Double penalties for crimes in criminal networks and stricter sentencing scales

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin this speech with a story about five Swedish citizens who traveled to Denmark to commit a double murder.

We can start by rewinding a few years to 2019. At that time, Sweden was governed by the Social Democrats. The youth discount for serious crime still remained. No specific sentencing increase for crimes linked to criminal networks – for example, double sentences, which we are debating today – had not yet been introduced.

It was in that context that five people planned their deed. They lured two victims to a parking lot in Herlev outside Copenhagen. They opened fire, and at least ten shots were fired with automatic weapons. Two people lost their lives. A third survived despite also being shot.

Afterward, the perpetrators tried to remove the traces. The getaway car caught fire, but the fire was not sufficient to destroy the evidence. Danish police secured DNA traces, and shortly all perpetrators could be arrested.

The five had probably hoped that the legal process would take place in Sweden, but since the crime was committed in Denmark, it was Danish law that had to judge. Three of the perpetrators, all over 18 years old, were sentenced to life imprisonment. The two who were 17 years old were sentenced to 16 years of imprisonment.

Mr. Speaker! Why is this story relevant? Well, it shows what could have happened with Swedish rules at that time. If the two 17-year-olds had been sentenced in Sweden, the penalty would likely have been up to four years of closed juvenile care.

In the criminal environment, it is sometimes called "bröstar en fyra," which means four years in a Sis-home with the possibility of leisure activities such as playing video games but also the possibility of continued contact with the outside world through mobile telephony. Then they would have been released into freedom at the age of 21 with the status that follows such a crime in the criminal world. That is not how it happened, however. Instead, they are released when they are 33.

This is not due to chance, but rather it is because the Danish justice system judged differently than the Swedish one did at that time. That is exactly why this debate and the measures that we have introduced and will introduce are so important.

In Denmark, the youth discount looks completely different compared to what it was in Sweden at that time. Crimes in criminal networks receive double the punishment. Today, the youth discount is abolished in Sweden for serious crimes. You are not granted parole if there is a risk that you will reoffend. We are replacing the Sis-homes for criminals with youth detention centers. On Monday, the Riksdag will vote on introducing double sentences for gang criminals.

I want to extend a big thank you to Denmark for taking proper care of our criminals. With the Sweden Democrats and the government parties, we will ensure that Sweden's courts can now judge in just as good a way as the courts do in Denmark.

Another case that upset me very much was something that was reported on in April. A guy did not want to carry out a murder assignment and subsequently did not pay a fine of 200,000 kronor to a 17-year-old who had given him the murder assignment. Then the 17-year-old instead chose, as punishment, to assault the guy's ex-girlfriend under threat of a gun in a basement storage room in Malmö.

This incident is completely repulsive in so many different ways. Such people should, in my opinion, never ever be released into freedom again. But that the person in question, with our policy, had been assigned a double sentence and that he, as a 17-year-old, ends up in prison and not in a Sis-home is still a step in the right direction.

Overall, the bill we are now debating means, among other things, that nearly 50 sentencing scales are being tightened. Life imprisonment will be handed out for certain repeated violent and sexual crimes, and gang criminals will be sentenced to a double as long punishment.

Five years ago, the minimum sentence for aggravated weapons offense was one year's imprisonment. One was released on parole after two-thirds of the time. If one was under 21 years old, the sentence was even shorter. One was a free man after eight months' time.

Now the minimum sentence for aggravated weapons offense is four years, and now we are introducing double sentences for gang criminals. When gang criminals are convicted of aggravated weapons offense, they will therefore have to spend between eight and sixteen years in prison.

Mr. Speaker! The parliamentary term is approaching its end. Our crime policy has shown with all desirable clarity that we could turn the trend. Sweden could go from records in fatal shootings to reducing the shootings by 75 percent in less than four years. With our policy, we have been able to create a safer Sweden, and it went significantly faster than I could ever have hoped for.

But the work is not over. There is still much left to do. There are still figures in the statistics that do not look good enough. I am proud, but not satisfied yet. This work needs to continue.

Regardless of whether one is of the opinion that crime is reduced by preventive measures or by stricter punishments, the result still speaks for itself: Crime is decreasing in Sweden.

I have been into this many times before, but this question is not black or white. We need both. Some may say that we need to create a society that makes it so that people do not choose to become criminals. They are, of course, completely right, but we do not live in a perfect world.

Some will choose a criminal path despite the fact that Sweden has heavily subsidized preschool – free for those who need it – and free education all the way up to the university level, where one also receives grants to study. And they do it despite the fact that we have a developed leisure activity and a voluntary association activity that is relatively inexpensive.

When neither parents, school, extracurricular activities, club life, nor social services have succeeded in setting boundaries, society needs to act. I would like to assert that there is no other country in the world that has such well-developed preventive measures as we have in Sweden.

Here, politics also has a responsibility – I just need to get this said: Stop spreading a loser mentality to young people! Do you think that I, who have stammered my whole life and who grew up in a rental apartment with a father who was a warehouse worker and a mother who was an assistant nurse, would have stood here today if there hadn't been people who believed in me? Probably not. Tell young people what opportunities they have, rather than how underprivileged you consider them to be!

What does it do to young people's faith in the future when one spreads the image that they have no chance of reaching where they want to because they are immigrants, because they are children of immigrants, because they have parents with low income or who are without jobs or because they have some form of disability? It lowers their expectations of life, and that is something that makes the criminal lifestyle more attractive.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in its entirety and against all motions.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Pontus Andersson Garpvall and the Sverigedemokraterna would like to present themselves as completely uncompromising towards gang crime and the criminal networks. But those who are observant can see that the uncompromisingness seems to be quite selective.

When it concerns children who are at the bottom of the criminal hierarchy, who may have been recruited, threatened and exploited by adult criminals, the severity of the punishment shall be doubled as a starting point. In those cases, there are no excuses. Everyone must have full control over which people they associate with and which environments they are in.

But when a person in a leading position in Comanches is present at Jimmie Åkesson's wedding and, according to reports, has also participated in several of his private parties, we are told that Jimmie Åkesson knew nothing about this. Then we are suddenly expected to show understanding. We are to accept that the party leader of Sweden's second-largest party does not have control over which individuals from the criminal MC environment are in his immediate vicinity.

It is a rather astonishing double standard, I would like to say. Children who are exploited by networks should be punished twice. But Jimmie Åkesson should not even have to answer properly for his own judgment.

My question to Pontus Andersson Garpvall is therefore: Why do the Sweden Democrats set stricter requirements on the judgment of a vulnerable child who has been recruited by a criminal network than on the judgment of their own party leader, when leading gang representatives are present at his wedding?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Actually, I am not very interested in standing here and discussing my party leader's private event. I do not think it belongs in this debate. But if one considers this to be problematic, then it is good that we move forward with this form of legislation to ensure that we address the problems that actually exist.

I understand that Samuel Gonzalez Westling is trying to dodge this. These are important issues that should be taken more seriously. It is about things that we need to get to rights. When, for example, as I mentioned in my speech, a 17-year-old lures a younger boy for a murder mission, threatens him with a fine of 200,000 kronor, and when he does not pay as a punishment, rapes his ex-girlfriend, I think it is reasonable that that person receives a twice as harsh sentence.

Samuel Gonzalez Westling is trying to involve my party and our party leader in some kind of unserious debate regarding this issue. But my firm opinion is that we generally need to tighten the penalties. And above all, we need to ensure that we get to the root of gang crime. One way to do that is to ensure that these people are kept locked up for a very long time.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I think the double standard that Pontus Andersson Garpvall exhibits here is remarkable. The point of the entire bill is precisely to address this: gang crime, the connections gangs have, and their methods of exerting pressure.

