No description available.

The work environment has been constantly changing since the beginning of time. A lot has happened since the time of the industrialism and the first work environment law came into force in sweden. The focus was first on the physical factors as there was a lot of industry and craft work. This was because there were a lot of industry and craft work. But in connection with the development of society the work environment and it´s rules had to be changed several times in order to be able to maintain a pleasant work environment. But how much focus has actually been placed on the psychosocial factors since the workenvironment law came into force in Sweden? The numbers of the sickleave is at a very high level and are also longer than before. The mental illnes in society continues to increase. What is the employer’s responsibility when it comes to the working environment? Is the regulations clear enough or are they still open for interpretation? Many employers still suffers from ignorance and the workers doesn’t know about their rights. Is there really enough talk about the psychosocial problems today or do they need to be highlighted further? This has become a major social moment at the present time. According to the workenvironment law, the employer must take all necessary measures to prevent bad health at work. But how far does that responsibility actually reach?

In this work we have focused on a public employee's right to express himself both in his freetime but also at work. We have also investigated deeply the duty of loyalty that an employeehas towards their employer and investigate how the outcome can be when these have been setagainst each other. With this work, we wanted to investigate how an employee's right toexpress himself can be limited due to various factors. We have done this by presenting whatlaws, principles, doctrine and case law such as AD cases and JO decisions say in the area. Wehave picked up various cases that have shown us different factors regarding freedom ofexpression, such as an employee's criticism directed toward his employer and business, theemployee's own interests, but also in cases where an employee has been in a high positionand has spoken out, etc. We have then analyzed and compared different cases with each otherto arrive at how the duty of loyalty and freedom of expression, as well as the right to expressoneself in leisure time and at work, relate to each other. AD cases and JO decisions are about employees expressing themselves, for example, throughtheir Facebook page or on their blog. However, the weight of our work has been to highlightvarious cases that have been able to provide answers to our questions.We have highlighted cases where the employee has expressed himself during his free time,where in some cases it has been considered okay and in some cases where the employee hasreceived a warning in the service. We have also highlighted cases that show that theemployee has a duty of loyalty towards his employer. In some cases, it has been found thatthe employee's duty of loyalty has outweighed and that the employee who has been dismissedhas been dismissed on the right grounds. This has been shown after we have interpretedjudgments and decisions from JO and AD. We have also presented in our work that freedomof expression has come before the duty of loyalty in the majority of cases.However, common to most cases from both JO and AD has been that the employer has firstgiven a sanction to the employee, such as a dismissal or a warning, which has then gone tocourt and been subject to authoritative judicial review. In some cases there has been a legal assessment of JO. Whether the sanction was right or not and whether the employee had theright to express himself, we go deeper into this in our work.

Safety representatives quickly emerged during the 1900s because accidents were common workplaces in This contributed to the rapid emergence of safety representatives. Safety representatives are appointed at workplaces to contribute to a satisfactory working environment. There are different forms of safety representatives and all of them ill health and accidents at work. work to reduce the risks of In the Swedish Work Environment Act there is a whole chapter on safety representatives, where the representatives' assignments and rights and obligations appear. The most important cornerstone of the safety re presentative's activities is collaboration with the employer, as well as representing other employees. Safety representatives also have support in their assignment based on other Swedish laws. Despite the fact that the representatives have support in law, there are still obstacles in the activities of safety representatives. Based on case law, safety representatives are often hindered in their duties by employers or supervisory staff. It is common for safety representatives, for example, not to allow to par ticipate in meetings that deal with the work environment. Safety representatives also have the right to prohibit dangerous work, but there are requirements that must be met in order to be able to apply this right. It is important for safety representatives to have the knowledge required for the assignment. An important piece of the puzzle is that the employer is aware of it obligations and entails good cooperation with the safety representative .

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the topic regarding reintegration to the labor market for people who have a prison sentence as a part of their past. An exposition regarding encouraging contribution for the reintegration alongside obstructive circumstances will be made. In a parallel process, an investigation on potential ways to decrease the obstructive behavior of these repressive issues will also be performed. To examine the purpose the method sociology of law will be applied. The paper mainly draws upon applicable legislation on the matter together with institutional investments and the government's official investigations. Conclusions that were drawn from investigating this purpose is that there exists several contributions in relation to the encouraging work for people who are sentenced to prison and their reintegration to the labor market. Also the potential obstructive behavior of employers controlling the employees register of crimes in conjunction with the recruitment process could have on the reintegration. Although this control of criminal record could just be seen as obstructive when it comes to the informal control, and not the controls which are legislated. There exists no legislation regarding the informal control of criminal records made by employers which could be considered a problem when it comes to the reintegration. Considering there exists limitations on the controls that are legislated, restrictions on the informal controls should be investigated as well.

No description available.

