Bristande utveckling, erfarenhet eller omdömesförmåga - En analys om en fortsatt särbehandling av unga lagöverträdare är möjlig, även vid allvarlig brottslighet
(2023) LAGF03 20232Faculty of Law
Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Unga lagöverträdare särbehandlas inom det svenska påföljdssystemet ef-tersom de anses ha en mindre grad av skuld i en brottslig gärning jämfört med vuxna lagöverträdare. Särbehandlingen motiveras av att unga lagöverträdare har en bristande ansvarsförmåga, större känslighet mot bestraffningar, bris-tande självkontroll, en ökad benägenhet till stimulanssökande och ett ökat risktagande.
I början av 2022 förändrades särbehandlingen när den så kallade ungdomsre-duktionen i 29 kap. 7 § brottsbalken slopades för unga lagöverträdare mellan 18 och 21 år som begått allvarliga brott. Vid sidan av ungdomsreduktionen i 29 kap. 7 § brottsbalken finns i 29 kap. 3 § första stycket 3 brottsbalken en förmildrande omständighet som ska beaktas vid... (More) - Unga lagöverträdare särbehandlas inom det svenska påföljdssystemet ef-tersom de anses ha en mindre grad av skuld i en brottslig gärning jämfört med vuxna lagöverträdare. Särbehandlingen motiveras av att unga lagöverträdare har en bristande ansvarsförmåga, större känslighet mot bestraffningar, bris-tande självkontroll, en ökad benägenhet till stimulanssökande och ett ökat risktagande.
I början av 2022 förändrades särbehandlingen när den så kallade ungdomsre-duktionen i 29 kap. 7 § brottsbalken slopades för unga lagöverträdare mellan 18 och 21 år som begått allvarliga brott. Vid sidan av ungdomsreduktionen i 29 kap. 7 § brottsbalken finns i 29 kap. 3 § första stycket 3 brottsbalken en förmildrande omständighet som ska beaktas vid straffvärdebedömningen vil-ken tar sikte på gärningspersonens bristande utveckling, erfarenhet eller om-dömesförmåga.
Den förmildrande omständigheten har hamnat i skuggan av ungdomsredukt-ionen och mycket sällan kommit till användning. I ljuset av att ungdomsre-duktionen vid allvarlig brottslighet nu är slopad, väcks frågan om den förmild-rande omständigheten i 29 kap. 3 § första stycket 3 brottsbalken kan tillämpas för att fånga upp de unga lagöverträdare som tidigare omfattats av ungdoms-reduktionen.
Genom en beskrivning av straffvärdebedömningen och dess tillvägagångssätt skapas förståelse för hur den förmildrande omständigheten kan tillämpas. Skälen för särbehandlingen och hur den har förändrats visar att slopandet av ungdomsreduktionen baseras på en avvägning mellan olika intressen. Intresset av särbehandlingen av unga lagöverträdare fick stå tillbaka mot intresset av proportionerliga straff.
Uppsatsen konstaterar att rättsläget gällande tillämpningen av den förmildrade omständigheten synes vara oklart. Praxis på området är sparsmakad och svår-tolkad. En förklaring kan vara att varken domstolarna eller försvarsadvokater-na har klart för sig hur de ska hantera dessa frågor än. För domstolarnas del saknas vägledning från högsta instans. (Less) - Abstract
- Young offenders are treated differently within the Swedish penal system be-cause they are considered to have a lower degree of culpability in a criminal act compared to adult offenders. The differential treatment is justified by the fact that young offenders have a lack of capacity for responsibility, greater sensitivity to punishment, lack of self-control, an increased tendency for seek-ing stimulation, and increased risk-taking.
