Stockholms universitet
This page in English

Katrin LainpeltoUniversitetslektor, docent

Om mig

Jag disputerade våren 2012 i ämnet processrätt och titeln på min avhandling är Stödbevisning i brottmål. Min forskning är i huvudsak inriktad mot straffprocessuella och bevisrättsliga frågor och bedrivs vanligen inom ramen för tvärvetenskapliga samarbeten varför även metodologiska frågor har kommit att bli av stort intresse. Därutöver är jag intresserad av pedagogiska frågor och innehade under åren 2019-2020 uppdraget som Juridiska institutionens pedagogiska ambassadör.

Jag är kursföreståndare för grundkursen Processrätt och specialkurserna Förundersökning (tillsammans med Simon Andersson) och Straffprocess - casekurs med bevisrättslig inriktning. Därutöver undervisar jag på specialkurserna Rättspsykologi och Barnrätt samt föreläser vid andra myndigheter och organisationer.

Publikationer

I urval från Stockholms universitets publikationsdatabas

  • Behandlas lika fall olika? Social oro som felkälla i bevisvärderingssammanhang

    2019. Katrin Lainpelto, Ramil Bisso. Juridisk Tidskrift (3), 587-609

    Artikel

    Den här artikeln ska presentera två studier som har genomförts inom ramen för forskningsprojektet Rättsväsendets bemötande av unga lagöverträdare med utländsk bakgrund – ett projekt som bedrivs inom ramen för den tvärvetenskapliga satsningen Barn, Migration och Integration vid Stockholms universitet.

    Artikeln kan läsas som ett bidrag till diskussionen om nämndemannainstitutet – ett ämne som återkommande har varit föremål för debatt. Artikeln kan även läsas som ett bidrag till diskussionen om eventuella skillnader mellan lagfarna domare och lekmannadomare i bevisvärderingssammanhang. Artikelns främsta syfte är emellertid inte att behandla dessa, förvisso mycket intressanta, frågor utan ska i stället ses som ett bevisrättsligt bidrag till diskussionen om en eventuell förekomst av strukturell diskriminering vid svenska domstolar.

    Läs mer om Behandlas lika fall olika? Social oro som felkälla i bevisvärderingssammanhang

  • Ett dömande eller ett fördömande rättsväsende? – En fråga om integration

    2019. Katrin Lainpelto. Barn, migration och integration i en utmanande tid, 127-158

    Kapitel

    Det här kapitlet handlar om hur rättsstatsideal verkar i en tid som präglas av förhöjd social oro och vilken betydelse frågan om rättssäkerhet kan få för möjligheterna till delaktighet och integration för unga med utländsk bakgrund, särskilt nyanlända ungdomar. Kapitlet beskriver inledningsvis en komplex förskjutning i de europeiska mediala och politiska diskurserna alltsedan händelserna i Köln under nyårsnatten 2015/2016 och som beskrivs ligga bakom den samtida debatten där såväl ett visst brottsligt handlande som benägenheten att handla på det sättet har konstruerats som en fråga om kulturell tillhörighet. Vidare beskriver kapitlet de sociala konsekvenser som en sådan diskursförskjutning kan ge upphov till och särskilt de konsekvenser som kan uppstå inom ramen för rättsväsendets praktik. Rättsväsendets praktik har studerats genom två empiriska studier vars syfte var att undersöka hur det svenska rättsväsendet bemöter ungdomar som är mellan 15 och 17 år och som misstänks för brottet sexuellt ofredande. Studiernas resultat visar att särskilt nyanlända ungdomar riskerar att missgynnas när de åtalas för ett brottsligt handlande som i debatten har tillskrivits personer med en viss kulturell tillhörighet. Ett sådant bemötande kan leda till social exkludering och begränsade möjligheter till delaktighet i en tid då kraven på anpassning och integration har ökat. Kapitlets slutsats är att den kulturaliserade debatten kan leda till sociala konsekvenser som motarbetar de uttalade integrationsmålen vad gäller gruppen nyanlända ungdomar.

    Läs mer om Ett dömande eller ett fördömande rättsväsende? – En fråga om integration

  • Does Information About Neuropsychiatric Diagnoses Influence Evaluation of Child Sexual Abuse Allegations?

    2016. Katrin Lainpelto, Johan Isaksson, Frank Lindblad. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 25 (3), 276-292

    Artikel

    This study aimed at investigating if attitudes toward children with neuropsychiatric disorders influence evaluations concerning allegations of child sexual abuse. Law students (n = 107) at Stockholm University, Sweden, were presented a transcript of a mock police interview with a girl, 11 years of age. This interview was based on a real case, selected as a “typical” example from these years concerning contributions from the interviewer and the alleged victim. After having read the transcript, the students responded to a questionnaire concerning degree of credibility, if the girl talked about events that had really occurred, richness of details, and if the narrations were considered truthful and age-adequate. Fifty-four of the students were also told that the girl had been given the diagnoses of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and Asperger syndrome. Students who were informed about the diagnoses gave significantly lower scores concerning credibility of the interviewee. To a lesser degree they regarded her narrations as expressions of what had really occurred and considered her statements less truthful. Furthermore, they found that the narrations contained fewer details. Finally, they found the girl less competent to tell about abuse. We conclude that a neuropsychiatric disorder may infer risks of unjustified skeptical attitudes concerning trustworthiness and cognitive capacity.

