@misc{9226748,
  abstract     = {{This thesis examines exculpatory consent and social adequacy in cases involving non-fatal strangulation in sexual contexts. The point of departure is the conflict that arises when an individual’s sexual self-determination is weighed against the protection afforded by criminal law to life and health in situations where voluntariness and violence coincide. The issue has gained increased legal and societal attention and raises fundamental questions regarding the extent to which an individual may consent to acts involving bodily harm or the risk of serious injury. 
The aim of this thesis is to examine the scope within which exculpatory consent and social adequacy may provide grounds for exemption from criminal liability in cases involving non-fatal strangulation in sexual situations, and how these grounds for exemption are applied in lower court practise. The study is conducted using a legal-dogmatic method combined with an empirical analysis of lower court judgements. The analyses is based on a liberal perspective on sexual self-determination, in which the individual’s autonomy and right to control their own body are accorded central importance. 
The study demonstrates that consent under Chapter 24, Section 7 of the Swedish Penal Code (BrB) may, in principle, apply even in relation to violent acts causing bodily harm. However, valid consent is not in itself sufficient to exempt a person from criminal liability, since the act must also be considered justifiable. Importance is attached to the dangerous nature of the act, the extent of the actual harm, the risk of further injury, and the purpose of the act. Non-fatal strangulation is typically regarded as involving significant medical risks, meaning that the scope for exemption from criminal liability is highly limited even where consent has been given. The analysis nevertheless shows that sexual self-determination may, to a certain extent, be considered in the assessment of justifiability. 
Furthermore, the study shows that social adequacy has a very limited scope of application in cases involving non-fatal strangulation in sexual situations. Unlike sports and medical practice, non-fatal strangulation is not considered to possess the kind of established social value that traditionally justifies exemption from criminal liability. The review of lower court practice also demonstrates that the courts generally adopt a restrictive approach to and consistently allow the protection of life and health to outweigh sexual self-determination. Against this background, the legal position appears partly unclear, particularly regarding the significance attributed to sexual self-determination within the framework of justifiability and social adequacy. The thesis therefore demonstrates that non-fatal strangulation in sexual situations gives rise to complex criminal law considerations involving a balance between autonomy, voluntariness, and the protection of life and health.}},
  author       = {{Skåninger, Ebba}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Sexuellt självbestämmande och straffrättens gränser – En undersökning om ansvarsbefriande samtycke och social adekvans vid strypvåld i sexuella situationer}},
  year         = {{2026}},
}