Förvirring kring tillfällig sinnesförvirring - En analys av Vanföreställningens tillämpning i efterföljande tingsrättspraxis skärskådat av kritik

Sammanfattning

Sweden lacks a requirement of accountability for criminal liability. Accounta-bility can also be referred to as the ability to take responsibility, which is al-ready assumed in the assessment of guilt. Instead, the assessment of criminal intent is made in the same way for mentally disturbed as for mentally sane offenders. However, in the assessment of intent, there is a general requirement for awareness, which is specified in the Supreme Court's case Vanföreställningen. In the case the court explains that the prosecuted must have a sufficient degree of awareness. By studying subsequent district court judgments, the application of the decision and the criticism that has been di-rected at the Swedish system regarding the assessment of guilt has been as-sessed. The courts frequently refer to Vanföreställningen making it clear that it as a precedent has had a substantial impact on the application of law. Furthermore, the district courts attach great importance to the defendant's memory of the circumstances and the people involved. The courts aims to strictly adhere to Vanföreställningen by not considering it sufficient that the defendant has in-terpreted the criminal act incorrectly. The critics of the Swedish regulation believes that the system violates the principle of guilt and principle of conformity. In the legal literature, the re-quirement of awareness has also been described as a multifaceted and elusive concept that is interpreted as a condition. The evidence therefore seems to be largely based on psychological investigations which can be problematic and the threshold is furthermore low in relation to accountability. If the awareness requirement is found to be met, a normal assessment of intent must be made, but it has been feared that the assessment will be less accurate after the prosecuted is deemed to be sufficiently aware. The districts courts do not clearly justify their intent assessments, which can confirm the criticism. Furthermore, the district courts' focus on awareness of the act and not on whether the person was responsible for his actions results in Sweden continu-ing to violate the principle of guilt and the principle of conformity.