At the beginning of 2022, the differential treatment changed when the so-called youth reduction in Chapter 29, Section 7 of the Penal Code was abol-ished for young offenders between 18 and 21 years old who have committed serious crimes. In addition to the youth reduction in Chapter 29, Section 7 of the Penal... (More) - Young offenders are treated differently within the Swedish penal system be-cause they are considered to have a lower degree of culpability in a criminal act compared to adult offenders. The differential treatment is justified by the fact that young offenders have a lack of capacity for responsibility, greater sensitivity to punishment, lack of self-control, an increased tendency for seek-ing stimulation, and increased risk-taking.
At the beginning of 2022, the differential treatment changed when the so-called youth reduction in Chapter 29, Section 7 of the Penal Code was abol-ished for young offenders between 18 and 21 years old who have committed serious crimes. In addition to the youth reduction in Chapter 29, Section 7 of the Penal Code, there is a mitigating circumstance in Chapter 29, Section 3, paragraph 3 of the Penal Code which should be taken into account in the as-sessment of the penalty value, focusing on the offender's lack of development, experience, or judgment ability.
The mitigating circumstance has been overshadowed by the youth reduction and has very rarely been used. In light of the fact that the youth reduction for serious crimes is now abolished, the question arises whether the mitigating circumstance in Chapter 29, Section 3, paragraph 3 of the Penal Code can be applied to the young offenders who were previously covered by the youth reduction.
By describing the assessment of the penalty value and its approach, under-standing is created for how the mitigating circumstance can be applied. The reasons for the differential treatment and how it has changed show that the abolition of the youth reduction is based on a balancing of different interests. The interest in the differential treatment of young offenders had to give way to the interest in proportionate penalties.
The essay concludes that the legal situation regarding the application of the mitigating circumstance seems to be unclear. The case law in the field is scarce and difficult to interpret. One explanation may be that neither the courts nor the defense lawyers have a clear understanding of how to handle these issues yet. The courts lack guidance from the highest court. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9143191
- author
- Nestor, Andreas LU
- supervisor
-
- Per Nilsén LU
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20232
- year
- 2023
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- straffrätt, criminal law
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9143191
- date added to LUP
- 2024-02-02 12:22:58
- date last changed
- 2024-02-02 12:22:58
@misc{9143191,
abstract = {{Young offenders are treated differently within the Swedish penal system be-cause they are considered to have a lower degree of culpability in a criminal act compared to adult offenders. The differential treatment is justified by the fact that young offenders have a lack of capacity for responsibility, greater sensitivity to punishment, lack of self-control, an increased tendency for seek-ing stimulation, and increased risk-taking.
At the beginning of 2022, the differential treatment changed when the so-called youth reduction in Chapter 29, Section 7 of the Penal Code was abol-ished for young offenders between 18 and 21 years old who have committed serious crimes. In addition to the youth reduction in Chapter 29, Section 7 of the Penal Code, there is a mitigating circumstance in Chapter 29, Section 3, paragraph 3 of the Penal Code which should be taken into account in the as-sessment of the penalty value, focusing on the offender's lack of development, experience, or judgment ability.
The mitigating circumstance has been overshadowed by the youth reduction and has very rarely been used. In light of the fact that the youth reduction for serious crimes is now abolished, the question arises whether the mitigating circumstance in Chapter 29, Section 3, paragraph 3 of the Penal Code can be applied to the young offenders who were previously covered by the youth reduction.
By describing the assessment of the penalty value and its approach, under-standing is created for how the mitigating circumstance can be applied. The reasons for the differential treatment and how it has changed show that the abolition of the youth reduction is based on a balancing of different interests. The interest in the differential treatment of young offenders had to give way to the interest in proportionate penalties.
The essay concludes that the legal situation regarding the application of the mitigating circumstance seems to be unclear. The case law in the field is scarce and difficult to interpret. One explanation may be that neither the courts nor the defense lawyers have a clear understanding of how to handle these issues yet. The courts lack guidance from the highest court.}},
author = {{Nestor, Andreas}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Bristande utveckling, erfarenhet eller omdömesförmåga - En analys om en fortsatt särbehandling av unga lagöverträdare är möjlig, även vid allvarlig brottslighet}},
year = {{2023}},
}