Sökande efter samband - Gemensamma faktorer och rättviseteman i fällande domar om sexuellt ofredande

Sammanfattning: In recent decades, there has been an increase in the number of reported sexual offences in Sweden, including sexual molestation. Additionally, the #metoo movement highlighted the extent of men's sexual violence against women and created momentum for the debate on justice for victims. Considering these developments, this study aims to examine how many reports of sexual molestation result in a conviction and what these have in common. To adequately answer these questions, three different methods are used: legal dogmatic, qualitative, and text analytical. Three parameters are central in the study: external circumstances, the investigation, and the sifting of evidence. The results of the study are analysed from a justice perspective, by applying the theory of kaleidoscopic justice. In order to discover possible differences and similarities with rape, comparisons are made to already established findings for this offence. The study showed several common factors for the convictions regarding external circumstances, one being the fact that the offence usually constituted a physical sexual molestation. Furthermore, the crime was typically committed by a stranger, in an entertainment venue or other public space – two factors that contrast sharply with findings on rape. In terms of investigation, a quickly issued criminal report could be identified as a common factor in the convictions, as well as the fact that the crime was investigated for less than a year. Additionally, relatively many investigatory measures were taken in the cases leading to conviction – a tendency observed also in rape cases. Lastly, the complainant participated actively in the investigation in almost all cases, which is also a similarity with convictions in rape cases. Concerning the sifting of evidence, two common factors for the convictions were observed. Firstly, the statement of the complainant constituted the central evidence and, secondly, the most prevalent supporting evidence was oral evidence (examination of a witness). Regarding the latter, it was common that the witnesses had seen the event themselves – a significant difference compared to rape. Lastly, the study showed that the evaluation of evidence by the courts were essentially in line with the methodology established by the Supreme Court in its case law. The study triggered discussions on several of the themes of justice posited by the theory of kaleidoscopic justice. Few reports led to a conviction, something that can be expressed as a lack of consequence. Regarding external circumstances, the theme of voice as justice was particularly visible. The same justice theme, as well as prevention, connectedness, and dignity, emerged also in relation to the investigation. The fact that the complainant's statement usually was decisive for the outcome of the convictions is argued to contain both positive and negative elements in terms of justice for victims.