Ett mord, tack! En uppsats om hur de straffrättsliga verktygen i 23 kap. 4 § BrB om gärningsmannaskap och medverkansansvar kan appliceras för straffrättsligt ansvar för beställare av mord i gängmiljö

Detta är en Uppsats för yrkesexamina på avancerad nivå från Lunds universitet/Juridiska institutionen; Lunds universitet/Juridiska fakulteten

Sammanfattning: The Swedish criminal law system is structured so that those who meet the necessary conditions in a criminal provision are liable as perpetrators. But for a satisfactory system, it is required that other people involved also can be attributed criminal liability, which is solved through the responsibility for complicity. This thesis aims to investigate the range of the perpetration and responsibility for complicity to investigate whether the act of ordering a murder in a criminal network can be attributed criminal liability. Through a presentation of criminological research on organized crime, the essay provides the instruments required to evaluate current law from a societal perspective. There is no legal definition of organized crime in Swedish law, which has been justified by the fact that the legislator does not want to limit the courts in the interpretation of the term. The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brottsförebygganderådet, Brå) highlights characteristics such as the for-profit and project based criminal activities, structured rules of procedure and that certain networks show themselves openly with violent behavior and symbols. The relationship between perpetration and participation is stated in chapter 23 § 4 second paragraph of the Swedish Criminal Code. A distinction is made between the person who committed the act and the person who promoted the act. The boundaries of perpetration can in some cases be extended by the construction that a person can be regarded as a perpetrator, without being the perpetrator in the strict sense. In order for a participation to be described as an undue act, it is required that the participant has promoted someone else's unlawful act. Criminological research has shown that chiefs of criminal networks have a strong influence on members below them in the criminal hierarchy. The degree of influence is decisive in determining criminal liability and is important to determine liability in both extended perpetratorship and incitement. In order to attribute criminal liability in the form of extended criminality, it is required that the person has a central role in the realization of the crime. Criminal liability as of incitement can be more difficult to assess because it is arguable to which extent a chief can impel a member who also has additional incentives to commit the crime. The relationship between the client and the perpetrator is crucial, because only a leader's strong psychological impact on people lower in rank can be so strong as to meet the requirement of criminal inducement. However, a murder on contract is often carried out through a project-based constellation in order to spread the risk and distance the murderer from the perpetrators. The head in these projects is given such a remote role that the criminal justice system does not consider it desirable to criminalize. To summarize, it is possible to extend the boundaries of perpetration or attribute criminal liability through instigation. Liability for aiding and abetting seems to be of only limited importance at present, before the court decides whether the act of ordering a murder can be such an act that gives rise to liability for aiding and abetting.

  HÄR KAN DU HÄMTA UPPSATSEN I FULLTEXT. (följ länken till nästa sida)