Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Artbrott: enhetligt oenhetligt? - Om underrätternas artbrottsbedömningar vid nya brott

Gideonsson, Madelén LU (2021) JURM02 20212
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
Swedish penal law prescribes a presumption against the use of prison as a sentence, and it should therefore only be used as a last resort. Three circumstances can break the presumption: the penal value, recidivism and, lastly, if the offence is of such a nature that there is a presumption of imprisonment. The last of the three will from here on be referred to by its Swedish name ‘artbrott’.
‘Artbrott’ is commonly understood as offences that should be met with a severe sanction due to general prevention. Which crimes may constitute ‘artbrott’ and when and why some offences may motivate a prison sentence are not regulated by law. The interpretation has instead mainly arisen through case law. The system is therefore criticised for being... (More)
Swedish penal law prescribes a presumption against the use of prison as a sentence, and it should therefore only be used as a last resort. Three circumstances can break the presumption: the penal value, recidivism and, lastly, if the offence is of such a nature that there is a presumption of imprisonment. The last of the three will from here on be referred to by its Swedish name ‘artbrott’.
‘Artbrott’ is commonly understood as offences that should be met with a severe sanction due to general prevention. Which crimes may constitute ‘artbrott’ and when and why some offences may motivate a prison sentence are not regulated by law. The interpretation has instead mainly arisen through case law. The system is therefore criticised for being unclear and not foreseeable.
This paper explores the regulation and adjudication of ‘artbrott’ to find out if it complies with the rule of law. It questions and answers how the Swedish district courts use the term in their judgements and how the regulation can be analysed based on the rule of law. Verdicts by Swedish district courts are analysed in purpose to examine how they decide their sentences. The study specifically examines cases that concern newly passed offences, for which no case law yet has been established. The paper also presents a recitation of relevant principles and theories of penal law and the regulation of sentencing.
It is concluded that the application of ‘artbrott’ has several non-uniform aspects. The study shows, among other things, which circumstances are considered differ amongst judgements. It also seems that some of the conditions considered are related to the penal value rather than general prevention. The application of law also appears to be non-uniform concerning the courts’ ability to expand the application of ‘artbrott’ to new crimes without precedents. The uncertainness of the interpretation can lead to uncertainty in the sentencing and is particularly worrisome due to a threshold effect. The whole disfavour of ‘artbrott’ can be questioned due to the ineffectiveness of general prevention. Overall, the ambiguity of ‘artbrott’ constitutes a problem concerning the rule of law. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Enligt svensk rätt föreligger i påföljdsvalet en presumtion mot utdömandet av fängelse som straff och det ska endast användas om det inte finns utrymme att döma till annan påföljd. Tre omständigheter kan bryta presumtionen: brottslighetens straffvärde, den tilltalades tidigare brottslighet och brottslighetens art.
Med brottslighetens art förstås generellt sett brott som med hänsyn till allmänprevention bör bemötas med en sträng påföljd. Vilka brott som kan vara artbrott samt när och varför vissa gärningar kan motivera ett fängelsestraff trots ett lågt straffvärde är inte reglerat i lag. Tolkningen av regleringen har i stället främst utvecklats genom praxis. Systemet har mottagit mycket kritik för att vara oklart och oförutsägbart.
... (More)
Enligt svensk rätt föreligger i påföljdsvalet en presumtion mot utdömandet av fängelse som straff och det ska endast användas om det inte finns utrymme att döma till annan påföljd. Tre omständigheter kan bryta presumtionen: brottslighetens straffvärde, den tilltalades tidigare brottslighet och brottslighetens art.
Med brottslighetens art förstås generellt sett brott som med hänsyn till allmänprevention bör bemötas med en sträng påföljd. Vilka brott som kan vara artbrott samt när och varför vissa gärningar kan motivera ett fängelsestraff trots ett lågt straffvärde är inte reglerat i lag. Tolkningen av regleringen har i stället främst utvecklats genom praxis. Systemet har mottagit mycket kritik för att vara oklart och oförutsägbart.
