In this thesis, the provision of excusable excess in the Penal Code, Chapter 24 Section 6 has been investigated with a legal-judicial perspective. The provision of excusable excess is applicable e.g. when a person acts in self-defence, but uses excessive violence that is clearly unjustifiable to defend himself. In such cases, there is a possibility for the court to excuse the defendant if the circumstances were such that he had certain difficulties in coming to his senses. Furthermore, the provision is subjective in the sense that the assessment only should be focusing on the individual’s capacity to come to his senses at the time of the incident. However, the meaning of the expression “certain difficulties in coming to his senses” does not appear in the law. The purpose of this thesis has been to investigate the meaning of this expression. More specifically, the thesis has examined which circumstances are relevant in the assessment and the relative importance of these circumstances. The ambition has also been to investigate whether any patterns or structures can be found in the Supreme Court’s adjudication. Therefore, Nils Christie’s theory of the Ideal Victim has been applied to certain precedents from the Supreme Court. More precisely, Nils Christie’s criteria for the Ideal Victim have been applied to the defendant in each case. Thus, it has been possible to investigate whether there are any common denominators among the persons who have, and who have not, been excused because of the provision in the Penal Code, Chapter 24 Section 6. This thesis describes the circumstances that, according to the traditional sources of law, should be taken into consideration in the assessment, as well as the circumstances that have been taken into account in the application of the law. Some conclusions are that certain circumstances, in comparison to the legislator’s intention, are given greater importance in the adjudication. Furthermore, some circumstances are given greater importance than they should, and other circumstances are given less importance than they should. Finally, it sometimes appears that broader moral judgements regarding the defendant are taken into consideration in the assessment.

No description available.