swedish Criminal Code to prevent intoxicated people who commit crimes from going unpunished. This interpretation of the law was in line with the present ideologies in criminal law and of its time. After a period of uncertainty and debate about how the exemption should be applied in practice, the Supreme Court changed its interpretation of the law in 2011. After the change, there is no longer a possibility for the court to presume intent, despite the fact that the legal text has not been changed. Instead, intent must be tested with ordinary rules, even in cases where a person has been under self-inflicted intoxication. The change has led to debate within the doctrine, but it is also in line with the main ideologies in criminal law of its time. Since the 1970s, the focus in Swedish criminal law has shifted from interests of prevention to a greater focus on the rule of law and the principle of guilt. The main purpose of the second part of the second paragraph in chapter 1 of the Criminal Code in the current legal situation is primarily as a statement that intoxication should not be considered a way to avoid liability. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9070181
- author
- Sänneskog, Philip LU
- supervisor
-
- Per Nilsén LU
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20212
- year
- 2021
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Straffrätt, uppsåt, ruslära
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9070181
- date added to LUP
- 2022-02-15 11:49:44
- date last changed
- 2022-02-15 11:49:44
@misc{9070181,
abstract = {{The principle of guilt states that guilt is required for a person to be punished for a crime. The main rule in Swedish criminal law is that intent is required for a person to be held guilty for a crime. There has been an exception to this main rule as the court has had an opportunity to presume intent in cases where a person has committed a crime under the influence of a self-inflicted intoxication or a similar condition. After the Supreme court in 1973 interpreted the second part of the second paragraph in chapter 1 of the Swedish Criminal Code to prevent intoxicated people who commit crimes from going unpunished. This interpretation of the law was in line with the present ideologies in criminal law and of its time. After a period of uncertainty and debate about how the exemption should be applied in practice, the Supreme Court changed its interpretation of the law in 2011. After the change, there is no longer a possibility for the court to presume intent, despite the fact that the legal text has not been changed. Instead, intent must be tested with ordinary rules, even in cases where a person has been under self-inflicted intoxication. The change has led to debate within the doctrine, but it is also in line with the main ideologies in criminal law of its time. Since the 1970s, the focus in Swedish criminal law has shifted from interests of prevention to a greater focus on the rule of law and the principle of guilt. The main purpose of the second part of the second paragraph in chapter 1 of the Criminal Code in the current legal situation is primarily as a statement that intoxication should not be considered a way to avoid liability.}},
author = {{Sänneskog, Philip}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Uppsåtsprövning vid självförvållat rus}},
year = {{2021}},
}