We know that the Sweden Democrats have a history of having connections to specifically criminal motorcycle gangs. A large investigation was conducted on this during the last election campaign. Several Sweden Democrat representatives were forced to leave their positions, but there are probably many remaining.

The entire policy of the Sweden Democrats is based on that people should bear a far-reaching responsibility for their choices, their contacts, and the environments they find themselves in. But apparently, this only applies to others than just the Sweden Democrats. We consider this to be hypocrisy.

When a child has ended up in a criminal network, the Sweden Democrats do not first ask why the adult world failed, who recruited the child, or who ordered the crime. In that case, the punishment should simply be doubled. But when leading representatives of a criminal motorcycle gang are present at Jimmie Åkesson's wedding, in his immediate private proximity, it is enough to say "I didn't know – I had no idea." It doesn't work. One cannot have these double standards.

I do not claim that Jimmie Åkesson himself has committed any crime – let that be clear. But I mean that a party that builds its entire identity on uncompromising opposition to gang crime should be able to demand more responsibility from its own party leader than one demands of children.

Why does the Sweden Democrats' principle of personal responsibility apply fully to the children who are at the bottom of the networks, but ceases to apply as soon as the responsibility comes close to Jimmie Åkesson, party leader of the Sweden Democrats?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe one can be quite certain that gang crime exists in large parts of our society, perhaps often closer than one realized. The difference between the Sweden Democrats and the Left Party, however, is that we are prepared to enact laws that ensure the gang criminals are punished more severely.

Tomorrow, or if it is on Wednesday, we will debate the deportation of foreigners who constitute a security threat. In that matter, Vänsterpartiet reserves its position. At the same time, Express has revealed that Vänsterpartiet seems to have plenty of people who constitute a security threat on its own lists all around Sweden.

We see the problems with gang crime and want to do something about them. We see the problems with security threats. Such security threats exist in Vänsterpartiet, but Vänsterpartiet is not prepared to do anything about it. That is the difference between Vänsterpartiet and SD.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by thanking Member Andersson Garpvall for the concluding words about winning mentality and how important it is, that we should be seen as individuals and not be judged based on our origin and our background, and that we should be seen as resources with great potential. I truly appreciate them. But I still warn that I may perhaps remind the Sverigedemokraterna of this, for it is important to remember.

I also want to say that the Center Party will vote yes to most of the proposals we are debating today. But what I want to ask the members about is this issue of double penalties for crimes within criminal networks, which, in my opinion and the Center Party's opinion, destroys the principle of proportionality and undermines the perspective of crime victims.

With today's proposal, crime victims who have been subjected to exactly the same crime will be judged differently. If a man who is a gang member assaults another gang member, he shall be punished twice as harshly as if he, for example, goes home and assaults his wife in exactly the same way. We think this is offensive; we do not think it is the right line. I wonder how the government and the Sverigedemokraterna, who speak warmly about the crime victim perspective, can defend an order that implies that crime victims are valued so differently.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Many thanks, the member, for the kind words! They are truly appreciated.

I understand the objection put forward by Ulrika Liljeberg. We mean that the type of gang crime that we see in Sweden is more of a threat to the system than other forms of crime.

For that reason, and because so many innocent people are affected by the gross violence, we also need to ensure that the sentences become so long and that these individuals are kept off the streets for long enough that we actually get a calmer situation in Sweden.

I am generally in favor of toughening sentences. I think it is terrible with crimes against, for example, women. I would not have had anything against introducing double sentences for violence in close relationships either. I think that people who behave badly towards other people need to receive proper punishments and be kept off the streets for a very long time.

But the reason we have landed on this is that this crime concerns activities that are system-threatening and harm the entire society on a very large scale. It is not about downplaying other types of crime, but it is about the fact that this form of crime harms society to a very high extent.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is laudable that the member says that he would also like to see double penalties for rape and aggravated assault within relationships. But now, it is not this that is being proposed. Now the member stands here as a representative of a government that has presented a completely different proposal.

The Centre Party believes that we should instead focus on the crimes that are specific to the gangs. We believe it becomes illogical when, for example, a rape of the kind the member raised in his speech should lead to double the penalty, while the same rape, therefore, only has half the penalty value if it occurs outside of a gang context. We believe that it is illogical. It is the wrong way to value crime victims.

There are, however, crimes that are committed almost exclusively by criminal gangs. We know that. It is stated in the bill. In the police's joint authority situation assessment, it is stated that these are drug crimes, money laundering, and weapons smuggling. It is these crimes that largely drive the shootings and explosions.

Then one can start looking in the records for how the Tidö government, together with the Sweden Democrats, has viewed drug crimes. Drugs are not mentioned at all. We have had the same maximum penalty for particularly serious drug crimes since July 1, 2016. And just particularly serious drug crime is not a crime where crime victims are affected differently. It is always criminal networks that commit these crimes. I wonder why the Sweden Democrats do not want to fight this criminality for real.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We want to fight all forms of crime. I would have, as I mentioned before, liked to see that more penalties were tightened than they have been so far. That may perhaps be a question after the 2026 election.

I mentioned in my speech the work we have done during the past years and that the statistics show that Sweden is moving in the right direction. We are becoming a safer country. Crime is decreasing. But we are not finished. I believe there is much more to be done.

Ulrika Liljeberg is welcome to join forces with us on the right side, who are prepared to increase the penalties for this type of crime. I believe that opinion is shared by all my party colleagues on the right wing.

If you really want to tackle this crime, I believe one needs to consider which party to vote for this autumn. And if there is anyone prepared to take a firm hand against all forms of crime, it is clearly us sitting on the right side of politics.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! When the Sweden Democrats and the government choose about fifty crimes whose penalties are to be toughened, it also says something about their priorities. It is remarkable that child pornography crimes are missing from this reform, not least considering how many statements the Sweden Democrats have made specifically against pedophilia and child pornography crimes.

Documented sexual abuse against children has become a despicable international industry. But it is also a widespread problem here in our Swedish society, right among us, and many of us are horrified by it.

During the previous parliamentary term, the S-led government increased the minimum sentence for serious child pornography crimes from six months' imprisonment to one year. But we Social Democrats still consider the penalties to be far too low. We see that far too few people receive prison sentences at all. Therefore, we have proposals to tighten the penalties broadly across the entire scale for child pornography crimes, with imprisonment as the starting point.

My simple question is: Why do the Sweden Democrats consider it more important to increase the penalties for 50 other crimes than for child pornography crimes?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! This is a matter that is engaging. Not least, it engages me, and this week we have become aware that this is something that is alive and exists among us. One cannot know who it is that does such things or to what extent it occurs.

The biggest problem with this is that in the vast majority of cases they do not come to light, and when they do come to light, far too few are convicted. I can agree with Teresa Carvalho. This is one of the absolute worst crimes that exist. Every time these images are spread, it is a new violation against the person who has been subjected to it.

I unfortunately cannot answer why we have landed on this just now. I am not myself part of the government. I do not know if this proposal has been registered, but it is obvious that we have done a lot in this area during the mandate period. It concerns, for example, crime provocation to ensure that more can be detected.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! I must thank Pontus Andersson Garpvall for the honesty in the answer.

As I hope Pontus Andersson Garpvall is also aware, we Social Democrats also have a long series of proposals on other things that need to be done to protect our children from abuse and child pornography crimes and to find the perpetrators, which the member is also touching upon.

