Ett trovärdigt våldtäktsoffer - Om Högsta domstolens bedömning av vuxna målsägandes trovärdighet
(2022) LAGF03 20222Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- In Swedish courts, the court use free evaluation of evidence, which means that the judges are not bound by rules or methods for how they evaluate evidence. Certain principles, such as the principle of immediacy, set the limits for the evaluation of evidence, but otherwise this is free. It is also permitted to use so-called common knowledge theorems. A common knowledge theorem is the knowledge of a connection between two phenomena that applies generally.
In the case of sexual crimes, there is often a lack of evidence such as victim testimonies. Instead, the parties and what they say play a great role in the court's evaluation of evidence. When this evaluation takes place, the concepts of reliability and credibility are common in the... (More) - In Swedish courts, the court use free evaluation of evidence, which means that the judges are not bound by rules or methods for how they evaluate evidence. Certain principles, such as the principle of immediacy, set the limits for the evaluation of evidence, but otherwise this is free. It is also permitted to use so-called common knowledge theorems. A common knowledge theorem is the knowledge of a connection between two phenomena that applies generally.
In the case of sexual crimes, there is often a lack of evidence such as victim testimonies. Instead, the parties and what they say play a great role in the court's evaluation of evidence. When this evaluation takes place, the concepts of reliability and credibility are common in the judgments. The essay's main question is whether and how the Supreme Court proceeds when they assess an adult victim’s credibility in rape cases. To answer this question, seven judgments from the Supreme Court, doctrine and legal psychological research are used.
Finding a clear distinction between the concepts of reliability and credibility seems close to impossible. The concepts are used both in law and legal psychology, where these are defined in different ways by different authors. Even in the Supreme Court´s reasons for judgment, there are variations in how the terms are used. The essay intends to answer how to distinguish the concepts from each other. The analytical part of the essay assumes that credibility is linked to a person and reliability to a statement.
Legal psychology is used to implement psychological knowledge in the legal system. Regarding the concept of credibility, legal psychology also studies which factors come into play when a credibility assessment is made. From this research it is clear that people are perceived as more credible if they show stronger emotional reactions when telling stories. We also have certain preconceived notions about how a typical victim acts after an assault that affects how credible we later judge the victim to be.
Based on the judgments from the Supreme Court, it can be deduced that the court, in one way or another, makes an assessment of the victim's credibility. However, which factors the court considers seems to change somewhat over time. In early judgments the Court describes that the victim gave a credible impression based on how the victim gave his or her statement. In the more recent cases, this expression is not used, instead it is the action of the victim after the alleged abuse that is discussed in the reasons for the judgment.
Furthermore, the analysis discusses how the credibility assessment in the Supreme Court relates to legal psychological research. Among other things, it touches on how the view of rape victims' reactions after the abuse differs between doctrine and legal psychological research. In the first case, reactions from victim are considered to support a reliable statement, while in the latter case, the reactions are considered to be related to the victim's credibility. Based on the analyzed cases from the Supreme Court, the court is of the same opinion as that reflected in doctrine. In the analysis, the courts view on this matter is problematized. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- I svenska domstolar använder sig domarna av fri bevisvärdering vilket innebär att domarna inte är bundna av regler eller metoder för hur de värderar bevisning.
Vissa principer, som omedelbarhetsprincipen, sätter upp gränserna för bevisvärderingen men i övrigt är denna fri. Det är även tillåtet att använda sig av så kallade erfarenhetssatser. Med erfarenhetssats avses att domarna har kunskap om ett samband mellan två företeelser som gäller generellt.
Vid sexualbrott saknas många gånger bevisning som exempelvis vittnesmål. Istället får parterna och vad de berättar större roll i domstolens bevisvärdering. När denna värdering äger rum är begreppen tillförlitlighet och trovärdighet vanligt förekommande i domskälen. Uppsatsens huvudsakliga... (More) - I svenska domstolar använder sig domarna av fri bevisvärdering vilket innebär att domarna inte är bundna av regler eller metoder för hur de värderar bevisning.
Vissa principer, som omedelbarhetsprincipen, sätter upp gränserna för bevisvärderingen men i övrigt är denna fri. Det är även tillåtet att använda sig av så kallade erfarenhetssatser. Med erfarenhetssats avses att domarna har kunskap om ett samband mellan två företeelser som gäller generellt.
Vid sexualbrott saknas många gånger bevisning som exempelvis vittnesmål. Istället får parterna och vad de berättar större roll i domstolens bevisvärdering. När denna värdering äger rum är begreppen tillförlitlighet och trovärdighet vanligt förekommande i domskälen. Uppsatsens huvudsakliga frågeställning är om och hur Högsta domstolen går tillväga när de bedömer en vuxen målsägandes trovärdighet i våldtäktsmål. För att besvara denna fråga används sju domar från HD, doktrin och rättspsykologisk forskning.
