Straffskärpning i teori och praktik - Om hur skärpningarna av knivlagen kommit att tillämpas i praxis
(2025) LAGF03 20251Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Den 1 juli 2022 trädde en ändring av lagen (1988:254) om förbud beträffande knivar och andra farliga föremål, även kallad knivlagen, i kraft. Denna innebar bl.a. att kvalifikationsgrunder infördes för bedömningen av om ett brott ska rubriceras som grovt, och att straffskalan för grovt brott skärptes till fängelse i lägst sex månader och högst två år.
Syftet med den här uppsatsen är att analysera hur nämnda lagändringar fallit ut i praktiken. Med en tillämpning av empirisk metod studeras hur hovrätterna i ett antal avgöranden från 2024 och 2025 har bedömt frågan om gradindelning, liksom hur straffvärdet bedömts för de brott som rubricerats som grova. Genom rättsanalytisk metod jämförs sedan resultatet med lagstiftarens intentioner så... (More) - Den 1 juli 2022 trädde en ändring av lagen (1988:254) om förbud beträffande knivar och andra farliga föremål, även kallad knivlagen, i kraft. Denna innebar bl.a. att kvalifikationsgrunder infördes för bedömningen av om ett brott ska rubriceras som grovt, och att straffskalan för grovt brott skärptes till fängelse i lägst sex månader och högst två år.
Syftet med den här uppsatsen är att analysera hur nämnda lagändringar fallit ut i praktiken. Med en tillämpning av empirisk metod studeras hur hovrätterna i ett antal avgöranden från 2024 och 2025 har bedömt frågan om gradindelning, liksom hur straffvärdet bedömts för de brott som rubricerats som grova. Genom rättsanalytisk metod jämförs sedan resultatet med lagstiftarens intentioner så som de framgår av förarbetena, för att svara på frågan om i vilken utsträckning intentionerna kan sägas ha fått praktiskt genomslag. Vidare förs en diskussion om vilka möjliga förklaringar som kan finnas till att praxis utmönstrat sig på det sätt den gjort.
Slutsatserna som dras är att lagändringens ändamål – att ge försvårande omständigheter ett tydligt genomslag i praxis, och att främja en enhetlig rättstillämpning – inte fullt ut kan sägas ha förverkligats. Detta beror till stor del på en kategori avgöranden där knivbrottet, trots att det förelegat flera försvårande omständigheter, rubricerats som brott av normalgraden. Till detta kommer att det kan iakttas ett tydligt mönster av att straffvärdet för de grova brotten bestämts till det föreskrivna minimistraffet. Vad avser frågan om varför praxis utvecklat sig på detta sätt dras slutsatsen att förklaringen kan ligga i en kombination av bristande vägledning i förarbetena och underliggande föreställningar om proportionalitet och ekvivalens. (Less) - Abstract
- On 1 July 2022, the Swedish Act (1988:254) on the Prohibition of Knives and Other Dangerous Objects (the Swedish Knife Act), which criminalizes possession of knives and other dangerous objects in public places, was amended. Through the amendment, four criteria were introduced to the statutory text, which are to be given particular consideration when assessing whether a violation of the law is to be classified as gross. In addition, the range of punishment for gross offenses was increased to a minimum of six months and a maximum of two years of imprisonment.
This essay aims to analyze how the aforementioned criteria as well as the new range of punishment for gross violations of the Swedish Knife Act have been applied in practice. Using... (More) - On 1 July 2022, the Swedish Act (1988:254) on the Prohibition of Knives and Other Dangerous Objects (the Swedish Knife Act), which criminalizes possession of knives and other dangerous objects in public places, was amended. Through the amendment, four criteria were introduced to the statutory text, which are to be given particular consideration when assessing whether a violation of the law is to be classified as gross. In addition, the range of punishment for gross offenses was increased to a minimum of six months and a maximum of two years of imprisonment.
This essay aims to analyze how the aforementioned criteria as well as the new range of punishment for gross violations of the Swedish Knife Act have been applied in practice. Using an empirical method, a selection of appellate court decisions from 2024 and 2025 are examined to identify general patterns in how the courts assess both the classification of crimes and the penal value of offenses that have been classified as gross. The findings are compared to the purposes of the amendment as expressed in the drafting process, in order to evaluate the extent to which the legislator´s aims have been fulfilled. Furthermore, a discussion is held about possible reasons behind how case law has developed.
The essay concludes that the objectives of the amendment, which were to give aggravating circumstances a clear impact on the application of the law and to promote uniform application, have not been fully met. This is largely due to a category of cases where the offense, despite the presence of several aggravating circumstances, has been classified as being of the normal degree. Added to this, a clear pattern can be observed that the penal value for the gross offenses is assessed as equivalent to the minimum sentence. When it comes to the underlying reasons for these patterns, the essay suggests that they could be explained by a combination of limited legislative guidance and ideas of proportionality and equivalence in sentencing. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9190247
- author
- Graninger, Elsa LU
- supervisor
-
- Sigrid Nikka LU
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20251
- year
- 2025
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Straffrätt, Knivlagen, Straffskärpning, Straffvärde, Gradindelning
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9190247
- date added to LUP
- 2025-06-23 12:56:46
- date last changed
- 2025-06-23 12:56:46
@misc{9190247,
abstract = {{On 1 July 2022, the Swedish Act (1988:254) on the Prohibition of Knives and Other Dangerous Objects (the Swedish Knife Act), which criminalizes possession of knives and other dangerous objects in public places, was amended. Through the amendment, four criteria were introduced to the statutory text, which are to be given particular consideration when assessing whether a violation of the law is to be classified as gross. In addition, the range of punishment for gross offenses was increased to a minimum of six months and a maximum of two years of imprisonment.
This essay aims to analyze how the aforementioned criteria as well as the new range of punishment for gross violations of the Swedish Knife Act have been applied in practice. Using an empirical method, a selection of appellate court decisions from 2024 and 2025 are examined to identify general patterns in how the courts assess both the classification of crimes and the penal value of offenses that have been classified as gross. The findings are compared to the purposes of the amendment as expressed in the drafting process, in order to evaluate the extent to which the legislator´s aims have been fulfilled. Furthermore, a discussion is held about possible reasons behind how case law has developed.
The essay concludes that the objectives of the amendment, which were to give aggravating circumstances a clear impact on the application of the law and to promote uniform application, have not been fully met. This is largely due to a category of cases where the offense, despite the presence of several aggravating circumstances, has been classified as being of the normal degree. Added to this, a clear pattern can be observed that the penal value for the gross offenses is assessed as equivalent to the minimum sentence. When it comes to the underlying reasons for these patterns, the essay suggests that they could be explained by a combination of limited legislative guidance and ideas of proportionality and equivalence in sentencing.}},
author = {{Graninger, Elsa}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Straffskärpning i teori och praktik - Om hur skärpningarna av knivlagen kommit att tillämpas i praxis}},
year = {{2025}},
}