We have, for example, proposals that the police should be allowed to alert all the environments where children stay and where it is suspected that pedophiles work. It is not just schools but also playgrounds and swimming pools. We want to review the threshold for secret data interception in order to be able to secure evidence in cases of suspected child pornography crimes. Similar to several other parties here in the chamber, we also want to see requirements for chemical castration for conditional release.

But this debate is specifically about increased penalties. That is why my question concerned exactly the Sweden Democrats' view on increased penalties regarding these crimes. I can simply state that when the Sweden Democrats' and the government's major reform on increased penalties finally reached the Riksdag, it contained no increased penalties for child pornography crimes. We Social Democrats find this regrettable. It is a terrible prioritization, quite simply.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It can be stated that a fair amount has been achieved during this parliamentary term. In the area that Teresa Carvalho raises, we have, for example, ensured that the rules for things such as crime provocation have been changed. We have ensured that it will be easier to perform register extracts when it concerns schools and other forms of municipal activities to ensure that these persons do not work there.

Then there is significantly more to do. Teresa Carvalho mentioned chemical castration, for example. It is good that there seems to be a fairly large support for that issue in this chamber. We have other proposals. In Denmark, for example, they have something called a child ban. It means that if you are convicted, you are not allowed to approach children. I believe that could be something that can also be considered.

There is, therefore, much left to do in this area. The most important thing is that we ensure that more of these people come to light and that the police get the tools required for us to find the people who have this horrific behavior.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Pontus Andersson Garpvall for the speech!

I thought I would take the opportunity to raise a misunderstanding that I think often arises in our debates. It concerns the last thing that Andersson Garpvall took up in his speech, namely that by talking about different types of structures, one would attempt to deprive people of their own responsibility or send signals that it is not possible for people to succeed regardless of what conditions they have. I think it is unfortunate that we understand those discussions so differently.

A description of power structures and how they affect people's circumstances is, from my perspective, not the same thing as saying that individuals do not have their own responsibility for how they choose to use their circumstances and what they do with their lives. Everyone, of course, has that.

This is, for example, helpful when we try to take effective crime-preventing measures. According to research, children who have certain types of circumstances in their lives have an increased risk of being drawn into crime. From my perspective, it then becomes very strange to try to deny that these different circumstances exist. I think that it is a tool for those of us who want to try to carry out effective crime-preventing work.

I would like to hear a bit of what the member thinks regarding these reflections.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I will try to explain this in two minutes. One can think of socialism. There, some kind of class struggle is waged between the working class and the bourgeoisie, between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

We can go back to the mid-60s, when social democracy and socialism were at their strongest in Sweden. Then we began to end up in a situation where people were getting better and better off. People began to successively abandon social democracy. We could see a decrease over time. What happened then was that from the left side, other internal conflicts within society were invented.

It is about, for example, feminism, which is a power struggle between men and women. It is about the pride movement, which wants to point out people with a different sexual orientation as those who need to wage a struggle against society. More recently, it is about the Black Lives Matter movement, which wants to wage some kind of struggle between people of different skin colors in society.

What I experience is that the left side jumps on every attempt at internal conflict within society to create division between people, while I believe that we need to unite within the nation, under our common flag, and ensure that all people get the same opportunities. One must also tell all people that they have the chance to succeed regardless of who they are and where they come from.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

This became even more interesting than I could have imagined. It is very clear that we have completely different worldviews. For me, it is such that there are power structures that concern, for example, the different situations of men and women. This concerns, for example, the risk of being subjected to different types of violent crimes. It is good that one is aware of this. There are also power structures when it comes to laws, where homosexual persons have not been given the same rights as heterosexual persons have been given.

It is about these realities. Large parts of the feminist movement are about opposing men's violence against women. That is the reason why various women's shelters and so on were started. It is not some invented division. This is a way to address an actual political problem.

It is the same thing with what Andersson Garpvall calls the pride movement. Yes, I also want to get married. The LGBTQ movement has worked so that we should have gender-neutral marriage. Now one can marry a person of the same sex. This is also a way to address an actual injustice. It is not a way to create division. It is rather a way to unite. We who are LGBTQ people also have rights. We should have the same rights. For me, it is uniting and not dividing.

But what I actually wanted to talk about was this: children who have a father who is in prison, children with NPF diagnoses, children who have school failures behind them and children who have been subjected to violence and sexual abuse have an increased risk of being drawn into crime. In that case, I think it is good that the social services, for example, have their eyes on those children and that we try to take preventive measures. It is about how we as a society can avoid them being drawn into crime. It is something that we want to avoid.

Now we have had a somewhat larger ideological discussion.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! What I want to get to here is that a falsified image of reality is being created. We can look at international comparisons. There are very small economic differences in Sweden between those who have and those who do not. And those who do not have, are quite well off. It is very equal between men and women in Sweden. There are very few countries in the world where one is as tolerant towards people with a different sexual orientation as one is in Sweden. And there are few countries in the world that are as little racist as Sweden is.

I think that people from the left side often try to amplify these conflicts. They try to pretend that the problems are larger than they actually are. Sweden is a country where there is equality between the genders and where everyone has the same opportunities. Sweden is a country where one has a high tolerance for people with a different sexual orientation than one has oneself. It is a country that has a high tolerance for people who come from other countries, for example.

What I wanted to convey was that I think that from the left side, people often try to amplify these parts. They try to win the trust of these groups by creating a problem that does not exist. They make this bigger so that they will feel oppressed and vote for parties on the left wing.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 4.

When we talk about crime in Sweden, it is important to understand and describe the reality as it actually looks, because only then can we take the right measures.

Much of the crime that people encounter in everyday life has remained stagnant or even decreased over time, meaning not just during this parliamentary term.

At the same time, there is an area where the development has gone in the exact opposite direction, and that is the serious organized crime. This is the Swedish crime paradox.

Over the last decade, organized crime has become more severe, more brutal, and more of a threat to society. What we have noticed most clearly is the violence, with shootings and explosions on a scale that has made Sweden stand out in a completely horrific way.

In recent years, the shootings have admittedly decreased, and that is very good. But at the same time, the explosions have increased avalanche-like to the highest levels ever in Swedish peacetime, and arson attacks have emerged as a new method. That gangs have switched forms of violence means that fewer people are dying and being injured, but more innocent people are affected in their everyday lives. Ordinary honest people wake up in the middle of the night to entrance gates exploding and houses being set on fire.

The darkest development of them all is still the new recruitment of children and young people, which has completely spiraled out of control over the last two or three years. There are no glimmers of light here, only pitch-black darkness and blood-red figures. It has gone completely wrong.

Just two years ago, the most common age category of persons committing violent acts in the gang environment was 20–25 years. Today, the most common age category is 15–17 years. During this parliamentary term, the number of children under 15 suspected of being involved in murder cases has increased by over 700 percent. It is an enormous societal failure.

Violence is at the same time the tip of the iceberg. Behind the gangs, organized crime is growing. It eats its way into the business sector, into welfare, and into society's institutions. There, legal and illegal activities are mixed. There, companies are used as facades. There, money is laundered. There, our welfare systems are exploited to finance crime. There, a system-threatening organized crime is emerging that not only threatens people's safety and security but also people's trust in society.

