abuse of power

Abuse of power is the act of exploiting a real or formal position of power to violate another person's rights, impose a particular course of conduct on someone, or exploit a relationship of dependency for one's own benefit. The concept presupposes an asymmetry: one party holds power — institutional, social, religious or personal — that the other party has no possibility of resisting on equal terms.

Under Danish criminal law the concept is not gathered in a single general provision. The closest are the Danish Penal Code (straffeloven) § 155, which covers a person who, in public service or office, misuses that position to violate the rights of private individuals or of the public, and § 150, which covers a person who misuses a public position to coerce someone into doing, tolerating or refraining from something. Unlawful coercion committed by private individuals is punishable under § 260.

In a true crime context the term is used more broadly than the narrow criminal-law definition. Here abuse of power also covers situations in which religious leaders, well-known individuals, institutions or trusted professionals exploit the authority or the relationship of trust conferred on them in order to dominate, manipulate or harm people in a weaker position. It is precisely this dynamic that recurs in cases involving cults, abuse by celebrities and offences committed by public officials.

A central feature of abuse of power is that the victim is often in a situation where resistance is difficult — either because the relationship of dependency is real (economic, professional, religious), because the person in power controls the victim's social surroundings, or because the victim fears the consequences a confrontation could bring. This structural imbalance is what distinguishes abuse of power from an ordinary conflict between equal parties.

The concept is also relevant in cases where institutions or systems are actively used to silence criticism or conceal abuse — for example by discrediting witnesses, manipulating evidence or deploying bureaucratic mechanisms as a weapon against the weaker party. Here legal abuse of power and psychological control merge into a pattern that is difficult to document but often recognisable in retrospective analysis.