Att finna en klar distinktion mellan begreppen tillförlitlighet och trovärdighet tycks vara svårt. Begreppen används både inom juridiken och rättspsykologin där dessa definieras på olika sätt av olika författare. Även i HD:s domskäl varierar det i hur begreppen används. Hur begreppen ska särskiljas från varandra är en fråga uppsatsen ämnar att besvara. Uppsatsens analyserande del utgår från att trovärdighet knyter an till person och tillförlitlighet till utsaga.
Rättspsykologin används för att omsätta psykologisk kunskap i rättsväsendet. Vad gäller begreppet trovärdighet studeras inom rättspsykologin även vilka faktorer som spelar in när en trovärdighetsbedömning görs. Av denna forskning framgår tydligt att vi bedömer personer som mer trovärdiga om de visar starkare emotionella reaktioner vid sitt berättande. Vi har även vissa förutfattade meningar om huruvida ett typiskt offer agerar efter ett övergrepp som påverkar hur trovärdigt vi senare värderar att offret är.
Utifrån domarna från HD kan utläsas att domstolen på ett eller annat sätt gör en bedömning av målsägandes trovärdighet. Vilka faktorer som HD beaktar verkar dock förändras en del över tid. I tidigare domar beskrivs att det sätt som målsägande avgett sin utsaga på givit ett trovärdigt intryck. I de nyare fallen används inte detta uttryck utan istället är det målsägandes agerande efter det påstådda övergreppet som är återkommande i domskälen.
I analysen diskuteras vidare hur trovärdighetsbedömningen i HD förhåller sig till rättspsykologisk forskning. Bland annat berörs hur synen på våldtäktsoffers reaktioner efter övergreppen skiljer sig åt mellan doktrin och rättspsykologisk forskning. I det första fallet anses reaktioner på brottet utgöra stöd för en tillförlitlig utsaga medan reaktionerna i det senare fallet anses höra samman med offrets trovärdighet. Utifrån de analyserade fallen från HD är domstolen av samma uppfattning som den som avspeglas i doktrin. I analysen problematiseras den skillnad i bedömningen som HD gör mellan reaktioner som målsägande visar i rättssalen och de reaktioner målsägande visar efter övergreppet. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9104483
- author
- Henriksson Bergdahl, Lisa LU
- supervisor
-
- My Bergius LU
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20222
- year
- 2022
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Processrätt, straffrätt, trovärdighet, bevisvärdering, rättspsykologi
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9104483
- date added to LUP
- 2023-02-03 16:15:23
- date last changed
- 2023-02-03 16:15:23
@misc{9104483,
abstract = {{In Swedish courts, the court use free evaluation of evidence, which means that the judges are not bound by rules or methods for how they evaluate evidence. Certain principles, such as the principle of immediacy, set the limits for the evaluation of evidence, but otherwise this is free. It is also permitted to use so-called common knowledge theorems. A common knowledge theorem is the knowledge of a connection between two phenomena that applies generally.
In the case of sexual crimes, there is often a lack of evidence such as victim testimonies. Instead, the parties and what they say play a great role in the court's evaluation of evidence. When this evaluation takes place, the concepts of reliability and credibility are common in the judgments. The essay's main question is whether and how the Supreme Court proceeds when they assess an adult victim’s credibility in rape cases. To answer this question, seven judgments from the Supreme Court, doctrine and legal psychological research are used.
Finding a clear distinction between the concepts of reliability and credibility seems close to impossible. The concepts are used both in law and legal psychology, where these are defined in different ways by different authors. Even in the Supreme Court´s reasons for judgment, there are variations in how the terms are used. The essay intends to answer how to distinguish the concepts from each other. The analytical part of the essay assumes that credibility is linked to a person and reliability to a statement.
Legal psychology is used to implement psychological knowledge in the legal system. Regarding the concept of credibility, legal psychology also studies which factors come into play when a credibility assessment is made. From this research it is clear that people are perceived as more credible if they show stronger emotional reactions when telling stories. We also have certain preconceived notions about how a typical victim acts after an assault that affects how credible we later judge the victim to be.
Based on the judgments from the Supreme Court, it can be deduced that the court, in one way or another, makes an assessment of the victim's credibility. However, which factors the court considers seems to change somewhat over time. In early judgments the Court describes that the victim gave a credible impression based on how the victim gave his or her statement. In the more recent cases, this expression is not used, instead it is the action of the victim after the alleged abuse that is discussed in the reasons for the judgment.
Furthermore, the analysis discusses how the credibility assessment in the Supreme Court relates to legal psychological research. Among other things, it touches on how the view of rape victims' reactions after the abuse differs between doctrine and legal psychological research. In the first case, reactions from victim are considered to support a reliable statement, while in the latter case, the reactions are considered to be related to the victim's credibility. Based on the analyzed cases from the Supreme Court, the court is of the same opinion as that reflected in doctrine. In the analysis, the courts view on this matter is problematized.}},
author = {{Henriksson Bergdahl, Lisa}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Ett trovärdigt våldtäktsoffer - Om Högsta domstolens bedömning av vuxna målsägandes trovärdighet}},
year = {{2022}},
}