Ung och oansvarig - en kritisk analys om ungdomsrabattens slopande fyller tilltänkt funktion
(2023) JURM02 20231Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Ungdomsbrottslighet är ett sedan länge aktuellt och omdiskuterat ämne. Straffreduktionen för unga lagöverträdare, speciellt i åldern 18–20 år, har längre kritiserats för att vara alltför tam och inte ta offrens behov av upprättelse i tillräckligt stor åtanke samt att strida mot det allmänna rättsmedvetandet. Den massmediala bilden är att ungdomsbrottsligheten ökar och blir allt grövre, där nätverkskriminaliteten spelar stor roll. Ungdomar ses som formbara och sårbara individer, samtidigt porträtteras de som empatilösa individer som medvetet kränker sina medmänniskors egendom och rättigheter.
Den 1 januari 2022 togs straffrabatten bort för unga lagöverträdare mellan 18 och 20 år vid allvarlig brottslighet. Samtidigt infördes möjligheten... (More) - Ungdomsbrottslighet är ett sedan länge aktuellt och omdiskuterat ämne. Straffreduktionen för unga lagöverträdare, speciellt i åldern 18–20 år, har längre kritiserats för att vara alltför tam och inte ta offrens behov av upprättelse i tillräckligt stor åtanke samt att strida mot det allmänna rättsmedvetandet. Den massmediala bilden är att ungdomsbrottsligheten ökar och blir allt grövre, där nätverkskriminaliteten spelar stor roll. Ungdomar ses som formbara och sårbara individer, samtidigt porträtteras de som empatilösa individer som medvetet kränker sina medmänniskors egendom och rättigheter.
Den 1 januari 2022 togs straffrabatten bort för unga lagöverträdare mellan 18 och 20 år vid allvarlig brottslighet. Samtidigt infördes möjligheten att döma lagöverträdare i samma ålder till livstids fängelse. Ändringen medförde att alla över 18 års ålder som begår allvarlig brottslighet döms till både lika stränga straff och samma påföljder. Diskussionen kring lagändringen har varit relevant under flera år vilket väcker frågan varför det infördes först nu? Uppsatsen kommer bland annat att besvara denna frågeställning utifrån en kritisk analys av införandet av lagändringen i fråga.
Påföljdssystemet baseras på enhetlighet, proportionalitet och straffreduktioner för de som inte fullt ut förstår sitt eget handlande; bland annat unga och psykiskt sjuka. När straffrabatten för unga lagöverträdare togs bort framstår rättssystemet inte längre som lika enhetligt och stora tröskeleffekter bland unga lagöverträdare infördes. Detta väcker frågan om formbarhet, rehabilitering och återanpassning i samhället.
Påföljdssystemet influeras framförallt av att straffet ska stå i proportion till brottets allvarhetsgrad. Utöver detta finns inslag av allmän- och individualprevention, vedergällning och behandlingstanken. Det anses vara mänskligt att fela, framförallt för unga som fortfarande utvecklas till vuxna, ansvarstagande individer. Gruppen anses mer sanktionskänslig, mer mottaglig för grupptryck och risken att en kriminell identitet och sedermera karriär inleds anses vara större. Dessa antaganden bygger på de psykologiska och psykosociala samt biologiska antaganden att det finns en basal skillnad mellan unga och vuxna individer. Det finns även både erfarenhets- och evidensbaserat stöd för detta, vilken den förra ordningen byggde på.
Det ökade fokuset på brottsofferperspektivet, det dödliga skjutvapenvåldet i kriminella kretsar och ett förändrat allmänt rättsmedvetande har dock förändrat uppfattningen vilket har utmynnat i lagändringen i fråga.
Genom att analysera materialet identifieras problemområden där särbehandlingen, och sedermera även borttagningen därav, inte tillgodoser de bestraffningsideologier, principer och intressen som utövar inflytande på påföljdssystemet. Detta är allt från proportionalitetsprincipen till ekvivalensprincipen, från allmän- och individualprevention till vedergällning och rehabilitering. Vidare kommer de uppstådda tröskeleffekterna att analyseras. Slutsatsen blir att borttagandet av straffrabatten kan vara relevant ur visst perspektiv, men att det inte lär få önskad effekt och till och med riskerar agera kontraproduktivt. (Less) - Abstract
- Juvenile delinquency is a long-standing and much debated topic. The sentence reduction for juvenile offenders, especially regarding the ages of 18-20, have long been criticized for being too tame and not taking the victim’s need for redress into account to a sufficient extent and contravene the general sense of justice. The image portrayed by the mass media is that juvenile delinquency increases and grows increasingly serious, whereas network crime plays a major role. Juveniles are being viewed as both malleable and vulnerable individuals, and simultaneously as empathetic individuals who knowingly violates the property and rights of their fellow human beings.
The 1st of January 2022 the sentence reduction for juvenile offenders between... (More) - Juvenile delinquency is a long-standing and much debated topic. The sentence reduction for juvenile offenders, especially regarding the ages of 18-20, have long been criticized for being too tame and not taking the victim’s need for redress into account to a sufficient extent and contravene the general sense of justice. The image portrayed by the mass media is that juvenile delinquency increases and grows increasingly serious, whereas network crime plays a major role. Juveniles are being viewed as both malleable and vulnerable individuals, and simultaneously as empathetic individuals who knowingly violates the property and rights of their fellow human beings.
