Lika fall men olika straff? - En straffteoretisk jämförelse mellan påföljdsbestämningen vid flerfaldig brottslighet och återfall
(2022) JURM02 20221Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- A ”penal reduction” in the case of multiple criminality and more severe sanctions due to a relapse into crime both regulates the case when a person has committed multiple crimes. The difference between the two regulations is that in the case of ”penal reductions”, the crimes are covered during the same trial, while in the case of a relapse, the convict has first been sentenced during one trial and after the full execution of that punishment commits another crime that is being processed during a new trial.
The purpose of this essay is to illuminate the complexity of problems within achieving a coherent penal system that is unified from a perspective of penal theory at the same time as it is perceived as convincingly and equitable in the... (More) - A ”penal reduction” in the case of multiple criminality and more severe sanctions due to a relapse into crime both regulates the case when a person has committed multiple crimes. The difference between the two regulations is that in the case of ”penal reductions”, the crimes are covered during the same trial, while in the case of a relapse, the convict has first been sentenced during one trial and after the full execution of that punishment commits another crime that is being processed during a new trial.
The purpose of this essay is to illuminate the complexity of problems within achieving a coherent penal system that is unified from a perspective of penal theory at the same time as it is perceived as convincingly and equitable in the public’s sense of justice. The analysis aims at problematizing the divergency between the regulations and to discuss the background, effects and possible solutions with these. The essay is based on legislative text, legislative history and judicial doctrine and an analytical method has been used to achieve the purpose. The essay contains a report of the regulations, and their background based on penal theories and other legitimising grounds that the legislator has referred to at the legislative procedure of the regulations. The analyzing part of the essay consists in a comparison between the regulations, to investigate whether the tension between them is justified and conclusively discuss the adequacy in the differences that exists and what these differences implies.
The conclusions that has been made is that the regulations with a ”penal reduction” in the case of multiple criminality and more severe sanctions due to a relapse into crime could regulate identical situations with the only difference being when the crimes have been sentenced. Even so the penalty applied could significantly differ. For example, the circumstance that the crimes are severe is a reason to increase the severity of the penalty at a relapse, but if it is multiple criminality that are being processed during the same trial the ”penal reduction” seem to be larger at more severe crimes to avoid reaching the maximum of the penalty scale. The differences between the regulations are explained due to that they are built on different penal theories. ”Penal reductions” are justified mostly by the importance of upholding the relative proportionality and the principle of humanity. More severe sanctions due to a relapse into crime are on the other hand built on the theory of prevention and the legislator has justified it by referring to the public’s sense of justice, that it has a long history in the Swedish legal system and that similar regulations are found in other countries.
The differences between the regulations are unsatisfactory and there is a need for a reform. The many public investigations that have been launched to investigate the possibility to limit the ”penal reductions” impact and to penalize recidivist more severe could be a sign that the principles of proportionality and humanity, that for a long time have been prevalent have started to get dated. It is possible that a new penal theory has emerged that are more considerate of the actual damage and guilt that the crimes have constituted and that the criminal lifestyle of a criminal should have a bigger impact on the determination of a penalty. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Straffreduktioner vid flerfaldig brottslighet och straffskärpningar vid återfall reglerar båda situationen då en person gjort sig skyldig till flera brott. Skillnaden är att vid straffreduktioner behandlas brotten inom ramen för samma rättegång och vid återfallet har ett eller flera brott först behandlats vid en rättegång och efter verkställandet av det straffet begås ett nytt brott som behandlas inom ramen för en ny rättegång.
Syftet med uppsatsen är att belysa problematiken i att uppnå ett koherent regelsystem som både är straffteoretiskt enhetligt och försvarbart samtidigt som det hos det allmänna uppfattas som trovärdigt och rättvist. Analysen syftar till att problematisera motsättningarna mellan regelverken och diskutera... (More) - Straffreduktioner vid flerfaldig brottslighet och straffskärpningar vid återfall reglerar båda situationen då en person gjort sig skyldig till flera brott. Skillnaden är att vid straffreduktioner behandlas brotten inom ramen för samma rättegång och vid återfallet har ett eller flera brott först behandlats vid en rättegång och efter verkställandet av det straffet begås ett nytt brott som behandlas inom ramen för en ny rättegång.
Syftet med uppsatsen är att belysa problematiken i att uppnå ett koherent regelsystem som både är straffteoretiskt enhetligt och försvarbart samtidigt som det hos det allmänna uppfattas som trovärdigt och rättvist. Analysen syftar till att problematisera motsättningarna mellan regelverken och diskutera bakgrunden, följderna och eventuella lösningar av dessa. För att uppnå syftet har en rättsanalytisk metod använts och utgångspunkt har tagits i lagtext, förarbeten och juridisk doktrin. Uppsatsen innehåller en redogörelse för regelverken och bakgrunden till dessa utifrån straffteorier och andra berättiganden som lagstiftaren hänvisat till vid lagstiftningsarbetet av berörda regleringar. Den analyserande delen består i att jämföra regelsystemen, utreda huruvida spänningarna mellan dem är berättigade och slutligen föra en diskussion om lämpligheten i de skillnader som finns och vad dessa innebär.
