Pyromaner vs. Mordbrännare - Vem är det egentliga hotet?
Sammanfattning: It is burning, the flames have spread to the roof and once again, terror plagues the people of Sweden. Gryningspyromanen has just left the entrance of Bollhusgatan 8 in Ystad and the police are right behind him. This time, the evidence will be sufficient for a conviction. Is gryningspyromanen really a pyromaniac? If not, what is pyromania and why does Sweden's most famous pyromaniac not qualify for the diagnosis? What does Sweden's history of arson look like and what does it really take to be convicted of arson? These are the questions that will be touched upon and answered in this thesis. In the 19th century, interest in criminal law grew around the world. When the interest came to Sweden in 1811, the revision of the Penal Code of 1734 began. The proposals were presented but no agreement could be reached and it took over 50 years before one of the proposals became law. The result was the 1864 Penal Code, which despite the long wait was not considered a finished product. The legislation was a lively discussion in the coming decades and parts of the legislation were gradually revised. It was not until 1940 that the idea of a new law was abandoned and the Criminal Law Committee was appointed to revise both the property crimes and the special part of the penal code. In the Penal Code of 1864, the provisions on arson fell under the criminal law provisions on vandalism. The report on the new special section proposed that the provisions governing vandalism should be separated from the crimes that caused danger. The report resulted in the 1948 reform where the arson regulations would be covered by the public safety crimes. The idea behind the public safety crimes was that the interest in protection was shifted from individuals to the general public, which would encompass a larger range of people or objects. The interest in protection that emerged with the public safety crimes is still reflected today in the provisions on crimes against the public. In 1962, it was realized that the Penal Code of 1864 could no longer be revised to the extent required to satisfy society's demands for the protection of public and private interests. The Criminal Code was divided into three main parts, where the first part concerned the general provisions, the second part dealt with the offenses and the third with the penalties. The arson regulations fell under the section on crimes against the public, but the wording and interest in protection were the same as in the 1948 reform. In the current law, the arson provisions are classified as arson as a less serious crime, arson of the normal degree and aggravated arson. In order for the arson provisions to be relevant, it is required that the fire was started, that the fire entailed danger to another's life or well-being or danger of extensive destruction of another's property. In order for arson as a less serious crime to become relevant, it is required that no human life or well-being is endangered. In order for aggravated arson to become relevant, it is required that the fire was started in a densely populated community where it could easily have spread or otherwise posed a danger to several people or to property of special significance. The cases that are neither considered less serious nor as aggravated are classified as the normal degree. Pyromania is an unusual forensic psychiatric diagnosis that is classified as an impulse control disorder. Impulse control disorders are mentioned in the preparatory work for the Forensic Psychiatric Care Act as a serious mental disorder that results in forensic psychiatric care before imprisonment. The DSM-IV has established six diagnostic criteria for pyromania. The criteria reflect the number of fires, the person's internal experiences before the fire, the person's interests and attraction, the person's experience at the time of the fire, the motive behind the fire and that the fire can not be explained in any other way or with any other diagnosis. There is no treatment for the diagnosis of pyromania and the recurrence statistics are high. The essay analyzes gryningspyromanen 's three convictions regarding arson based on DSM-IV diagnostic requirements. In the Mora case from 2005, gryningspyromanen is convicted of two attempted arsons. In the Ystad case from 2010, he was again convicted of aggravated arson and in the Köping case from 2017, he was convicted of attempted arson. In all three cases, gryningspyromanen meets some of the six diagnostic requirements, but overall he does not fulfill the criteria for the diagnosis of pyromania. This is also supported by the §7 investigations made in all three conclusions by the forensic psychiatric care, all three of which assess that there is no serious mental disorder. The essay concludes that the development of the arson regulations over the past 200 years has gone from protecting the individual to protecting a larger range of people and property. The difference between the degree division in current law differs depending on how great the danger is, whether the danger is directed at a person or at property and where the fire is located and the possible risk of spread. Regarding who poses the greatest threat, the analysis deems pyromania as being a dangerous diagnosis with poor conditions for rehabilitation. On the other hand, the treatment and follow-up of pyromaniacs is considerably better than the penalties for non-pyromaniacs. As a result, even though pyromania is an extremely dangerous mental disorder, they are provided with better tools and help, through treatment to deal with their problems compared to arsonists who receive neither treatment nor tools for future use. Gryningspyromanen reflects a typical example of how arsonists lack the tools and treatment to deal with their emotions. It has burned, it is burning and it will most likely burn again.
HÄR KAN DU HÄMTA UPPSATSEN I FULLTEXT. (följ länken till nästa sida)