The 1st of January 2022 the sentence reduction for juvenile offenders between the ages of 18 and 20 in the event of serious crime was removed. Simultaneously the possibility to sentence the same age group to life imprisonment was introduced. The amendment entailed that all over the age of 18 who commits serious offences are sentences to both equally severe punishments and the same penalties. The amendment has long been relevant which begs the question why only now? This essay will, among else, answer the question at issue based on a critical analysis of the introduction of the legislative amendment in question.
The Swedish penalty system is based on uniformity, proportionality, and sentence reductions for those who do not fully understand their own actions: among else juveniles and the mentally ill. When the sentence reduction for juvenile offenders was removed the justice system no longer appears uniform and large threshold effects among juvenile offenders were introduced. This raises the question of malleability, rehabilitation, and reintegration into society.
The penal system is above all influenced by that the punishment should be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime. In addition, there are elements of general and individual prevention, retribution and the treatment idea. It is considered human to err, especially for young individuals who are still developing into adult, responsible individuals. The group is considered more sensitive to sanctions, more susceptible to peer pressure and the risk of a criminal identity and later even career being started is considered greater. These assumptions are based on the psychological, psychosocial and biological assumptions that there is a basic difference between young and adult individuals. There is both experimental and evidence-based support for this, which the previous arrangement was based on.
The increased focus on the crime victim perspective, the deadly gun violence in criminal circles and a changed general sense of justice has, however, changed the perception, which has resulted in the legislative change in question.
Through analyzing the material, problem areas are identified whereas the special treatment, and later also the removal thereof, does not meet the punitive ideologies, principles and interests that exerts influence over the penal system. This is all from the principle of proportion, the equivalence principle, from general- and individual prevention to retribution and rehabilitation. Further will the threshold effects that have arisen be analyzed. The conclusion will be that the removal of the sentence reduction can be relevant, as seen from some perspective, but that it will not have the desired effect and even risks acting counterproductively. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9116010
- author
- Jönsson, Rebecca LU
- supervisor
-
- Karol Nowak LU
- organization
- alternative title
- Juvenile and irresponsible - a critical analysis wheather the removal of the sentence reduction fills the intended purpose
- course
- JURM02 20231
- year
- 2023
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Straffrätt, ungdomsrabatt, ungdomsreduktion, ungdomsbrottslighet, straffrabatt, ungdomspåföljder, proportionalitet, kriminalpolitik, gängbrottslighet
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9116010
- date added to LUP
- 2023-06-12 11:47:50
- date last changed
- 2023-06-12 11:47:50
@misc{9116010,
abstract = {{Juvenile delinquency is a long-standing and much debated topic. The sentence reduction for juvenile offenders, especially regarding the ages of 18-20, have long been criticized for being too tame and not taking the victim’s need for redress into account to a sufficient extent and contravene the general sense of justice. The image portrayed by the mass media is that juvenile delinquency increases and grows increasingly serious, whereas network crime plays a major role. Juveniles are being viewed as both malleable and vulnerable individuals, and simultaneously as empathetic individuals who knowingly violates the property and rights of their fellow human beings.
The 1st of January 2022 the sentence reduction for juvenile offenders between the ages of 18 and 20 in the event of serious crime was removed. Simultaneously the possibility to sentence the same age group to life imprisonment was introduced. The amendment entailed that all over the age of 18 who commits serious offences are sentences to both equally severe punishments and the same penalties. The amendment has long been relevant which begs the question why only now? This essay will, among else, answer the question at issue based on a critical analysis of the introduction of the legislative amendment in question.
The Swedish penalty system is based on uniformity, proportionality, and sentence reductions for those who do not fully understand their own actions: among else juveniles and the mentally ill. When the sentence reduction for juvenile offenders was removed the justice system no longer appears uniform and large threshold effects among juvenile offenders were introduced. This raises the question of malleability, rehabilitation, and reintegration into society.
The penal system is above all influenced by that the punishment should be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime. In addition, there are elements of general and individual prevention, retribution and the treatment idea. It is considered human to err, especially for young individuals who are still developing into adult, responsible individuals. The group is considered more sensitive to sanctions, more susceptible to peer pressure and the risk of a criminal identity and later even career being started is considered greater. These assumptions are based on the psychological, psychosocial and biological assumptions that there is a basic difference between young and adult individuals. There is both experimental and evidence-based support for this, which the previous arrangement was based on.
The increased focus on the crime victim perspective, the deadly gun violence in criminal circles and a changed general sense of justice has, however, changed the perception, which has resulted in the legislative change in question.
Through analyzing the material, problem areas are identified whereas the special treatment, and later also the removal thereof, does not meet the punitive ideologies, principles and interests that exerts influence over the penal system. This is all from the principle of proportion, the equivalence principle, from general- and individual prevention to retribution and rehabilitation. Further will the threshold effects that have arisen be analyzed. The conclusion will be that the removal of the sentence reduction can be relevant, as seen from some perspective, but that it will not have the desired effect and even risks acting counterproductively.}},
author = {{Jönsson, Rebecca}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Ung och oansvarig - en kritisk analys om ungdomsrabattens slopande fyller tilltänkt funktion}},
year = {{2023}},
}