The purpose of this study was to investigate how directors of preschool apply the mandatory reporting and what information they say is important in the decision to report child maltreat-ment. The study was built on five semi-structure interviews with five directors of preschool working in Greater Stockholm. The perspective of this paper is sociology of law theory. This means to study how out of law information makes sense when director of preschool applies the mandatory reporting. The result was analysed with three different analytic tools: action plan, consulting social services and the considerations of the directors of preschool them-selves. The result showed that the information from the preschool teachers is very important the decision to report child maltreatment. None of the directors referred to an action plan that was written down. Clear signs of maltreatment, as physical and psychological signs, were information that directly was reported. When anxiety was explained to lack clear physical and psychological signs the directors were left alone with their own subjective feelings. The pos-sibility to consult with social services was told to be a very important support.

No description available.

<p>In 2006 there was a change in LMA (1994:37) that clarified the division of responsibility be-tween the Migration Board and the municipalities, concerning unaccompanied children. The social services should now be utmost responsible for the housing and care of these children, to assure that they gain the same standards and rights as all other children. The aim of this essay has been to examine how the division of responsibility has influenced the work of the social services and how they interpret their responsibility for the unaccompanied children. How do the social services investigate and make decisions concerning these children? Do these chil-dren have the same rights as other children? To answer these questions a legal study was made, followed by qualitative research interviews with four social services that receive unac-companied children. The study was made from a legal sociologist perspective, which involves analyzing the results from the interviews with the legal results, together with earlier research on unaccompanied children. The results show that the division of responsibility still is indis-tinct and that the investigations concerning these children often are brief and simplified. In two of the interviewed municipalities the view was that unaccompanied children did not have the right to efforts according to SoL (2001:453), which in practice means that the unaccom-panied children are discriminated.</p>

<p>In 2006 there was a change in LMA (1994:37) that clarified the division of responsibility be-tween the Migration Board and the municipalities, concerning unaccompanied children. The social services should now be utmost responsible for the housing and care of these children, to assure that they gain the same standards and rights as all other children. The aim of this essay has been to examine how the division of responsibility has influenced the work of the social services and how they interpret their responsibility for the unaccompanied children. How do the social services investigate and make decisions concerning these children? Do these chil-dren have the same rights as other children? To answer these questions a legal study was made, followed by qualitative research interviews with four social services that receive unac-companied children. The study was made from a legal sociologist perspective, which involves analyzing the results from the interviews with the legal results, together with earlier research on unaccompanied children. The results show that the division of responsibility still is indis-tinct and that the investigations concerning these children often are brief and simplified. In two of the interviewed municipalities the view was that unaccompanied children did not have the right to efforts according to SoL (2001:453), which in practice means that the unaccom-panied children are discriminated.</p>

<p><strong>Abstract </strong></p><p>Nationell kriminalstatistik tyder på att ungdomar är den mest brottsaktiva åldersgruppen i samhället. Ett förhållande som främst gäller pojkar och unga män, även om brottsligheten ökar något bland flickor och unga kvinnor. Eftersom ungdomar är samhällets framtid är det viktigt att vetenskapligt utrymme skapas och belyser de förebyggande insatser som kan göras för uppkomsten och fortskridningen av ungdomskriminalitet. Med anledning av detta har vi gjort en studie inriktad på Laholms kommun och vilka samhälleliga risker som kan ligga till grund för kriminalitet bland unga.</p><p>Studien baseras på kvalitativa intervjuer med personer inom olika sociala verksamheter i Laholms kommun som berör ungdomar och kriminalitet på ett eller annat sätt, samt ungdomar i åldrarna 15-20.</p><p>Utifrån analys av sociologiska och kriminologiska teorier av bland annat Zygmunt Bauman, Pierre Bourdieu, Erwing Goffman och Jerzy Sarnecki lyfter vi fram olika eventuella bidragande samhällsrisker i Laholms kommun så som arbetslöshet, konsumtion, fritid och sysselsättning, avsaknaden av grupptillhörighet och avvikelse.</p><p><strong>Nyckelord</strong>: Ungdomskriminalitet, Laholms kommun, förebyggande arbete, arbetslöshet, avvikelse</p>

<p>Den här uppsatsen behandlar människors syn på dödsstraff. Jag har velat ta reda på om fler människor är för dödsstraff idag jämfört med hur många det brukar vara, vilket hävdats i media, eller om den höga opinionen beror på det sätt som frågorna ställts. Jag har också velat ta reda på vad som ligger bakom folks ställningstagande för eller mot dödsstraffet. Jag har använt mig av en enkät och ett antal intervjuer för att senare kvalitativt analysera både enkäten och intervjuerna. Dessutom har jag tagit mig friheten att jämföra mina kvalitativa enkätsvar med två andra - kvantitativa - undersökningar; jag har inte varit intresserad av att se mina resultat i form av procent i förhållande till de andra, det som varit av intresse för mig har varit att se om sättet att svara skiljer sig om frågan ställs annorlunda. Enkät- och intervjufrågorna har gällt inställningen till dödsstraff och närliggande frågor; svaren har jag analyserat och grupperat för att få en översiktlig bild över svaren. Intervjuerna har, förutom att ge en bild av respektive intervjupersons personliga uppfattningar i frågan, fått fungera som illustration till enkätsvaren av hur man kan tänka runt dödsstraffet; jag har sedan studerat svaren för att försöka finna en etisk utgångspunkt, eller flera, bakom sättet att ta ställning till dödsstraffsfrågan.</p><p>Det jag kommit fram till är att svaren skiljer sig beroende på hur man frågar och att svaren som lämnas ofta är motsägelsefulla och ännu oftare inkonsekventa. Slutsatserna är att svaren, när det gäller att ta ställning för eller mot dödsstraff, blir annorlunda beroende på hur en fråga ställs; svaren varierar alltså med frågorna. När man svarar använder man sig, i första hand av känslor och i andra hand av intellektuellt resonerande kring frågeställningen. Det verkar som många saknar ett genomtänkt etiskt resonerande och istället svarar känslomässigt, direkt när frågan ställs; eller att de tillfrågade använder sig av olika etiska modeller när de besvarar olika frågor. En följd av detta är att man inte kan lita på resultat från opinions- och attitydundersökningar - åtminstone inte när det gäller människors inställning till dödsstraff.</p>