Denna uppsats undersöker regleringen och tillämpningen av brottslighetens art för att utreda om det uppfyller krav på rättssäkerhet. Uppsatsen besvarar hur tingsrätterna tillämpar begreppet och hur regleringen kan analyseras i förhållande till rättssäkerhet. En undersökning av tingsrättsdomar presenteras och analyseras i syfte att undersöka hur de avgör påföljdsvalet. Undersökningen tar särskilt sikte på domar som behandlar nyligen införda brott för vilka vägledande avgöranden saknas för bedömningen av brottslighetens art. Uppsatsen redogör även för relevanta straffrättsliga principer och teorier samt påföljdsvalsregleringen enligt gällande rätt.
Det konstateras att tillämpningen av brottslighetens art är oenhetlig på flera punkter. Undersökningen visar, bland annat, att vilka omständigheter som beaktas skiljer sig åt mellan domar. Det verkar även som att det i bedömningen av brottslighetens art i vissa fall tas hänsyn till brottslighetens klandervärdhet, snarare än allmänprevention. Dessutom förefaller rättstillämpningen inte vara enhetlig vad gäller tingsrätternas möjlighet att utan vägledande uttalanden utöka artbrottsinstitutet. Oklarheten i tillämpningen kan leda till oförutsägbara domar och är särskilt allvarligt på grund av de tröskeleffekter som är kopplade till artbrottsbedömningen. Samtidigt kan hela särbehandlingen av artbrott kritiseras eftersom effektiviteten i allmänprevention kan ifrågasättas. Sammantaget gör dessa oklarheter artbrottskonstruktionen till ett problem för rättssäkerheten. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Gideonsson, Madelén LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Non-uniformly uniform? - The Swedish district courts assessment of the nature of the crime
course
JURM02 20212
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
straffrätt, criminal law, artbrott, brottslighetens art, rättssäkerhet, påföljdsval, 30 kap. 4 § BrB, fängelsepresumtion, artvärde, oaktsamhet och art, påföljd, straff, fängelse, sentencing
language
Swedish
id
9070391
date added to LUP
2022-01-23 16:48:15
date last changed
2022-01-23 16:48:15
@misc{9070391,
  abstract     = {{Swedish penal law prescribes a presumption against the use of prison as a sentence, and it should therefore only be used as a last resort. Three circumstances can break the presumption: the penal value, recidivism and, lastly, if the offence is of such a nature that there is a presumption of imprisonment. The last of the three will from here on be referred to by its Swedish name ‘artbrott’.
‘Artbrott’ is commonly understood as offences that should be met with a severe sanction due to general prevention. Which crimes may constitute ‘artbrott’ and when and why some offences may motivate a prison sentence are not regulated by law. The interpretation has instead mainly arisen through case law. The system is therefore criticised for being unclear and not foreseeable. 
This paper explores the regulation and adjudication of ‘artbrott’ to find out if it complies with the rule of law. It questions and answers how the Swedish district courts use the term in their judgements and how the regulation can be analysed based on the rule of law. Verdicts by Swedish district courts are analysed in purpose to examine how they decide their sentences. The study specifically examines cases that concern newly passed offences, for which no case law yet has been established. The paper also presents a recitation of relevant principles and theories of penal law and the regulation of sentencing. 
It is concluded that the application of ‘artbrott’ has several non-uniform aspects. The study shows, among other things, which circumstances are considered differ amongst judgements. It also seems that some of the conditions considered are related to the penal value rather than general prevention. The application of law also appears to be non-uniform concerning the courts’ ability to expand the application of ‘artbrott’ to new crimes without precedents. The uncertainness of the interpretation can lead to uncertainty in the sentencing and is particularly worrisome due to a threshold effect. The whole disfavour of ‘artbrott’ can be questioned due to the ineffectiveness of general prevention. Overall, the ambiguity of ‘artbrott’ constitutes a problem concerning the rule of law.}},
  author       = {{Gideonsson, Madelén}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Artbrott: enhetligt oenhetligt? - Om underrätternas artbrottsbedömningar vid nya brott}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}