It is against socially harmful crime that the Social Democrats want to set their focus. This naturally concerns organized crime, but it also concerns other types of structural crime, such as violence against women and sexual abuse against children. These are also extensive societal problems that are not about individual individuals but patterns of crime that must be broken.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats see a need for more, more intrusive, and more far-reaching crime-fighting tools. In the effort to restore safety and security in our country, we do not hesitate before new measures as long as they are legally sound and accurate. But we also see a need to focus our, despite everything, limited resources, which are also needed in schools, healthcare, and elderly care, on the crime that causes the greatest societal damage.

That is why we Social Democrats advocate for increased repression with precision. That is also why we will say yes to the bill that we are debating here today, because it hits hard and it hits the mark. This applies both to the opportunities to double the penalties for criminal gangs and to tightening the sentencing scales for almost 50 different crime categories.

Whether it is many or not can, of course, be discussed. I can only state that the previous S-government tightened eighty penalties and criminalized 30 new acts, and that this is a natural continuation.

We Social Democrats, however, miss several sentencing increases. This concerns, for example, the penalties for child pornography crimes, which we have proposed should be tightened broadly across the entire scale with imprisonment as the starting point. Today, far too many simply get off far too lightly.

We also lack stricter maximum penalties for the serious economic crimes, which are also central in the fight against gang crime. The gangs do not only engage in violence and drug trafficking. They have expanded their activities and today have complicated structures based on organized economic crime such as benefit fraud, welfare crime, fraud, tax crimes and money laundering.

This is a system-threatening crime that undermines the entire social contract. Therefore, we Social Democrats want to introduce a new level in the sentencing scale for what we call particularly serious economic crimes, in the same way as there is in the sentencing scale for drug and assault crimes. At the same time, we want to increase the maximum sentence for the most serious economic crimes from today's six years of imprisonment to ten years of imprisonment.

Unfortunately, the Tidö government and the Tidö parties have voted no to this proposal earlier during the parliamentary term, and it is missing today when we address the government's proposal for changed sentencing scales. The justification given is that it is not accurate.

It is a logic that limps considerably. Given that serious economic crime is used to finance, build up, and protect criminal networks, how can it then not be accurate to strike hard precisely against that? In the same way that the government argues that increased maximum penalties for serious assault hit the worst abusers, increased maximum penalties for the most serious economic crime must surely hit the worst fraudsters.

I regret that the Tidö Government is not prepared to take a hard line against serious economic crime in the same way as against other types of crime, even though they are connected. Unfortunately, I cannot interpret this limping logic in any other way than that the Tidö Government is soft on economic crime.

From authority to authority, we see alarm reports about infiltrated companies, about grant fraud, about criminals who milk our welfare systems for tax money, about organized crime. Recently, even the EU Commission even directed criticism at Sweden for the all too low penalties for economic crime.

These are not peripheral problems. These are central societal problems where Sweden is furthermore being pointed out as a cautionary tale. It must stop being coddled with the gross economic criminals now.

Mr. Speaker! Let me conclude by saying the following: The Social Democrats are prepared to do everything that is required in the fight against gang crime. We will continue to tighten the penalties where necessary so that the penalties become more just and accurate and stand in better parity with the serious developments we have in Sweden. It is about protecting our country from the crime that is now eating its way into the entire society.

However, we do not want to get stuck only in increased penalties. We also want to move forward and introduce a Swedish mafia law. We want to put as much effort and resources into breaking new recruitment as into imprisoning the criminal gangs. This is unfortunately the government's blind spot.

Our greatest criticism of the government is therefore not about what the government does, but about what the government does not do. The bill that we are debating today, which contains double penalties for gang criminals and several increased penalties for serious crimes, we say yes to. But important parts are still missing. We will have to address that after the election.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! I am quite satisfied and reassured that the Social Democrats, after four years, have understood the seriousness of the crime we see today. That is how I interpret it from the member's statement, and it reassures me. It is good. I like that.

I have a question regarding how to prevent young people from being drawn into crime.

It is difficult – very difficult – and the responsibility for this lies with the municipalities: the school, social services, leisure activities, and the civil organizations. There are many who do a lot, and there are many who do a lot well.

I heard the member say that there is a desire to work more to prevent young people from being drawn into crime. The question is how. We all agree that something must be done. The question is what should be done and how it should be done.

Take Stockholm, for example, where the Social Democrats are in power: What have you done in Stockholm over four years to prevent young people from being drawn in? You have obviously failed, because more, as you say yourselves, have been drawn into crime. I wonder therefore: What have you done, and what do you want to change and do better so that young people are not drawn into crime?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Martin Melin for the opportunity to describe the Social Democrats' policy for breaking the recruitment of new members.

We have, in fact, a long series of proposals on how we should address these problems, which I completely agree with Martin Melin that are difficult. It is difficult to prevent, but it is completely obvious that we must start at that end.

I also want to say that, even in this aspect of the problem, I am self-critical that we Social Democrats did not succeed. This applies to both the preventive work and the repressive parts. However, in many respects, we have revised and developed our policy regarding both parts.

When it comes to preventing crime and breaking new recruitment, we must start with the broad strokes. It is about breaking the segregation. We need a society that both steps forward and reduces the gaps and that ensures we have a strict migration and a more well-functioning integration.

This is, however, actually more of a prerequisite than a solution to the problems we already have. Then we will get into more specific measures. We want to see, for example, point marking of young people on the move, with a companion or an ankle monitor. It is about the Usväng program for the 7–8-year-olds who run errands for the gangs in exchange for Pokemon cards.

It is also obviously about resources for the municipalities: for the school, for social services, and for leisure activities with safe, present adults. My perhaps greatest criticism of the government is that it has not provided the resources that the municipalities need in this work, even though the problem has worsened and the costs have skyrocketed. Instead, the government has put the municipalities on a slimming course. So we cannot have that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Carvalho for the answer. I actually received an answer, which I am satisfied with.

We think quite similarly when it comes to how to deal with this. It is about resources and about being observant and keeping track of the signs of unrest that exist, and that is good.

The Board of Directors said that resources are lacking. Suppose that in Stockholm there are 1,000 children in their early teens who are in the danger zone. That means that very many children must be checked.

The question is: Are there funds for this, if it is indeed money that is lacking? Are there the right people to carry out this supervision? It is not possible to take just anyone, which is clear in the HVB homes today. Not all staff there are suitable. A difference is also noticeable when, for example, HVB homes, Sis homes, and detention centers have the right staff. A single staff member can personally change a young man's attitude towards crime. It is therefore a matter of finding the right person.

I say it again: We all want peace on earth, but the question is how it is to be done. It is somewhat the same thing here: Where are these resources to be found? Where are they to come from? I agree that it costs money, and it is very possible that there is money, but where do we find the right personnel? What is this to look like concretely? If we stand here again in four years, will more children not have been recruited?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! If there is one task that I am passionate about, it is that children should not be recruited by criminal gangs. I sincerely hope that I will be standing here in four years and say: Look, we succeeded!

Martin Melin is absolutely right that money is required, because it is expensive. But honestly, the alternative is so much more expensive. There is money. This government has chosen to lower the tax for the very richest instead of providing the resources that the municipalities plead for to fulfill their mission.

The municipalities need to both manage the skyrocketing costs for children who must be urgently placed in HVB homes and be able to implement early interventions for those who have not yet ended up in such a difficult situation. Furthermore, the municipalities must manage their other responsibilities with elderly care, childcare, and all other important work that takes place in the municipalities. But the government has put them on a slimming course.

Today, there are therefore municipalities that must cut back and are forced to choose between elderly care and preventive early interventions against the new recruitment. This is a crazy prioritization, and here one must rethink. This is what we Social Democrats will change if we come to power after the election.

