En cross-check i nacken, hör det till ishockey? En studie om normaliserat hockeyvåld och rättspluralism

Sammanfattning: The aim for this study is to examine and analyse the two legal systems controlling hockey violence from a legal pluralism point of view and examine why the hockey violence exists. The questions this study aims to answer are; Are the legal norms considered to properly deal with hockey violence? How is the relation between the two legal systems? What do hockey players think of the legal norms and why do they practice hockey violence? The amount of research on this phenomenon was insufficient, especially research regarding Sweden, so by using the methods focus group and case study together with the theoretic framework of legal pluralism and normative action and role acquisition, the questions were answered with a content analysis. Both the focus group and the case study showed that the legal norms from the judicial system weren’t appreciated, and the Swedish ice hockey disciplinary board were seen as equal to the judicial system or parallel to it, since the judicial system were seen as a system for other offences than ice hockey. The relation between the two legal systems are complex and fall into the criteria of legal pluralism. When the judicial system acts within ice hockey it creates irritation and anger, arguing that it is enough with the punishments from the disciplinary board. The normatively created world the role as a hockey player exists in consists of a norm involving hockey violence. The norm of accepting hockey violence was according to the hockey players tradition and necessary for the sport to stay alive. This subject needs more research with other methods for all the factors to be discovered and explained before a nuanced answer containing all factors for hockey violence and its legal systems can be entirely explained.