Tillräknelighet - en förutsättning för brott?

Sammanfattning: Mentally disordered offenders have always been treated differently by the criminal justice system. In most countries the law requires that the accused is sane to be considered accountable for his or her actions. Accountability, in this context, means that you know what you are doing and that you are able to control your actions. In Sweden there is no requirement that the accused is sane to be considered accountable and responsible for his or her actions and thus liable to be punished for the crime. In the current system offenders who committed a crime suffering from a serious mental disorder can only be sentenced to prison if extraordinary circumstances are at hand. Examples of such circumstances include that the accused has caused the mental disorder by self-induced intoxication or if the crime was severe. However, If the accused suffered from a serious mental disorder, such that he or she was not able to control or understand the meaning of his or her actions, the court cannot sentence the accused to prison. Since the turn of the century the debate concerning a possible inclusion of a requirement for accountability as a prerequisite for criminal liability has been ongoing in Sweden. It has been proposed in the official report Psykiatrin och lagen – tvångsvård, straffansvar och samhällsskydd (SOU 2012:17), that a requirement for criminal liability should be that the accused offender is to be accountable for the action to be considered a crime. A person is not to be considered accountable if the person at the time of the illegal action suffered from a serious mental disorder or deliriousness, was severely mentally disabled, or suffered from a serious form of dementia. In broad terms the arguments of proponents of the inclusion of such an requirement include, the principle of responsibility, that states that only a person who could be held accountable for their actions should be criminally liable, and furthermore that it would make it easier for Sweden to collaborate with other countries where such a requirement is already in use. The opposition on the other hand point out that requirement of sanity for accountability and criminal liability might increase the social stigma for mentally ill people as well as a fear that the treatment and psychiatric care of mentally disordered criminals will be less effective if their illegal acts are not considered to be criminal.