Regarding the HVB homes, the first thing we must do is ensure that gang criminals cannot run HVB homes.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! Serious organized crime is one of our time's greatest societal problems. During the ten years from 2012 to 2022, lethal firearm violence tripled. Organized crime had been allowed to push its way into the body of society.

The Moderaterna went to the election four years ago on a platform of getting Sweden in order. In a position of government, we have systematically worked to clean up after the previous terms of red-green mismanagement.

A central part of our reorganization of the policy concerns the penalties. It is based on a shift in perspective from a historical focus on the perpetrator to a focus on the crime victim and society's need for protection.

Mr. Speaker! Today's system for determining sentences is largely based on reforms made in the 1960s and 1980s. Since then, Swedish society has changed fundamentally. The criminal justice system has been patched and mended but not reformed as a whole to meet a new reality.

Today's system does not provide sufficient protection against dangerous criminals and does not satisfy crime victims' right to redress. It concerns the criminal gangs, but also, for example, repeated crimes of violence or sexual offenses against women and children.

To tackle this extensive assignment, the then State Prosecutor and current Police Commissioner, Petra Lundh, was tasked in the summer of 2023 with leading a comprehensive review of criminal law. She was tasked with taking a holistic approach to the sentencing system and the sentencing scales.

Two years later, the government received the proposals. It concerned a total of four volumes of 1,893 pages with proposals for the largest reform of the Swedish penal system in modern times.

Since the government received the proposals just over a year ago, the Ministry of Justice has been working further with them at a high pace. The bill we are debating today, Double penalties for crimes in criminal networks and stricter sentencing scales, addresses parts of the investigation's proposals.

Mr. Speaker! The Government proposes that gang criminals should be able to receive double sentences, that about fifty sentencing scales shall be tightened, that repeated counts of aggravated rape should be able to lead to life imprisonment, and that the presumption for detention shall be expanded. The other parts of the investigation's proposals will be addressed in the upcoming bill on a new criminal penalty system to be debated in the Riksdag in August.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to take the opportunity to describe some of the proposals in the bill in more detail. It is proposed that gang criminals be given double sentences as a starting point. Today's sentencing provisions do not hit broadly enough and do not provide sufficiently large sentencing increases. For example, they do not always reach the crime committed within more loosely organized networks, which is the type of organized crime that dominates.

The new provision on double penalties covers everything from explosions, shootings, drug trafficking and fraud to crimes targeting the welfare systems. The starting point is that the penalty value shall be twice as high as it otherwise would have been. In the individual case, however, there is some room for deviation. If it concerns a person who has obviously been exploited by criminal gangs or pressured into committing crimes, a milder assessment can be made. Persons in leading positions – gang leaders – can, on the other hand, receive an even harsher assessment, i.e., more than double penalties.

Mr. Speaker! The Government proposes that about fifty sentencing scales be tightened. The maximum penalties for particularly aggravated assault, aggravated rape, and aggravated rape against a child shall be increased from ten to twelve years of imprisonment. For those convicted of several such crimes, life imprisonment may be imposed.

The Government also proposes that the penalties be increased for involving a minor in criminality. The maximum penalty is today four years. It is proposed to be increased to six years. The maximum penalty can, if the crime is committed in a gang criminal context, which is particularly common, become up to twelve years. This means a tripling of the maximum penalty for involving a minor in criminality.

To combat the criminal economy, the penalties for aggravated fraud, aggravated benefit crime, and other economic crimes are being tightened. The minimum penalty is increased from six months of imprisonment to one year of imprisonment. These crimes can also be covered by the provision on double sentencing. It is an effective way to increase the level of repression for individuals in the network-criminal environment who engage in economic crime.

Another proposal that applies generally but becomes particularly important in relation to extensive economic crime is that we tighten the common sentencing scale for multiple offenses. The change means, for example, that someone convicted of several serious frauds will be able to be sentenced to twelve years in prison instead of today's eight years.

Mr. Speaker! The presumption of detention is being expanded. Today, the crimes of gross breach of the peace, gross violation of a woman's integrity, and honor-based oppression are not covered by the rules on mandatory detention. We are changing that because, typically, there is a high risk that the perpetrator will attempt to interfere with the investigation or continue their criminality. The suspect should therefore be detained. That is often the case today, but through an expanded presumption of detention, it is clarified that this shall be the main rule.

The expanded presumption of detention shall also apply when it comes to suspicions of serious cases of attempted, preparation of, or incitement to a crime. If someone is, for example, suspected of attempted or preparation of murder or kidnapping, this person shall also be detained. With the change of the presumption of detention, the government intends to ensure that crime victims are protected and that guilty perpetrators are convicted.

Mr. Speaker! There is also reason to say a few words about the Council on Legislation's criticism of the proposals in the bill and how it has been handled. The Council on Legislation has submitted a number of constructive comments on the legal text, and the government has largely followed them. However, the Council on Legislation rejects the proposal in its entirety. A central part of the Council on Legislation's criticism is objections to the general increase in the level of repression proposed in the bill. But how high the penalties should be is ultimately a political and evaluative judgment. Here, the Moderates and our coalition parties simply do not agree with the Council on Legislation, but we believe that stricter penalties are both desirable and necessary. It is fundamentally a matter of justice.

The Council on Legislation also criticizes the preparation of the proposal. It is understandable that the government's high pace of reform makes it difficult for the Council on Legislation to fully take a position on all proposals. But we come, Mr. Speaker, from a situation where far too little has been done for much too long. The major societal problems with gang crime and other organized crime have worsened in recent years. There has therefore been a need to proceed forcefully. It was also the Moderaternas promise to the voters – to get order in Sweden.

I finally note that the opposition is once again deeply divided when it comes to law and order. I welcome that the Social Democrats support the government regarding the need to tighten penalties. But I note that the Center Party says no to new provisions on double sentences and that the Green Party wants to reject the bill in its entirety. And that is not unique to this bill. The Green Party, the Left Party, and the Center Party repeatedly say no to all or parts of the government's proposals within the area of criminal justice policy. It is therefore difficult to see how a red-green government, should the misfortune occur, would have any kind of steering speed within the area of criminal justice policy.

I vote in favor of the proposals in the committee report, in favor of the government's bill and against all motions.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we should actually have initiated the debate on lowering the age of criminal responsibility, but earlier this week it became clear that the government failed to gather its government base behind the proposal to lower the age to 13 years and therefore had to withdraw it. Now that Kristersson has lost control over his government base, perhaps Mikael Damsgaard should be a bit more humble regarding that question and a bit more concerned about how M will get its own policy through than he expresses here. Instead, he worries about what will happen during the next parliamentary term if it becomes an Sledd government. But that was not actually why I requested the floor, Mr. Speaker, but because I want to focus on serious economic crime.

Stricter maximum penalties for the most serious economic crime are missing in the government's proposal for increased penalties, even though we know that the criminal gangs do not only engage in drug trafficking and violent crimes but also very much in serious organized economic crime. The government has previously justified the lack of stricter maximum penalties for serious organized economic crime by stating that it would not be accurate.

I simply wonder how the logic adds up according to Mikael Damsgaard. Why do the Moderaterna coddle gross economic crime compared to other gross organized crime, despite the knowledge of how it is connected?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that the Social Democrats and Teresa Carvalho would not like to talk about the red-green side's inability in the area of law and order. During the previous parliamentary term, the Social Democrats' government received over 100 motions per year against them in those matters and failed to get their own budgets through.

