När idrottsmän blir gärningsmän

Sammanfattning: During participation in sport games the athletes are constantly exposed to violence that would be considered as assault or abuse if it happend on any other location. These acts of violence are often required to fulfill the purpose of the sport, and are sometimes even allowed according to the rules of the game, and can not cause culpability. But how much violence is enough to legally punish the athlete for acts committed on the field? The purpose of this essay is to increase the knowledge of the criminal regulation of violence committed during participation in sports and thus answer the question under which circumstances an athlete can be legally responsible for acts of violence on the field. The method used in this essay is the grounds of legal dogma. However the method has not been used strictly but instead it has been extended to also include case law from lower court. The material used in the essay are mainly legal doctrine and case law from lower court but laws with comments, legislative history and precedents have also been used in the amount it has been available in this area. The general starting points of the essay has been the principle of equality before the law and the requirements of rule of law and predictability. What constitutes a crime is regulated in the 1 chapter 1§ in the swedish Penal Code. According to the regulation a crime is an act, written in law, to which a penalty is prescribed. Besides from this formal requirement some necessary condition must be fulfilled. Asp, Ulväng and Jareborg divide these necessary condition into the necessary conditions for undued deed and the necessary conditions for personal responsibility. This essay only contains the first necessary conditions, undued deed. The necessary conditions for undued deed can also be divided into two conditions: the crime accordance and the absence of justifying circumstances. The justifying circumstances of relevance for this essay is consent, which is regulated in 24 chapter 7 § the swedish Penal Code, and social adequacy. In the legal assessment of violence committed during participation in sport the court take into account the rules and the purpose of the specific sport. The doctrine as well as the legislative history and case law from lower court all agree under which circumstances violence during sports should be legally punished and which acts that not should be. Acts of violence which is against the rules in the sport but in accordance with the purpose of the sport, or act of violence within the rules, do not cause culpability. And on the contrary acts of violence which is against both the rules and the purpose of the sport do cause culpability. However the different kinds of legal sources do not agree which justifying circumstances that should be applied to violence during participation in sports. The doctrine advocate consent, social adequacy or a balance of interests while the case law from lower court almost exclusively practise consent. Acts of violence committed after the referee has called off the game do cause culpability due to the fact that the act does not fulfill the purpose of the game. When the game is started the crucial circumstance is whether or not the act is committed associated with the struggle for the ball/puck. Acts which is not associated with the struggle for the ball/puck do cause culpability while acts which is associated with the struggle do not.