Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

"Det var inte meningen" - en granskning av skillnaden mellan medveten oaktsamhet och likgiltighetsuppsåt

Sandgren, Karolina LU (2021) LAGF03 20212
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
In the Swedish criminal justice system, guilt is a necessary and fundamental precondition for criminal liability to be claimed. Guilt constitutes the outer frame for which actions are reprehensible and which actions are excusable. As a main principle, some form of intent is required to ascertain the existence of guilt, although some crimes can be committed through negligence or recklessness. An example of such a crime is causing another’s death by negligence.
Today, the lower limit of intent towards recklessness is constituted by the controversial intentional indifference. This form of intent was created by the Swedish Supreme Court through a long series of rulings launching in 2002, after a decades-long debate regarding the lower limit... (More)
In the Swedish criminal justice system, guilt is a necessary and fundamental precondition for criminal liability to be claimed. Guilt constitutes the outer frame for which actions are reprehensible and which actions are excusable. As a main principle, some form of intent is required to ascertain the existence of guilt, although some crimes can be committed through negligence or recklessness. An example of such a crime is causing another’s death by negligence.
Today, the lower limit of intent towards recklessness is constituted by the controversial intentional indifference. This form of intent was created by the Swedish Supreme Court through a long series of rulings launching in 2002, after a decades-long debate regarding the lower limit of intent and how it should be designed.
In NJA 2004 s. 176, the Swedish Supreme Court presented a very well-formulated and pedagogically designed description of how the intent assessment should be carried out and presented a two-step model where the determination of a personal recklessness constitutes the first step in the assessment. The second step is to assess whether an indifference also exists in relation to the realization of the risk.
The Swedish Supreme Court has since NJA 2004 s. 176 continued to clarify the intentional indifference. As a basis for assessing whether there is intent to indifference, circumstances such as upset mood, ruthless behavior and the perpetrator’s interest in the criminal act can be used as markers. The perpetrator’s age, personal maturity and ability to perceive a probable consequence in relation to his or her actions should also be considered. Customary rules shall be applied in cases where the perpetrator has been under the influence of self-inflicted intoxication. The perpetrator’s perception, in the meaning thinks or assumes, at the time for the criminal act regarding the effect of the act must be given decisive importance in the assessment.
However, the intention assessment regarding intentional indifference has proven to be practically difficult to apply, despite well-developed established practice. Distinguishing between indifference to a risk and indifference to the realization of a risk seems to be difficult for the lower courts in some cases. The burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt and to prove a person’s subjective attitude to a certain circumstance at a certain time with such strong certainty has also been proven to be difficult.
This essay aims to investigate the legal position regarding intentional indifference, survey its development and to a certain extent audit its enforcement. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
I det svenska straffrättssystemet är skuld en fundamental förutsättning för att straffrättsligt ansvar ska kunna utkrävas. Skuld utgör ramen för vilka handlingar som är klandervärda och vilka handlingar som är ursäktliga. Det krävs enligt huvudregeln någon form av uppsåt för att skuld ska kunna anses föreligga, undantagsvis kan vissa brott begås genom oaktsamhet, medveten eller omedveten. Ett exempel på oaktsamhetsbrott är vållande till annans död.
Idag utgörs den nedre gränsen mot medveten oaktsamhet av det omdebatterade likgiltighetsuppsåtet. Denna uppsåtsform skapades av Högsta Domstolen genom en lång rad avgöranden med start år 2002, efter en flera decennier lång debatt angående just uppsåtets nedre gräns och hur denna bör utformas. ... (More)
I det svenska straffrättssystemet är skuld en fundamental förutsättning för att straffrättsligt ansvar ska kunna utkrävas. Skuld utgör ramen för vilka handlingar som är klandervärda och vilka handlingar som är ursäktliga. Det krävs enligt huvudregeln någon form av uppsåt för att skuld ska kunna anses föreligga, undantagsvis kan vissa brott begås genom oaktsamhet, medveten eller omedveten. Ett exempel på oaktsamhetsbrott är vållande till annans död.
Idag utgörs den nedre gränsen mot medveten oaktsamhet av det omdebatterade likgiltighetsuppsåtet. Denna uppsåtsform skapades av Högsta Domstolen genom en lång rad avgöranden med start år 2002, efter en flera decennier lång debatt angående just uppsåtets nedre gräns och hur denna bör utformas.