Återfall och gemensam påföljdsbestämning reglerar en situation när en person har gjort sig skyldig till flera brott. I teorin kan brottsligheten ha samma rubricering och straffvärde vid återfall och gemensam påföljdsbestämning, men resultera till olika strafflängder eller påföljder. Skillnaden kan förklaras genom brytpunkten vid gemensam påföljdsbestämning och återfall, det vill säga när brottsligheten ska beaktas som återfall eller genomgå reduktioner enligt asperationsprincipen som tillämpas vid den gemensamma påföljdsbestämningen. Brytpunkten för om brottsligheten ska beaktas som ny (återfall) eller nyupptäckt (flerfaldig brottslighet) är om det meddelats en dom mellan brottsligheten och inte. Har en dom meddelats mellan den tidigare brottsligheten och den nya, kan den tidigare brottsligheten endast beaktas genom att personen är tidigare straffad och att den nya brottsligheten utgör återfall. Vid nyupptäckt brottslighet har det inte meddelats en dom mellan brottsligheten vilket gör det möjligt att beakta brottsligheten i samma rättegång och tillämpa asperationsprincipen. Arbetets analys syftar till att diskutera hur skillnaderna mellan återfall och gemensam påföljdsbestämning motiveras i nuvarande straffrätt. Skillnaderna mellan regelverken är att regleringarna bygger på olika straffteoretiska utgångspunkter. Straffskärpningar vid återfall motiveras utifrån att det under flera sekel varit ett allmänt accepterat tankesätt att en person som återfallit i brottslighet ska straffas hårdare än en förstagångsförbrytare. En straffskärpning kan även motiveras utifrån en preventionstanke, det är nödvändigt med ett längre straff för att ge lagbrytaren mer möjligheter att rehabiliteras. Straffreduktionerna vid gemensam påföljdsbestämning tillämpas för att upprätthålla en relativ proportionalitet och för att tillgodosehumanitetsprincipen. Samtidigt förhindrar reduktionerna att det gemensamma straffvärdet ”slår i taket” på den gemensamma straffskalan och gör det möjligt att upprätthålla en relativ proportionalitet och rangordna brottslighet. Reduktionerna som sker vid gemensam påföljdsbestämning har under senare tid kritiserats eftersom reduktionerna har varit för omfattande så den efterkommande brottsligheten fått enför begränsad påverkan på det gemensamma straffvärdet. Regeringen har i direktivet en skärpt syn på flerfaldig brottslighet uttryckt att den nuvarande ordningen kan tolkas som att rätten är likgiltig till att den efterkommande brottsligheten i princip saknar betydelse för det gemensamma straffvärdet. Regeringen föreslog inga lösningar till kritiken mot asperationsprincipen, utöver att den gemensamma påföljdsbestämningen bör närmare regleras i lag snarare än praxis. Det regeringen bör beakta är att hur gemensam påföljdsbestämningmotiveras i nuvarande rättsordning. Reduktionerna har ett syfte att förhindra att det gemensamma straffvärdet uppnår ett omänskligt högt straff och att beakta principen om humanitet. Straffskärpningar vid gemensam påföljdsbestämning är möjliga att genomföra men att straffskärpningarna måste hållas på en rimlig nivå så förändringarna tillgodoser humanitet och proportionalitetsprincipen. Motiveras gemensam påföljdsbestämning på samma grunder som återfall kommer det gemensamma straffvärdet ”slå i taket” och principen ombrottslighetens avtagande betydelse och relativ proportionalitet kommer inte tillgodoses. Skärpningar av den gemensamma påföljdsbestämningen ska tillgodose relativ proportionalitet och humanitetsprincipen, möjligheterna att skärpa reglerna är således begränsade.

No description available.

In 2020, it has been confirmed that approximately 240,000 people in Sweden are exposed to some kind of honor-related violence that can, in the worst case, lead to another persons death. The report claims that the dark figure is much higher than what the existing figures show. In this essay there will be a couple of cases that will be presented. The cases has a huge part of the Swedish legal system and attitude change towards honor-related violence and honor killing. The reasoning around the cases will be presented in order for the reader to gain knowledge and concretization of the Swedish state's approach to these cases.

An alien who commits a crime with imprisonment in the penalty scale can be expelled from Sweden. In order for deportation to be relevant, the alien must be sentenced to a more severe punishment than a fine. In examining the issue of deportation, the court must also take into account the alien's connection to Swedish society and make an overall assessment where the reasons for and against deportation are weighed against each other. If the alien has resided in Sweden for a longer period of time, special reasons for deportation are required, which provides a very strong protection for the alien.  The legislation on deportation due to crime is sparsely worded and entails ambiguities in many respects. Examples of ambiguities are which factors get into a recidivism risk assessment when there is no previously documented crime and how the factors in the assessment of an alien's connection to Sweden are to be evaluated. The problem with these ambiguities entails difficulties in predicting the outcome of the overall assessment that the court makes when the reasons for and against deportation are weighed against each other. It is reasonable to assume that the ambiguities can also lead to equal cases not being treated equally as the court is given a great deal of room for interpretation in its overall assessment. From a legal security perspective, these circumstances are problematic as legal security is largely based on the law being predictable. In order to remedy the problem, the legislator must take a clearer position and dare to legislate on the issues. Keywords: Alien, crime, deportation, severe punishment, legislation.