<p>This essay investigates whether there’s logic behind the sanction system regarding the penalty imprisonment in the swedish penal code. The focus is in general on crimes against the person and crimes against the state, but in particular on crimes of serious fiscal offence and crimes of serious assault. The idea with the essay was also to explain the wording purpose behind the punishment ranges in these selected crimes. The essays focus is on the public unawareness on how the punishment ranges is used. The range of punishment for the crime of serious assault is from one year to ten years imprisonment. This range has in praxis been used quite reserved and in 2005 the average punishment for this crime was one year and seven months. The range of punishment for the crime of serious fiscal offence is from six month to six years imprisonment. In comparison the serious assault, this punishment range have been used more, but still is considered been used quite reserved. In 2007 the average punishment for this crime was identical with the average punishment for serious assault in 2005. These two crimes can according to praxis be seen as equal, but according to their range of punishment not.</p> / <p>Denna uppsats har som syfte att belysa problematiken kring allmänhetens ovisshet gällande straffskalors faktiska användning och har därför valt att undersöka om det finns någon logik i påföljdssystemet i förhållande till de två brottstyperna brott mot allmänheten och brott mot person. Uppsatsen fördjupar sig framför allt i brotten grovt skattebrott och grov misshandel. Dessa brott har valts utifrån dess rubricering och dess närliggande straffminimum. För att försöka finna en proportionalitet mellan straffskalorna har författarna undersökt hur brottens straffskalor är utformade, syftet bakom utformningen, hur de används och hur de kan uppfattas i förhållande till varandra.</p>

This essay investigates whether there’s logic behind the sanction system regarding the penalty imprisonment in the swedish penal code. The focus is in general on crimes against the person and crimes against the state, but in particular on crimes of serious fiscal offence and crimes of serious assault. The idea with the essay was also to explain the wording purpose behind the punishment ranges in these selected crimes. The essays focus is on the public unawareness on how the punishment ranges is used. The range of punishment for the crime of serious assault is from one year to ten years imprisonment. This range has in praxis been used quite reserved and in 2005 the average punishment for this crime was one year and seven months. The range of punishment for the crime of serious fiscal offence is from six month to six years imprisonment. In comparison the serious assault, this punishment range have been used more, but still is considered been used quite reserved. In 2007 the average punishment for this crime was identical with the average punishment for serious assault in 2005. These two crimes can according to praxis be seen as equal, but according to their range of punishment not. / Denna uppsats har som syfte att belysa problematiken kring allmänhetens ovisshet gällande straffskalors faktiska användning och har därför valt att undersöka om det finns någon logik i påföljdssystemet i förhållande till de två brottstyperna brott mot allmänheten och brott mot person. Uppsatsen fördjupar sig framför allt i brotten grovt skattebrott och grov misshandel. Dessa brott har valts utifrån dess rubricering och dess närliggande straffminimum. För att försöka finna en proportionalitet mellan straffskalorna har författarna undersökt hur brottens straffskalor är utformade, syftet bakom utformningen, hur de används och hur de kan uppfattas i förhållande till varandra.