Sweden now has a government that has passed all its budgets and which, with record speed, has pushed forward for a reorganization of the justice policy. We do it step by step and with a decisiveness that a Social Democratic Minister of Justice would find very difficult to demonstrate.

Part of the government's strategy against serious organized crime is to choke the criminal economy. The government does this in many different ways. Today we are discussing the criminal law area, and the bill contains proposals for increased penalties. We are increasing the minimum sentences for serious economic crimes. Economic crime is covered by the provisions on double penalties, which means that there will be substantial increases in penalties for economic crime linked to organized crime compared to how it looks today.

We also have a product to be dealt with here in the chamber in August. It concerns a review of the entire sentencing system. The purpose is that we should achieve a more nuanced use of the sentencing scales and utilize the full sentencing scales. Today, the courts rarely impose the maximum penalty. We want to send a signal that the full sentencing scales should be utilized.

We do a lot in this area.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! I must remind Mikael Damsgaard that it is evidently the case that this government, either, is not getting all its policies through in the criminal law area.

The Social Democrats have time and again extended a hand to the Moderates, and it is still extended, Mikael Damsgaard. I genuinely believe that what would be best for Sweden is if we could have more cross-bloc cooperation in these important issues to achieve a high-impact policy against the criminal gangs, a more effective policy against their new recruitment, and a sustainable policy that remains firm over time and changes of government.

I return to economic crime. We have heard here, as well as many times elsewhere, that the Moderaterna are happy to speak about taking harder action against serious organized crime. Given how the government is now acting, one must however ask whether it is the case that this does not apply to the criminals within serious organized crime who more and more often are welcomed and wear suits. Why do the Moderaterna coddle precisely serious economic crime, in contrast to other gang crime?

Can Mikael Damsgaard answer why it is argued that it is effective against the worst abusers to tighten the maximum penalties for the worst abusers, while it is not effective against the most serious economic crime to tighten the maximum penalties for the most serious economic crime?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not think that Teresa Carvalho really listened to what I said. What we propose in the bill is stricter penalties for serious economic crime. Economic crime shall also be covered by the provision on double punishment, which will lead to significantly stricter sentences for network criminals engaged in economic crime. It is important and right.

Regarding the extended hand, the Social Democrats lack credibility in this matter. We are grateful that the Social Democrats support the government in many reforms, but the left-wing policy that they want to pursue together with the others in the red-green bloc, with unfunded reforms in area after area, means that the prerequisites are lacking. We see how the red-green bloc votes today. The Center Party votes against core parts. The Green Party wants to defeat the whole. A Social Democratic government will be forced into a left-leaning position even in the area of justice policy – that is unfortunately the truth.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by commenting on what Mikael Damsgaard said about a divided opposition. It is somewhat ironic, though – we are an opposition that does not even try to coordinate, but instead go to elections as individual parties. We can state that Sweden has a government that, after four years, no longer has a majority within the justice policy.

The Chairman mentioned that the second part of this legislation will come in August. Surely there won't be any proposals for further increased penalties? We are talking about that the conditional prison sentences and the volume discounts are abolished, about using the entire sentencing scale, and about that the reasons of leniency are partly abolished. It is those increased penalties that we are debating today that come from the government.

I wonder how the Moderaterna view drug crimes and why the maximum sentences for these have not been increased for ten years. You rely very heavily on the fact that it must be possible to determine what constitutes a criminal network. However, we know that football supporters, in these World Cup times, are likened to criminal networks. Sharp criticism is directed at the fact that the definition is vague and that it can sometimes be difficult to establish. I wonder why the Moderaterna do not want to tighten the sentences for drug crimes, which we know drive shootings and explosions.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Ulrika Liljeberg for the question.

I can initially state that there is no proposal from the Center Party regarding harsher penalties for drug offenses in the committee report.

The effect of the proposals in this bill will, as a consequence of the provision on double punishment, be significantly harsher penalties for those who smuggle or sell drugs. This activity most often takes place within the framework of organized crime and is very rarely completely independent of it. Those who engage in drug-related crime will, as a result of this, receive significantly harsher penalties and much tougher consequences, regardless of what the member says.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! It was this answer I expected to receive.

I agree that drug crimes are part of criminal networks and that the penalties for drug crimes should be toughened. The consequence of this reasoning, however, is that crime victims who have been subjected to the same crime are judged differently.

The line that the member seems to advocate for is that crimes most often committed by criminal networks, for example drug crimes, should be punished twice as severely. Previously, we heard a member speak about a rape that was part of a criminal settlement. Another, equally horrific rape would, with this proposal, be punished half as severely. How can the Moderaterna view crime victims so differently? Why is a rape that occurs outside of a gang context not equally punishable?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! A rape is, of course, an equally serious violation for the crime victim if it occurs outside a cybercrime context as if it occurs within this context; it is quite obvious.

The crime that occurs within the framework of organized crime, as the example Pontus Andersson Garpvall gave, is a threat to the system. It threatens the foundation of our society. That is the reason why we want double sentences for crimes committed within the framework of organized crime.

When it comes to drug crimes, we in the coalition parties are in no way opposed to implementing further toughening of penalties further ahead, and I hope that we can win the election and form a government. Many of the areas that have been up for discussion today can absolutely be relevant to move forward with. I mean that we will have the ability to do so, and we will be able to analyze what further needs to be done. Society changes, and new needs arise. We are therefore not finished because we implement this, but more will need to be done during the next mandate period.

I note that with the division that exists within the red-green bloc, it will be incredibly difficult to reach an agreement on further steps within the area of criminal policy because you block each other almost all the time.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by saying something about whether it will be difficult for a red-green government. The Green Party sat in government together with the Social Democrats for two parliamentary terms, and during that time, quite a few initiatives were presented in the area of criminal policy. The Green Party thus contributed to a series of increased penalties. It is not the case that we are against all types of increased penalties or all types of measures in the criminal policy area, but we also have things we want to see.

But as pointed out by the previous speaker, we now want to make visible the different investments and directions from our different parties.

There is a big difference between sitting at a negotiating table and discussing the design of different penalties and measures and being served something finished, which we then analyze from the perspective of what Miljöpartiet thinks. Had we sat together with other relatively like-minded parties and discussed how something should be designed, the red-green parties would probably have been able to reach an agreement. Then the split would not have looked like this, because the red-green parties could have negotiated their way to solutions that everyone agreed on.

So, to what I actually intended to bring up: The Council on Legislation. In its statement, the member stated, among other things, that the Council on Legislation rejects the introduction of all these proposals because they are against a raised general level of repression. But that is not quite what the Council on Legislation says; rather, it says that the government has not presented any basis supporting that the increased penalties will lead to reduced crime and increased safety. The government uses that as an argument, but there is no basis showing this effect. It is, therefore, a rather big difference, and it is this that the Council on Legislation aims at in parts of its criticism.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! Regarding the red-green side's ability to deliver policy in the field of criminal justice, it is true that a good deal was achieved during the previous government. But it was also consistently too little and too late. Almost all products left quite a lot to be desired, and that can also be seen in our follow-up motions to these products.

An example of when it was very difficult to deliver was the terrorist crime law and the tightening of LSU, that is, the law concerning persons who constitute a security threat to Sweden. Here it took the red-green government five years to present proposals that were absolutely necessary for Sweden's security.

But as an acknowledgment to the Social Democrats: When the Green Party left the government, it shook. Then, suddenly, the Social Democratic government found it a bit easier to deliver.

This can be an important reminder to the voters of what awaits with Miljöpartiet in the government during the next mandate period.