De slutsatser som kunnat dras är att trots att regleringarna med straffreduktioner vid flerfaldig brottslighet och straffskärpningar vid återfall kan komma att reglera identiska situationer med enda skillnad när dessa lagförts så kan skillnaderna i den utdömda påföljdens längd bli betydande. Exempelvis om det är fråga om allvarlig brottslighet är det ett skäl till att skärpa straffet vid återfall men om det är fråga om flerfaldig brottslighet som behandlas under samma rättegång leder det ofta till större straffreduktioner vid allvarligare brottslighet. Skillnaderna mellan systemen kan förklaras i att regleringarna bygger på skilda straffteoretiska utgångspunkter. Straffreduktioner motiveras till stor del av vikten av att upprätthålla den relativa proportionaliteten och humanitetsprincipen. Straffskärpningar på grund av återfall kommer snarare ur en preventionstanke och har av lagstiftaren berättigats utifrån det allmänna rättsmedvetandet, att det följer av en lång rättstradition i Sverige och att liknande regleringar återfinns i många andra länder.
Skillnaderna mellan regleringarna är otillfredsställande och det finns behov av en reform. De flera utredningar som tillsatts för att utreda möjligheten till att inskränka straffreduktionernas genomslag samt att bestraffa återfallsförbrytare hårdare kan vara en signal om att principerna om proportionalitet och humanitet som varit dominerande nu har blivit daterade. Möjligen har en ny straffteori växt fram som mer tar sikte på den skada och skuld som brotten utgör samt att en kriminell livsstil ska ge tydligare utslag vid en påföljdsbestämning. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9080451
- author
- Augustinsson, Therese LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Same crime, but different penalties? - A comparison between the determination of a penalty at multiple criminality and relapse into crime
- course
- JURM02 20221
- year
- 2022
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- civilrätt, straffrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9080451
- date added to LUP
- 2022-06-09 12:34:49
- date last changed
- 2022-06-09 12:34:49
@misc{9080451,
abstract = {{A ”penal reduction” in the case of multiple criminality and more severe sanctions due to a relapse into crime both regulates the case when a person has committed multiple crimes. The difference between the two regulations is that in the case of ”penal reductions”, the crimes are covered during the same trial, while in the case of a relapse, the convict has first been sentenced during one trial and after the full execution of that punishment commits another crime that is being processed during a new trial.
The purpose of this essay is to illuminate the complexity of problems within achieving a coherent penal system that is unified from a perspective of penal theory at the same time as it is perceived as convincingly and equitable in the public’s sense of justice. The analysis aims at problematizing the divergency between the regulations and to discuss the background, effects and possible solutions with these. The essay is based on legislative text, legislative history and judicial doctrine and an analytical method has been used to achieve the purpose. The essay contains a report of the regulations, and their background based on penal theories and other legitimising grounds that the legislator has referred to at the legislative procedure of the regulations. The analyzing part of the essay consists in a comparison between the regulations, to investigate whether the tension between them is justified and conclusively discuss the adequacy in the differences that exists and what these differences implies.
The conclusions that has been made is that the regulations with a ”penal reduction” in the case of multiple criminality and more severe sanctions due to a relapse into crime could regulate identical situations with the only difference being when the crimes have been sentenced. Even so the penalty applied could significantly differ. For example, the circumstance that the crimes are severe is a reason to increase the severity of the penalty at a relapse, but if it is multiple criminality that are being processed during the same trial the ”penal reduction” seem to be larger at more severe crimes to avoid reaching the maximum of the penalty scale. The differences between the regulations are explained due to that they are built on different penal theories. ”Penal reductions” are justified mostly by the importance of upholding the relative proportionality and the principle of humanity. More severe sanctions due to a relapse into crime are on the other hand built on the theory of prevention and the legislator has justified it by referring to the public’s sense of justice, that it has a long history in the Swedish legal system and that similar regulations are found in other countries.
The differences between the regulations are unsatisfactory and there is a need for a reform. The many public investigations that have been launched to investigate the possibility to limit the ”penal reductions” impact and to penalize recidivist more severe could be a sign that the principles of proportionality and humanity, that for a long time have been prevalent have started to get dated. It is possible that a new penal theory has emerged that are more considerate of the actual damage and guilt that the crimes have constituted and that the criminal lifestyle of a criminal should have a bigger impact on the determination of a penalty.}},
author = {{Augustinsson, Therese}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Lika fall men olika straff? - En straffteoretisk jämförelse mellan påföljdsbestämningen vid flerfaldig brottslighet och återfall}},
year = {{2022}},
}