Skyldig utan skuld? - Uppsåtsbedömningen vid gärningar som begåtts under självförvållat rus och dess förenlighet med grundläggande straffrättsliga principer

Sammanfattning: When it comes to violent crimes it is common that the perpetrator has been drunk at the time of the crime and often the intoxication is a contributing factor to the perpetrator committing the crime. Intoxication often means that the perpetrator has no recollection of the course of events at all. The assessment of intent is associated with difficulties as the perpetrator at the time of the act was so intoxicated and self-alienated to the extent that he could not comment on the course of the event or the motive behind the act. The question arises as to how the intent assessment is to be made in such a case. This question leads us to the overall purpose of the essay, which is to examine whether the assessment of intent is compatible with our basic principles of criminal law, in particular the principle of guilt, which tells us that only those who at the time of the crime could be held accountable can be held accountable and punished. After analyzing relevant cases in the field, it can be stated that the assessment of intent by relevant legal case, it can be stated that the The Supreme Court's guidelines state, among other things, that an examination of the perpetrator's awareness must be made in terms of his insight into the realization of the effect. In preparatory work and doctrine, it seems to be the perpetrator's sober condition that should form the basis for the assessment of the perpetrator's insight into the realization of the effect. This can hardly be considered compatible with the principle of guilt. This is because the perpetrator is held responsible for an act that he did not understand the meaning of at the time of the act, which goes against what the principle of guilt stands for. On the other hand, the assessment of intent is well compatible with the principle of conformity because the intoxication is self-inflicted and should therefore not lead to discharge from liability. The perpetrator can thus be considered to have had the opportunity to comply with the law. A circumstance that further contributes to the current diffuse legal situation regarding acts committed during self-inflicted intoxication is how the regulation in BrB chapter 1 paragraph 2, paragraph 2, is interpreted, which has long been debated. The provision stipulates that if an act has been committed under self-inflicted intoxication or if the perpetrator was otherwise - through his own fault - temporarily out of the use of his senses, this shall not lead to the act not being considered a crime. Different interpretive alternatives have emerged in the preparatory work and doctrine - the question is which of these constitutes applicable law?