Nödvärnets ramar - Om nödvärnets bakomliggande ideologier och dess domstolsprövning
(2021) LAGF03 20212Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Rätten till nödvärn stadgas i 24 kap. 1 § BrB. Nödvärnsrätten är relativ vilket innebär att vilka motangrepp som helst inte är accepterade utan de måste hålla sig inom de ramar som lagstiftaren har satt upp. Bakom dessa ramar gömmer sig straffideologiska teorier som i sin tur kan delas in i brottsteorier och straffteorier. Vilka dessa är, och vilka som är intressanta respektive ointressanta kommer att avhandlas och diskuteras.
Dessutom kan man se nödvärnssituationen på två olika sätt: Antingen som att den angripne försvarar sig själv qua sig själv eller att den angripne försvarar straffrättsordningen i form av en ställföreträdare för staten. Vilken syn man väljer att inta påverkar hur bred marginal den angripne skall tillmätas samt hur... (More) - Rätten till nödvärn stadgas i 24 kap. 1 § BrB. Nödvärnsrätten är relativ vilket innebär att vilka motangrepp som helst inte är accepterade utan de måste hålla sig inom de ramar som lagstiftaren har satt upp. Bakom dessa ramar gömmer sig straffideologiska teorier som i sin tur kan delas in i brottsteorier och straffteorier. Vilka dessa är, och vilka som är intressanta respektive ointressanta kommer att avhandlas och diskuteras.
Dessutom kan man se nödvärnssituationen på två olika sätt: Antingen som att den angripne försvarar sig själv qua sig själv eller att den angripne försvarar straffrättsordningen i form av en ställföreträdare för staten. Vilken syn man väljer att inta påverkar hur bred marginal den angripne skall tillmätas samt hur bedömningen förändras om det istället rör sig om dödligt våld.
Nödvärnssituationer präglas av ett snabbt händelseförlopp med stora svårigheter för eftertanke. Därför är bestämmelsen också kortfattad och koncis. Dessutom tillmäts den angripne en relativt stor frikostighet vid sitt motangrepp. Detta innebär dock inte att domstolsprövningen är enkel. Domstolsprövningen görs i två led, som var för sig också innehåller två led. För det första; huruvida en nödvärnssituation förelåg och om handlingen kvalificerar sig som en nödvärnshandling. För det andra; huruvida motangreppet varit proportionerligt och behövligt sett till det hot som angreppet innebar.
Framförallt försvarlighetsbedömningen förändras dock när motangreppet varit dödligt. Den frikostighet som den angripne annars tillmäts existerar i princip inte. Med tanke på att livsfarliga angrepp normalt sett präglas av ett ännu snabbare händelseförlopp kan denna förändring av domstolsprövningen framstå som obefogad. (Less) - Abstract
- The right to self-defence is laid down in law through the 24th chapter 1st § in the Swedish Penal Code. The right to self-defence is relative. Therefore, the counterattack must remain within the framework put up by the legislator. Behind those frames are criminal law ideologies. What those are, and which are interesting and not interesting will be discussed throughout this paper.
The right to self-defence may be seen in either as if the one being attacked is a defender of himself acting qua himself, or as if the one being attacked is a defender of the criminal justice system acting on behalf of the state. Depending on which one of those two views, what is allowed or not for the person being attacked differs. This also matters for the... (More) - The right to self-defence is laid down in law through the 24th chapter 1st § in the Swedish Penal Code. The right to self-defence is relative. Therefore, the counterattack must remain within the framework put up by the legislator. Behind those frames are criminal law ideologies. What those are, and which are interesting and not interesting will be discussed throughout this paper.
The right to self-defence may be seen in either as if the one being attacked is a defender of himself acting qua himself, or as if the one being attacked is a defender of the criminal justice system acting on behalf of the state. Depending on which one of those two views, what is allowed or not for the person being attacked differs. This also matters for the judicial proceedings when it comes to self-defence that has a deadly outcome.
The law in which the right to self-defence is laid down in is short and concise. The reason for this is the short and fast sequence of events that characterizes these situations and therefor the possibilities to reflect upon the situation are limited. In addition, the attacked person may also account a wide margin for himself for what is allowed. Despite this wide margin, the judicial proceeding is not simple. It is done in two separate steps, each step containing two steps within itself. The first one; whether it was a situation of self-defence and the act as such was an act of self-defence. The second one; whether the act of self-defence was necessary and stood in reasonable proportion to what the attack was threatening.
The judicial proceedings second step, whether the act has been justifiable, changes dramatically when it comes to a self-defence with deadly outcome. The margin that the attacked person normally can account for himself practically does not exist. Considering that life-threatening attacks are even more so characterized by short and fast sequence of events this change of judicial proceeding may appear as unjustified. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9070205
- author
- Karlsson, Filip LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20212
- year
- 2021
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Straffrätt, Allmän rättslära, Nödvärn, Ansvarsfrihet, Ansvarsfrihetsgrunder, Rättfärdigande omständigheter, Försvarlighetsbedömning, Brottsteori, NJA 2005 s. 237, Dödligt våld, Självförsvar
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9070205
- date added to LUP
- 2022-02-15 11:38:51
- date last changed
- 2022-02-15 11:38:51
@misc{9070205,
abstract = {{The right to self-defence is laid down in law through the 24th chapter 1st § in the Swedish Penal Code. The right to self-defence is relative. Therefore, the counterattack must remain within the framework put up by the legislator. Behind those frames are criminal law ideologies. What those are, and which are interesting and not interesting will be discussed throughout this paper.
The right to self-defence may be seen in either as if the one being attacked is a defender of himself acting qua himself, or as if the one being attacked is a defender of the criminal justice system acting on behalf of the state. Depending on which one of those two views, what is allowed or not for the person being attacked differs. This also matters for the judicial proceedings when it comes to self-defence that has a deadly outcome.
The law in which the right to self-defence is laid down in is short and concise. The reason for this is the short and fast sequence of events that characterizes these situations and therefor the possibilities to reflect upon the situation are limited. In addition, the attacked person may also account a wide margin for himself for what is allowed. Despite this wide margin, the judicial proceeding is not simple. It is done in two separate steps, each step containing two steps within itself. The first one; whether it was a situation of self-defence and the act as such was an act of self-defence. The second one; whether the act of self-defence was necessary and stood in reasonable proportion to what the attack was threatening.
The judicial proceedings second step, whether the act has been justifiable, changes dramatically when it comes to a self-defence with deadly outcome. The margin that the attacked person normally can account for himself practically does not exist. Considering that life-threatening attacks are even more so characterized by short and fast sequence of events this change of judicial proceeding may appear as unjustified.}},
author = {{Karlsson, Filip}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Nödvärnets ramar - Om nödvärnets bakomliggande ideologier och dess domstolsprövning}},
year = {{2021}},
}