What was said regarding the Council on Legislation's criticism is correct. But what we point out is that when dangerous criminals are behind bars, they do not commit new crimes, and there is a need to protect society against dangerous crime. It is also about justice, values, and how high the sentences should be to provide redress for crime victims.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Having a crime victim perspective is also about working to ensure that fewer crimes are committed. In that case, it is important to provide the correctional services with realistic conditions to succeed in their care mandate. What has been pointed out regarding this major reform is that it will be very costly and put hard pressure on the correctional services. We have also quite recently received reports that crimes were committed inside the facilities when inmates were forced to share cells and people were subjected to sexual assaults as a consequence of that.

The Prison and Probation Service is already overburdened. Now, enormous sums are being spent on punishing people, but fewer resources will be allocated to caring for them to ensure that they do not commit new crimes when they are released. This is something the government has failed to take into account in its eagerness to quickly implement reforms.

Resources are not infinite, and now a very large amount of money is being spent on locking people up. We probably all agree that people who pose a danger to others and an acute threat to society should not be on the streets, but I do not believe that everyone who will be subject to these increased penalties belongs to that category. This is probably also quite a bit about the government wanting to make a point that increased penalties have an intrinsic value, which Miljöpartiet does not agree with.

Criminal policy must be seen as a whole, where we take measures that yield results so that crime and criminality decrease in the long run. I believe this is our collective responsibility, and this is what Miljöpartiet lacks in the bill.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! I fully share the assessment that the correctional services must be given good conditions to fulfill their mission. We fully stand behind the motto "better out," and it is important that the correctional services' activities maintain high quality, that active recidivism prevention work is carried out, and that people get a chance at a fresh start after having committed a crime. Here we are in complete agreement.

The government is also investing significant resources in the correctional services. It is about providing the correctional services with the right conditions, but it is also about protecting society from persons who have committed crimes and risk committing crimes again that harm society.

Miljöpartiet argues passionately that increased penalties are not such a good idea. What does this lead to then? Well, if a red-green government had been sitting in Rosenbad now, this product could not have been presented. We would not have been able to decide on about fifty tightened penalty scales and double penalties for gang criminals. That would have been the result with a red-green government and a red-green policy. That would have been the result this mandate period, and it would be the result next mandate period. I hope we do not have to experience that experiment.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by noting that neither the committee chairman nor the Minister for Justice is present here today. This is, after all, one of the government's and the Tidö agreement's most important propositions. One could have expected that at least one of them would be on site to answer any questions or perhaps even explain the government's positions in the policy. But it is, after all, Saturday, and then one perhaps prefers to do something else if one is a minister or a committee chairman.

But I shall stick to the subject at hand.

Mr. Speaker! Serious crimes must be met with clear reactions from society. The punishments must be in proportion to the severity of the crimes. Crime victims have a right to redress, and people have a right to feel safe. The Left Party therefore stands behind the main direction in the government's proposition.

It does not mean that we do not think the proposal has serious flaws. We see, above all, three problems. For the first, the proposal does not provide a sufficiently clear protection for children who are exploited by criminal networks. For the second, a sufficiently powerful policy against the economic crime that finances and enables organized crime is lacking. For the third, the government is implementing a very extensive change of Swedish criminal law without wanting to evaluate the consequences.

We must start with the children. Criminal networks are recruiting children today to sell drugs, transport weapons and, in the worst cases, commit horrific acts of violence. The children are not at the top of the criminal structures. They are not the ones making the decisions, they are not the ones controlling the money, and they are not the ones who primarily decide which crimes are to be committed.

Children are usually at the bottom of the hierarchy. They are used by older criminals who know very well that children are easier to influence, easier to intimidate, and very easy to replace. These criminals seek out children who lack safe adults around them, children who have problems at home or in school, children who are lured with money, status, and community, or who are pressured with threats and violence.

It naturally does not mean that children who commit serious crimes should escape consequences; that is not the case. A child who shoots another person has committed a horrific act. The victim's suffering is not lessened because the perpetrator is young. In that case, society must intervene, protect other people, and clearly mark the gravity of the crime.

But, Mr. Speaker, children are children. Society's reaction must therefore also aim to break the child's path into criminality. Here the government and the Tidö parties stand completely helpless, and they have done so for four years.

The Government's proposal means that the new special sentencing rule for crimes related to criminal networks can also be applied to persons under 18 years of age. The penalty value may then, as a starting point, be assessed as twice as high. The Government refers to that the courts in certain cases shall be able to deviate from a full doubling, for example when a child has been pressured or exploited, but it is not a sufficiently clear protection.

A child who commits a crime on behalf of a criminal network can be both a perpetrator and a crime victim. The child may have caused someone else a terrible harm and simultaneously been manipulated, threatened or – as it is in the vast majority of cases – exploited by adult criminals. Criminal law must be able to handle both of these realities.

It is the driving figures in the networks that the new sentencing should primarily hit. The adults who recruit, finance, plan, and order the crimes bear the heaviest responsibility. What the government is practically saying to the child is: We failed to stop those who recruited you. We failed to give the school, social services, or psychiatry sufficient opportunities to catch you. But despite all of this having failed, we are going to punish you twice as harshly. For us, it was more important to lower the tax for ourselves and our friends.

It is a completely backward prioritization, and it is difficult not to react to the hypocrisy of the Sweden Democrats. The party wants to present itself as the ultimate guarantor against criminal networks, but at the same time, a person in a leading position in the criminal motorcycle gang Comanches could be present at Jimmie Åkesson's wedding.

It is naturally not a crime for someone to be present at one's wedding, but it says something about how it is easy to give uncompromising speeches about others' judgment but significantly harder to maintain the same vigilance in one's own vicinity. When the same party now wants children at the bottom of the criminal hierarchies to be met with double sentences, there is reason to ask where this ruthless demand for accountability is located when the responsibility comes closer to the party leadership itself.

Furthermore, locking up children for longer periods risks binding them even more tightly to the criminal environment. Institutions that should break the criminality can instead become places where new contacts are created and the identity as a criminal is reinforced.

Children should face clear consequences when they commit serious crimes, but the consequence must be designed so that it reduces the risk of new crimes, not cement the criminality. For us in Vänsterpartiet, it is therefore a self-evident matter that children under 18 years of age should not be covered by the new special sentencing rule for crimes related to criminal networks.

Mr. Speaker! The second major deficiency concerns the money. Organized crime is not driven solely by violence. It is driven by profits. It is about drug trafficking and weapons, but it is also about money laundering, tax crimes, fraud, benefit fraud, and companies used to plunder the welfare state.

Criminal actors have understood that it is possible to make large sums of money from activities that are jointly financed. Money that should have gone to children, the elderly, the sick, and people with disabilities ends up with criminal networks instead. Every krona stolen from the welfare system is a krona that does not go to the teacher, the nursing assistant, or the elderly person who needs care.

It is not a less serious crime just because the perpetrator wears a suit, sits in an office, and hires a tax lawyer. Economic crime can involve enormous sums. It can finance other serious crime and undermine trust in both the welfare state and democracy.

The government's bill also concerns economic crimes; that must be said. But there is still a lack of a comprehensive review of whether the penalties are truly in proportion to the extensive damage that the crimes cause.

Society cannot only target those who sell the drugs on the street or commit the violence. We must also reach those who organize the activities, manage the profits, and bring the money into the legal economy. This means that we must reach the companies, the fronts, the money laundering, and the financial advisors who make the crime possible. If we do not strike at the economic engine, there will always be money to recruit new people with.

