Påföljden för mord - 2014 års lagändring ur ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv

Sammanfattning: Until 2009 the punishment for murder was ten years or life imprisonment. In 2009 there was an amendment of the law, which expanded the area where the court could convict someone to a fixed sentence; ten years as the lowest and eighteen years a maximum. In NJA 2013 p. 376 the Supreme Court ruled that the basic assumption for a murder without aggravating- or extenuating circumstances was a fourteen years imprisonment. The year after there was another amendment of the law. Its purpose was to make life imprisonment the normal sentence for murder. Many of the consultation bodies and the Council of Legislation were critical of the amendment. Partly because of the way the amendment was designed, partly because the consultation bodies questioned the need for a new amendment in the light of 2009 amendment of the law. In case nr B 4653-15 the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment made 2014 did not change legal position created by the amendment made 2009 and NJA 2013 p. 376. This essay aims to describe the amendments made 2009 and 2014 from a rule of law perspective. This essay also presents theories of criminal justice, which have been important in the evolution of Swedish criminal law. These theories can be divided into two groups; absolute and relative theories. Absolute theories basically use punishment as revenge for the committed crime. Relative theories use punishment to achieve a certain goal and have a purpose. The relative theories can also be split into groups: deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation. The criminal code from 1965 was very influenced by the theories of rehabilitation. 1989 there was a big amendment of the criminal code regarding the sanctions. The principles of proportionality, equality before the law and rule of law became the most important principles. The different theories have different impacts depending on which level in the criminal procedure that’s being discussed. This essay shares the Supreme Courts opinion that the amendment of 2014 does not have the effect as the government expected due the actual wording of the amendment. The essay also discuss the fact that the government through the amendment of 2014 moves away from the principle of proportionality and rely their argument in the symbolic values of life imprisonment and concludes that the amendment may be sign that the Swedish criminal law is becoming more political.