På jakt efter näthatarna - En utredande analys om rättsväsendets hantering av hatbrott på internet

Sammanfattning: This paper is set out to investigate and analyze how the judicial system handles hate crime committed on the internet. In 2013 the Swedish national council of crime prevention (Brå) reported that the clearance rate in terms of hate crime committed on the internet is very low. Hence the paper continues with identifying the causes of the low clearance rate and the shortcomings the judicial system possesses on the area. To compensate the shortcomings that has been identified a few proposals of amendment is presented in the concluding part of this paper. The term we colloquially call net hate is no legal term and thus not something one can be prosecuted for. Regardless of that, a lot of what can be classified as net hate is illegal. The crimes I chose to classify as hate crime in this paper was determined by Brå in 2007 as the most common types of hate crime. I ignored crimes of violence since they’re not committable through the internet. Thus this paper is limited to the following crimes; unlawful threat, molestation, defamation, insult and agitation against an ethnic or national group. The obvious shortcomings I’ve been able to identify as for the judicial systems handling of net hate is mainly divided into two main categories. The first obvious flaw is the police deficient ability to investigate the crimes to the extent that a conviction is possible. This problem is mainly due to inadequate cooperation with the internet – companies holding the necessary information for the solution of many crimes. Lack of knowledge within the police investigating operation is also a reason why the clearance rate is so low. The requisitors simply does not know how to go about to secure necessary evidence. In the concluding chapter of this paper a few proposals for amendment in the police operation is presented. The second category as for the judicial systems flaws is derived to the current legislation regarding net hate. This issue partly derives from the outdated legislation in the penal code. The current legislation contains notions which partly aren’t relevant to describe the actions which should be criminal with today’s conceptualization. The second issue regarding the legislation is the special rules of prosecution connected to the defamation – crimes. As a rule, the injured person is supposed to bring legal action all by himself. Only by exception is a prosecutor able to overtake the legal actions. Bills to modernize the penal code have been put forward by the government and should be voted through. Beyond this, I suggest that the time is right to remove the special rules of prosecution connected to defamation- crimes and let the judicial system take full responsibility.