    Läs mer om Does Information About Neuropsychiatric Diagnoses Influence Evaluation of Child Sexual Abuse Allegations?

  • Stödbevisning i brottmål

    2012. Katrin Lainpelto (et al.).

    Avhandling (Dok)

    Corroborating evidence is a modern evidence law concept used in furtherance of the administration of justice. The exact meaning of the term is, however, unclear, which is why the concept can be described as both vague and ambiguous. Accordingly, the aim of this thesis was to examine this type of evidence with the help of functional analysis.

    The examination was performed in four steps. First, the concept of corroborating evidence was examined theoretically, which meant analysing the ways in which this concept relates to associated concepts in evidence law. The second step consisted of two empirical studies which examined the prevalence and actual use of corroborating evidence. Next, the concept of corroborating evidence was analysed from the point of view of comparative law by means of a study on corroboration rules in English law. Finally, the function of corroborating evidence was examined from an epistemological perspective.

    The examination reveals that corroborating evidence refers in general to uncertain circumstances. When circumstances lack clear relevance, there is a risk that they will be ascribed an incorrect function and therefore also a wrong probative value. The empirical study also shows that two types of corroboration are confused, i.e. convergent corroboration and credibility corroboration. Two conclusions can be drawn from the foregoing:  one, that a structuring approach to evaluation of evidence is of greatest importance, and two, that a more restricted definition of corroborating evidence is not possible. In addition, it has been demonstrated that in some cases decisions were made without the requirement for corroborating evidence and in other cases corroborating evidence was required.

    Since this inconsistency in judicial practice cannot be explained by reference to the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or to be regarded as compatible with the principles of equal treatment, legal security and rationality, the overall conclusion of the thesis is that the concept of corroborating evidence should no longer be used in Swedish law.

    Läs mer om Stödbevisning i brottmål

  • Sexual abuse allegations by children with neuropsychiatric disorders

    2011. Frank Lindblad, Katrin Lainpelto. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 20 (2), 182-195

    Artikel

    All Swedish court cases from 2004 and 2006 concerning alleged child sexual abuse (sexual harassment excluded) were identified through criminal registers. Fourteen cases (one boy) concerned a child with a neuropsychiatric disorder. The diagnostic groups were mental retardation (10 cases), autism (three cases), and ADHD (one case). Psychiatric experts were engaged in only two cases. When experts were involved, the courts focused on credibility issues. When the courts applied neuropsychiatric arguments in the absence of an expert, they used developmental arguments. When the authors found that significant neuropsychiatric issues were not discussed by the court it concerned interpretations of symptoms and developmental standpoints. The results illustrate the complexity and pitfalls of drawing conclusions about associations between symptoms and personality characteristics on one side and accuracy of sexual abuse allegations on the other. Moreover, the results highlight the importance of a high quality system for providing courts with adequate neuropsychiatric knowledge.

    Läs mer om Sexual abuse allegations by children with neuropsychiatric disorders

  • When superior courts reach different conclusions in the same child sexual abuse cases

    2008. Frank Lindblad, Katrin Lainpelto. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling 5 (3), 171-187

    Artikel

    The objective of this study was to analyse Swedish child sexual abuse cases from 1989 to 2004 characterised by the following: (1) conviction in first trial in a court of appeal; (2) the Supreme Court later accepted a petition for a new trial; and (3) acquittal in second trial in the same court of appeal (with new judges). The study was conducted to determine what criteria were used for evaluating psychological child-related information and how they were applied. Eight argument themes were identified in the reasoning of the courts: (1) ability to perceive, remember, and communicate about experiences in a reliable way; (2) influence before first forensic interview; (3) influence during forensic interview/s; (4) motives for disclosing/retracting; (5) statement characteristics; (6) disclosure process; (7) behaviour and/or emotions related to investigations/interviews; and (8) psychological symptoms. The arguing of the courts was classified as belonging to one of three categories for each argument theme: (1) supporting/challenging the allegations; (2) opposing a conceivably supportive/challenging argument; and (3) indifferent. In six of the nine cases, arguments belonging to the same theme were presented in both court proceedings. Diametrically opposite conclusions were reached in 15 of 20 of these examples and same conclusion in one case. The evaluation method/s seemingly underlying the child psychological arguments of the courts may have a low reliability.

    Läs mer om When superior courts reach different conclusions in the same child sexual abuse cases

Visa alla publikationer av Katrin Lainpelto vid Stockholms universitet

Redigera profilen