Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

När ett uppsåt blir två – anstiftan av mord vid error in persona

Bergengren, Gustav LU (2022) LAGF03 20221
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
This thesis intended to examine a scenario regarding instigation of murder in which the instigated mistook an accomplice of the instigator for the intended victim. The purpose of the thesis was to assess the criminal liability of the instigator in that scenario. Two alternative models were presented within legal doctrine: the model of equivalence, and the model of specialty. According to the model of equivalence, the instigator is criminally liable for the completed crime, whereas the instigator according to the model of specialty is criminally liable for the attempted crime as well as a negligence offense. Thereafter, the thesis intended to investigate and analyze both models in relation to legal certainty to determine which one was to be... (More)
This thesis intended to examine a scenario regarding instigation of murder in which the instigated mistook an accomplice of the instigator for the intended victim. The purpose of the thesis was to assess the criminal liability of the instigator in that scenario. Two alternative models were presented within legal doctrine: the model of equivalence, and the model of specialty. According to the model of equivalence, the instigator is criminally liable for the completed crime, whereas the instigator according to the model of specialty is criminally liable for the attempted crime as well as a negligence offense. Thereafter, the thesis intended to investigate and analyze both models in relation to legal certainty to determine which one was to be preferred. Legal dogmatic method was applied to resolve the issue, however legal doctrine was utilized particularly in the absence of precedent from the Supreme Court.

The thesis was arranged in a format in which the instigator’s liability in a case of intent was investigated initially. This investigation revealed that intent was not necessarily excluded despite the fact that the instigated confused the identity of the victim. Thereafter, it was uncovered that distinction between error in persona (mistaken identity) and aberratio ictus (misdirected blow) needed to be established to ascertain the impact of the mistake in relation to the instigator’s intent. All authors who presented a similar scenario believed that aberratio ictus was the correct term, however the question of applicability of the models lacked consensus.

The model of equivalence was considered problematic based on the principles of legal certainty, as it made remission of the requirement of intent possible. The analysis therefore emphasized that the model of specialty was preferred in the current scenario. In conclusion, however, it was highlighted that the model of specialty could lead to undesirable results, and therefore – like the model of equivalence – was not appropriate outside of the current scenario. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Denna uppsats behandlade ett typfall enligt vilket en person sökte anstifta ett mord, men den anstiftade förväxlade identiteten på måltavlan och mördade anstiftarens kumpan. Syftet med uppsatsen var att utreda och analysera vilket straffrättsligt ansvar anstiftaren har i scenariot. Till vägledande hjälpmedel presenterades två alternativa lösningsmodeller från juridisk doktrin: ekvivalensmodellen och specialitetsmodellen. Enligt ekvivalensmodellen döms anstiftaren för fullbordat uppsåtsbrott, och enligt specialitetsmodellen döms anstiftaren för uppsåtsbrott på försöksnivå respektive fullbordat oaktsamhetsbrott. Därefter avsåg uppsatsen utreda och analysera respektive lösningsmodells förhållande till rättssäkerheten i brottmål, för att... (More)
Denna uppsats behandlade ett typfall enligt vilket en person sökte anstifta ett mord, men den anstiftade förväxlade identiteten på måltavlan och mördade anstiftarens kumpan. Syftet med uppsatsen var att utreda och analysera vilket straffrättsligt ansvar anstiftaren har i scenariot. Till vägledande hjälpmedel presenterades två alternativa lösningsmodeller från juridisk doktrin: ekvivalensmodellen och specialitetsmodellen. Enligt ekvivalensmodellen döms anstiftaren för fullbordat uppsåtsbrott, och enligt specialitetsmodellen döms anstiftaren för uppsåtsbrott på försöksnivå respektive fullbordat oaktsamhetsbrott. Därefter avsåg uppsatsen utreda och analysera respektive lösningsmodells förhållande till rättssäkerheten i brottmål, för att därigenom kunna ange vilken av modellerna som var bäst lämpad för typfallet. Rättsdogmatisk metod användes, men doktrin gavs särskild tyngd i bedömningen i avsaknad av praxis från Högsta domstolen.

Uppsatsens disponerades i en struktur där anstiftarens ansvar vid erforderligt uppsåt utreddes först. Av utredningen framgick att det inte nödvändigtvis var uteslutet att uppsåt förelåg trots att den anstiftade förväxlade brottsoffrets identitet. Därefter fann utredningen att en särskiljning mellan error in persona (förväxlad identitet) och aberratio ictus (felträff) behövde fastställas för att säkerställa misstagets påverkan på anstiftarens uppsåt. Samtliga författare som behandlade situationen menade att aberratio ictus var den korrekta beteckningen av typfallet, men frågan om vilken lösningsmodell som var tillämplig präglades av meningsskiljaktigheter.

Ekvivalensmodellen ansågs problematisk med utgångspunkt i legalitetsprincipen och skuldprincipen, eftersom denna möjliggjorde för eftergift av uppsåtskravet. I analysen framgick därför att specialitetsmodellen var bättre lämpad för en situation i vilken erforderligt uppsåt inte kunde styrkas. Slutsatsvis anfördes emellertid att även specialitetsmodellen kunde leda till oönskade resultat, och därför inte heller var lämplig utanför typfallet. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Bergengren, Gustav LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20221
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
straffrätt (en. criminal law), aberratio ictus, error in persona, ekvivalensmodellen, specialitetsmodellen, den individualiserade modellen, anstiftan av mord, uppsåt, legalitetsprincipen, skuldprincipen
language
Swedish
id
9080386
date added to LUP
2022-06-27 18:52:29
date last changed
2022-06-27 18:52:29
@misc{9080386,
  abstract     = {{This thesis intended to examine a scenario regarding instigation of murder in which the instigated mistook an accomplice of the instigator for the intended victim. The purpose of the thesis was to assess the criminal liability of the instigator in that scenario. Two alternative models were presented within legal doctrine: the model of equivalence, and the model of specialty. According to the model of equivalence, the instigator is criminally liable for the completed crime, whereas the instigator according to the model of specialty is criminally liable for the attempted crime as well as a negligence offense. Thereafter, the thesis intended to investigate and analyze both models in relation to legal certainty to determine which one was to be preferred. Legal dogmatic method was applied to resolve the issue, however legal doctrine was utilized particularly in the absence of precedent from the Supreme Court.

The thesis was arranged in a format in which the instigator’s liability in a case of intent was investigated initially. This investigation revealed that intent was not necessarily excluded despite the fact that the instigated confused the identity of the victim. Thereafter, it was uncovered that distinction between error in persona (mistaken identity) and aberratio ictus (misdirected blow) needed to be established to ascertain the impact of the mistake in relation to the instigator’s intent. All authors who presented a similar scenario believed that aberratio ictus was the correct term, however the question of applicability of the models lacked consensus.

The model of equivalence was considered problematic based on the principles of legal certainty, as it made remission of the requirement of intent possible. The analysis therefore emphasized that the model of specialty was preferred in the current scenario. In conclusion, however, it was highlighted that the model of specialty could lead to undesirable results, and therefore – like the model of equivalence – was not appropriate outside of the current scenario.}},
  author       = {{Bergengren, Gustav}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{När ett uppsåt blir två – anstiftan av mord vid error in persona}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}