Abstract Nationell kriminalstatistik tyder på att ungdomar är den mest brottsaktiva åldersgruppen i samhället. Ett förhållande som främst gäller pojkar och unga män, även om brottsligheten ökar något bland flickor och unga kvinnor. Eftersom ungdomar är samhällets framtid är det viktigt att vetenskapligt utrymme skapas och belyser de förebyggande insatser som kan göras för uppkomsten och fortskridningen av ungdomskriminalitet. Med anledning av detta har vi gjort en studie inriktad på Laholms kommun och vilka samhälleliga risker som kan ligga till grund för kriminalitet bland unga. Studien baseras på kvalitativa intervjuer med personer inom olika sociala verksamheter i Laholms kommun som berör ungdomar och kriminalitet på ett eller annat sätt, samt ungdomar i åldrarna 15-20. Utifrån analys av sociologiska och kriminologiska teorier av bland annat Zygmunt Bauman, Pierre Bourdieu, Erwing Goffman och Jerzy Sarnecki lyfter vi fram olika eventuella bidragande samhällsrisker i Laholms kommun så som arbetslöshet, konsumtion, fritid och sysselsättning, avsaknaden av grupptillhörighet och avvikelse. Nyckelord: Ungdomskriminalitet, Laholms kommun, förebyggande arbete, arbetslöshet, avvikelse

In 2006 there was a change in LMA (1994:37) that clarified the division of responsibility be-tween the Migration Board and the municipalities, concerning unaccompanied children. The social services should now be utmost responsible for the housing and care of these children, to assure that they gain the same standards and rights as all other children. The aim of this essay has been to examine how the division of responsibility has influenced the work of the social services and how they interpret their responsibility for the unaccompanied children. How do the social services investigate and make decisions concerning these children? Do these chil-dren have the same rights as other children? To answer these questions a legal study was made, followed by qualitative research interviews with four social services that receive unac-companied children. The study was made from a legal sociologist perspective, which involves analyzing the results from the interviews with the legal results, together with earlier research on unaccompanied children. The results show that the division of responsibility still is indis-tinct and that the investigations concerning these children often are brief and simplified. In two of the interviewed municipalities the view was that unaccompanied children did not have the right to efforts according to SoL (2001:453), which in practice means that the unaccom-panied children are discriminated.

In 2006 there was a change in LMA (1994:37) that clarified the division of responsibility be-tween the Migration Board and the municipalities, concerning unaccompanied children. The social services should now be utmost responsible for the housing and care of these children, to assure that they gain the same standards and rights as all other children. The aim of this essay has been to examine how the division of responsibility has influenced the work of the social services and how they interpret their responsibility for the unaccompanied children. How do the social services investigate and make decisions concerning these children? Do these chil-dren have the same rights as other children? To answer these questions a legal study was made, followed by qualitative research interviews with four social services that receive unac-companied children. The study was made from a legal sociologist perspective, which involves analyzing the results from the interviews with the legal results, together with earlier research on unaccompanied children. The results show that the division of responsibility still is indis-tinct and that the investigations concerning these children often are brief and simplified. In two of the interviewed municipalities the view was that unaccompanied children did not have the right to efforts according to SoL (2001:453), which in practice means that the unaccom-panied children are discriminated.

The purpose of the study is to examine what effects the law has on principals’ approaches to mandatory reporting of child maltreatment (Social Services Act 14:1§). Moreover, the aim is to study if the regulation gets the impact intended. To respond to the purpose, legal science methods in the form of sociology of law were employed aided by qualitative semi-structured research interviews. The interviews comprised six principals in six different schools in the Stockholm area. The interviews were analyzed based on sociology of law theory, earlier research and relevant regulations in social law. The outcome indicates that principals’ understanding of the intentions behind mandatory reporting of child maltreatment is limited in some aspects. There is a difference between the interviewed principals’ official approaches and how they answer that they apply mandatory reporting in practice. When deciding how to apply the mandatory reporting, the child’s best interest is weighed against the parents’ right not to be reported to the authorities unless there is a real concern in the child. The principals suggest that in situations when a report does not lead to action, the reporting creates a bad relationship between the parents and the school. According to the principals, these situations affect the children and their wellbeing