I NJA 2004 s. 176 lade HD fram en mycket välformulerad och pedagogiskt utformad beskrivning om hur uppsåtsbedömningen bör företas och presenterade en tvåstegsmodell där fastställande av personlig medveten culpa utgör det första steget i bedömningen. Det andra steget är att bedöma om en likgiltighet föreligger också i förhållande till riskens förverkligande.
HD har sedan NJA 2004 s. 176 fortsatt att förtydliga uppsåtets nedre gräns. Till grund för bedömningen av om likgiltighetsuppsåt föreligger kan omständigheter som upprörd sinnesstämning, hänsynslöst beteende samt gärningspersonens intresse i gärningen användas som markörer. Andra aspekter såsom gärningspersonens ålder, personliga mognad och förmåga att uppfatta en följd som sannolik bör vägas in. Sedvanliga regler ska tillämpas även i fall där gärningspersonen har varit under påverkan av självförvållat rus. Vad gärningspersonen i gärningsögonblicket tror, i betydelsen utgår ifrån eller antar, beträffande effekten ska tillmätas avgörande betydelse i bedömningen.
Uppsåtsbedömningen gällande likgiltighetsuppsåt har dock visat sig vara praktiskt svårtillämpad, trots en välutvecklad praxis. Att skilja mellan likgiltighet inför risken och likgiltighet inför riskens förverkligande tycks i vissa fall vara svårt för underrätterna. Beviskravet är ställt bortom rimligt tvivel och att med så stark säkerhet kunna påvisa en persons subjektiva inställning till en viss omständighet vid en viss tidpunkt har också visat sig vara svårt.
Denna uppsats tar sikte på att utreda rättsläget kring likgiltighetsuppsåtet, kartlägga dess utveckling och i viss mån granska dess tillämpning. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Sandgren, Karolina LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20212
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
straffrätt (en. criminal law), likgiltighetsuppsåt, medveten oaktsamhet
language
Swedish
id
9076136
date added to LUP
2022-04-01 08:37:50
date last changed
2022-04-01 08:37:50
@misc{9076136,
  abstract     = {{In the Swedish criminal justice system, guilt is a necessary and fundamental precondition for criminal liability to be claimed. Guilt constitutes the outer frame for which actions are reprehensible and which actions are excusable. As a main principle, some form of intent is required to ascertain the existence of guilt, although some crimes can be committed through negligence or recklessness. An example of such a crime is causing another’s death by negligence.
	Today, the lower limit of intent towards recklessness is constituted by the controversial intentional indifference. This form of intent was created by the Swedish Supreme Court through a long series of rulings launching in 2002, after a decades-long debate regarding the lower limit of intent and how it should be designed. 
	In NJA 2004 s. 176, the Swedish Supreme Court presented a very well-formulated and pedagogically designed description of how the intent assessment should be carried out and presented a two-step model where the determination of a personal recklessness constitutes the first step in the assessment. The second step is to assess whether an indifference also exists in relation to the realization of the risk.
	The Swedish Supreme Court has since NJA 2004 s. 176 continued to clarify the intentional indifference. As a basis for assessing whether there is intent to indifference, circumstances such as upset mood, ruthless behavior and the perpetrator’s interest in the criminal act can be used as markers. The perpetrator’s age, personal maturity and ability to perceive a probable consequence in relation to his or her actions should also be considered. Customary rules shall be applied in cases where the perpetrator has been under the influence of self-inflicted intoxication. The perpetrator’s perception, in the meaning thinks or assumes, at the time for the criminal act regarding the effect of the act must be given decisive importance in the assessment. 
	However, the intention assessment regarding intentional indifference has proven to be practically difficult to apply, despite well-developed established practice. Distinguishing between indifference to a risk and indifference to the realization of a risk seems to be difficult for the lower courts in some cases. The burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt and to prove a person’s subjective attitude to a certain circumstance at a certain time with such strong certainty has also been proven to be difficult.
	This essay aims to investigate the legal position regarding intentional indifference, survey its development and to a certain extent audit its enforcement.}},
  author       = {{Sandgren, Karolina}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{"Det var inte meningen" - en granskning av skillnaden mellan medveten oaktsamhet och likgiltighetsuppsåt}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}