Brottslighet i skymundan - En undersökning av kvinnors våld mot män och domstolens bedömning därav i ett genusrättsvetenskapligt perspektiv

Sammanfattning: Criminal law is gender neutral in its written construction, but there are exceptions. One of those exceptions is gross violation of women’s integrity. Its sibling provision is called gross violation of integrity, which is gender neutral. The difference between the two provisions is that the relation of the perpetrator and the victim in gross violation of women’s integrity is predetermined in terms of gender and has a requirement of previous or present cohabitation. The two provisions are otherwise the same in its requirements and in its range of punishment. The constitution states that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law and thus the law should be gender neutral. It is however possible to make an exception if the exception is motivated as an equality measure, which gross violation of women’s integrity is. The intention of the provision gross violation of women’s integrity is to show women’s vulnerable situation in close relation violence caused by the male-dominated power structure in society and the misconception of women’s inferiority. However, during the last few years, research and statistics has showed that men are victims to close relation violence almost as much as women are. The difference lies in that the violence the women suffer is a graver violence. This dissertation argues in the analysis that if the male-dominated power structure dissolves then the gender dictated provision gross violation of women’s integrity should also dissolve. Since the reason for its necessity would have ceased to exist. The dissertation’s case study contains 32 cases where half of them are cases of gross violation of integrity with a female perpetrator and her male partner as a victim and the other half consists of gross violation of women’s integrity. A comparison of some cases will show and indicate that female perpetrators are treated more leniently and receive a less serious sentence than male perpetrators. In the case Hit by plastic toy (Slag med plastleksak) for example the female perpetrator was sentenced to the minimum sentence for six cases of assault, two cases of damages and two cases of unlawful threat. In the case of Mallet finger (Droppfinger) the male perpetrator was sentenced to prison for ten months, more than the minimum sentence, for four cases of assault. It is, however, not possible to conclude that female perpetrators always receive a more beneficial treatment in the crime of gross violation of integrity. There are cases that indicates the direct opposite, for example the case Self-defence? (Nödvärn?). The court’s assessment and ruling in the cases are far from coherent in the case study but the lack of coherency is not derived from, at least not solely, the perpetrator’s gender.