Tills alla döms? - En utredande och analyserande studie av så kallade plausibla alternativförklaringar i den gängkriminella miljön

Sammanfattning: In recent years, Swedish jurisprudence has been subject to ominous pressure parallel to the flourishing of as gang crime. Within the Swedish legal system, the evaluation of evidence has been a particular aspect that has sparked debates on whether Swedish courts make adequate assessments in such cases. Particularly, the evaluation of al- ternative explanations presented in court is of specific interest in order to deduct why these cases are singular in the difficulty they present to the Swedish legal system. Thus, the purpose of this essay is to clarify what constitutes a plausible alternative explanation in court. The purpose is addressed through three main research ques- tions. The first question concerns the formulation of alternative explanations and to what extent these formulations adopt the parties' formulations or negate the prosecu- tor's claims. The second question relates to how the court reasons in regard to issued verdicts based on plausible alternative explanations. Furthermore, the second ques- tion examines the significance attributed to the defendant's gang criminality though a sub question. The final research question aims to identify fallacies in the formula- tion and evaluation of alternative explanations. The essay is primarily delimited as follows: the research questions and purpose are answered solely based on selected legal cases. Furthermore, the purpose and research questions are primarily addressed through four theoretical frameworks within explanation-based models, namely 'IBE,' 'The Relative Plausibility Theory,' 'The Story Model,' and 'The Scenario Theory.' Given that the essay employs specific theoretical frameworks, it has a legal analyti- cal character, with some elements of legal dogmatics. In the sections where the the- ories are presented, the works authored by the individuals who developed the theo- ries will be referenced. This primarily includes Peter Lipton, who authored a com- prehensive work on 'IBE'; Ronald J. Allen and Michael S. Pardo, who developed 'The Relative Plausibility Theory'; Nancy Pennington and Reid Hastie, who devel- oped 'The Story Model'; and Anne R. Mackor and Peter J. Van Koppen, who devel- oped 'The Scenario Theory.' To further illustrate certain characteristics of Swedish evidence evaluation, 'Beviskraft' authored by Christian Dahlman has been central. Finally, works by David Lagnado ('Explaining the Evidence') and Hylke Jellema ('(Im)probable stories') have been relevant mainly for the question concering falla- cies. Additionally, an unpublished work by Christian Dahlman ('A Systematic Ac- count of Probabilistic Fallacies in Legal Fact-Finding') has also been significant. Based on the analysis of legal cases, the following comprehensive analysis can be presented. Regarding the first research question, the following can be stated: In the analyzed cases, it has been common for the court to adopt the parties' explanations. In cases where the court introduced its own alternative explanations, they primarily constituted negations of the prosecutor's claims. Both procedures have an impact on what is perceived as a plausible alternative explanation. In the first case, this mainly entails a relative and comparative nature of the meaning. In the second case, it be- comes indeterminate since such negation encompasses multiple possible explana- tions. Concerning the second research question, it has been observed, in the analyzed cases, that the presence of plausible alternative explanations generally justifies 4 acquittal verdicts. This seems particularly evident when the alternative explanations are linked to the defendant's criminal activities, which could be explained by a lack of knowledge or uncertainty about criminality. Finally, it is also emphasized that this is influenced by whether the court conducts an overarching analysis of all pieces of evidence and explanations or a more isolated one. The latter approach renders a un- clear meaning of a plausible alternative explanation since acquittal verdicts are often based on alternative explanations that are somewhat plausible but still considered less plausible than the prosecutor's presented sub-theme. The third research question aimed to identify fallacies in the court's formulation and evaluation of alternative explanations. Three main deficiencies have been identified: mutually exclusive and exhaustive explanations, unexplored alternatives, and the formulation of alternative explanations as general negations of the prosecutor's claims. All of these deficiencies affect and distort the meaning of what is considered a plausible alternative explanation in court.