Diss. phil.-hist. Bern (kein Austausch). / Literaturverz.

Zugleich: Diss. Bern, 1997. / Register. Literaturverz.

Zugl.: Bremen, Universiẗat, Diss., 2008.

Diss. Stockholm : Stockholms universitet, 2007.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität, Marburg, 2002/2003.

Bremen, Universiẗat, Diss., 2009.

Thesis (doctoral)--Freie Universität, Berlin, 2004.

Zugl.: Frankfurt (Main), Univ., Diss., 2006

Zugl.: Bremen, Univ., Diss., 2008

This thesis analyses the punishment for murder. During the 16th and 17th centuries Swedish punishment was brutal and death penalty was a normal sentence. In modern days sentencing in Sweden has become more moderate with fines and imprisonment as the severest forms of penalties. The sentence for murder has been reformed several times during the last couple of years and it seems as though the sentence never can be strict enough. The will of the legislator has been to make life imprisonment the main sentence for murder. However, the Supreme Court of Sweden and the legislator doesn’t seem to be in agreement about what the right sentence for murder should be. When the legislator aggravates the sentence, the Supreme Court mitigates it. Since there has been numerus reforms of the sentence for murder the purpose of this thesis is to look at the motives behind the bills and The Supreme Court’s grounds for decision to review whether or not they are legitimate. In former times sentences has been motivated by different ideologies such as general or individual deterrence, humanitarian grounds and the principal of proportionality. Therefore, the main purpose is to evaluate if the motives behind the bills of the murder sentence was motivated by those ideologies or if other factors dominated. Some professionals are namely under the opinion that criminal politics has become more offensive and because of that the motives behind different bills are others than accepted ideologies. This thesis analyses whether a more offensive criminal politics can be noted when reviewing the bills changing the sentence for murder. With a changed criminal politics some critics propose that the Supreme Court also has become more offensive. The conclusions are the following. In the motives behind the four bills changing the murder sentence one could say that there are signs of a more offensive legislator. The main argument is often that the society has changed their view of the crime which motivates a stricter sentence. Some ideologies such as the principal of proportionality are used in the motives but often in comparison with the societies changed view and not in comparison with other crimes. As for the Supreme Court of Sweden the results show that the court not have become more active, at least not in regard to the murder sentence. In those cases, were the court has ruled against the will of the legislator the court has had legitimate reasons for doing so.