Even here, the Sweden Democrats' double standard becomes apparent. The Sweden Democrats and the government parties constantly demand stricter controls of the unemployed, the sick, and people who need financial assistance. The person who fills out a form incorrectly or submits an entry too late shall be met with harsh sanctions.

Then one should be able to expect the same accuracy when it comes to the own leadership's economic interests and obligations. As we have now learned through Kalla f's audit, it turns out however that the Sverigedemokraternas own subsidiary purchased the majority of Jimmie Åkesson's book from his private publishing house, which resulted in a significantly increased turnover in that company, from very low levels. The party was left with tens of thousands of books that they failed to get rid of and which they later burned, because there obviously was not a particularly high demand for Jimmie's book even within the own party.

Is it reasonable for a party that is financed to such a large extent publicly to conduct extensive business with the party leader's private company, which earns money while the party is left to burn the books because no one wants them? This is a question of judgment, transparency, and trust.

We have also been informed that Jimmie Åkesson took a seat on the board of a real estate company where he has invested over 1 million kronor without the assignment being reported to the Riksdag's financial register within the prescribed time.

This register exists for a reason. Voters have the right to know which economic interests we elected officials have alongside our political mandates. Rules on transparency are not meaningless bureaucracy. They exist to prevent conflicts of interest and to maintain trust in democracy.

The Sweden Democrats usually say that rules are important to follow, but obviously, this applies primarily to someone else. The poor family who fills out a form incorrectly shall be met with the full force of the control system, but when the party leader of the Sweden Democrats does not report a financial assignment on time, it shall be reduced to an administrative detail.

I would naturally not call this in itself economic crime. But it shows a political double standard where the demands for control and accountability are very harsh downwards while they are significantly softer upwards.

Our reservation concerns something larger than the Sweden Democrats' affairs. It concerns that economic crimes must be assessed based on the damage they actually cause. Vänsterpartiet therefore wants the government to carry out a comprehensive review of the penalties for economic crime. If the government is serious about combating organized crime, it must also attack its entire business model.

Mr. Speaker! The third and final deficiency concerns follow-up. This is not a minor adjustment of a single provision. It is a large number of sentencing scales that are being changed. The rules on multiple offenses are being revised, the possibility of sentencing to life imprisonment is expanded, and the special rule for crimes connected to criminal networks is introduced. This will have major consequences for the courts, the prosecutors, the correctional services, and the people affected by it.

The Council on Legislation has directed serious criticism at the preparation and at the difficulty of overseeing the collective consequences of several major reforms being implemented simultaneously.

When such extensive changes are made, it is not enough to hope that the outcome will be the intended one. It is not a sign of weakness to evaluate the legislation that one has voted for. It is a sign of responsibility. We need to know how the law is applied by the courts. We need to know what consequences it has for young people, for recidivism, for crime victims, and for a criminal justice system that is already under heavy pressure.

If more people are to be sentenced to longer prison terms, more places, more staff, and resources for treatment and rehabilitation are required, otherwise we will not get better correctional care. Then we only get detention, and detention is not enough. There is a great risk that it will instead have the opposite effect.

Almost everyone who has been sentenced to prison will one day come out again. The question we need to ask ourselves then is whether they have been given a better opportunity to live a life without crime or whether they have moved even deeper into criminality.

That is why we want this legislation to be evaluated after five years. It is reasonable when the Riksdag carries out one of the most extensive changes to criminal law in a very long time. At that point, we have an obligation to also follow up on what it actually leads to.

Mr. Speaker! Vänsterpartiet stands behind the principle that serious crimes should be met with punishments that better reflect their gravity. We see the victims' need for redress and society's need for protection. But a serious crime policy cannot stop at raising the penalties and then declaring the work finished. It must also understand which people the legislation affects, which structures drive the crime, and what consequences the decisions have.

Therefore, we say no to children who are exploited by criminal networks being covered by the same doubling rules as the adults who lead, plan and order the crimes.

Therefore, we demand a comprehensive review of the penalties for the economic crime that plunders the welfare state and finances other serious crime.

Therefore, we also demand that the reform be evaluated after five years.

There is no contradiction in being clear against crime and at the same time demanding legal certainty, proportionality and knowledge. It is actually the opposite. That is how responsible crime policy must look. A society that loses sight of justice will never win security.

I vote in favor of reservation 5.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating parts of the large criminal justice reform investigation which involves major changes in the view on crime and punishment. Generally, it involves a tightening of the sentencing scales for many crimes.

For several of the crimes, it is a matter of an increase in the minimum sentence, which is partly a confirmation of the crime's seriousness and punitive value, and partly a justified demand from crime victims for redress for the damage and the suffering that affected them.

It also means that for many incomprehensible sentence reductions, the significance is diminished as the common sentencing scale for multiple offenses means that the highest sentence that can be imposed becomes a doubling of the highest maximum sentence.

Life will now become a little harder for habitual offenders, who until now have gotten off cheaply when the prosecutor has only brought charges for a limited number of offenses, to the detriment of too many crime victims who have not had their case heard.

Mr. Speaker! Life imprisonment will also be applied to a greater extent and include serious cases of repeated serious violent and sexual crimes. It also concerns sexual abuse against children, where we also tighten the penalties.

Thus, the deprivation of liberty in the form of arrest and detention is tightened for several crimes, primarily the so-called public order offenses and honor-related crimes.

Mr. Speaker! Much has already been said here by speakers from the government side, so there is no reason for me to repeat the proposed changes in the reform that have been presented in considerable detail. I would instead like to focus somewhat on the tightening of penalties with a connection to criminal networks.

Organized crime and gang criminality is a cancer on the body of society. It is a form of crime that must be eliminated for us to regain a safe and secure society.

Let me therefore send a small message to young people and others who may have allowed themselves to be impressed and fascinated by gang crime, heavily criminal individuals, gangster rappers and others and want to pursue a career in this environment.

It is a personal choice you make, but it is a choice that usually ends badly. If we look at the average life expectancy for a gang criminal, we see that the risk is quite high that one does not get to experience their 30th birthday. The average life expectancy is quite low, and one lives with their life at stake and has to look over their shoulder all the time. The risk is great that one meets their nemesis, usually another gang criminal, when one least expects it. It is literally a life-threatening life and lifestyle.

The second option is that you are arrested and prosecuted for serious crimes. That is where we come in. We will then seize your assets with the new forfeiture law, and you will end up behind bars for a significantly longer period than was the case previously.

A new sentencing aggravation provision is introduced which targets all crimes that have a connection to criminal networks. I do not know if I have interpreted the legislation incorrectly here, but it is not the case that a connection to gang crime leads to a harsher sentence if an individual crime is committed by a gang criminal but does not have a connection to the gang crime itself. One must distinguish between those things. There must be a natural connection between them. When the provision is applicable, the penalty value shall, as a starting point, be assessed as twice as high as it otherwise would have been.

One might wonder why it is done in this way. Is it more reprehensible if the crime was committed with links to criminal networks than in other cases? The answer to that question is yes, it is. That is how it is.

Why is that then? Yes, because criminal networks are not just a threat to individual people, but it is more serious than that. Criminal networks strive for power and influence and therefore constitute a threat to our society as a whole. They pose a risk of corruption and infiltration and constitute a threat to our safety and our welfare, and in the long run a threat to our democracy. That is why we want to see harsher penalties precisely when there is a connection to gang crime and organized crime.

It is therefore reasonable and well-motivated that crimes linked to gang crime and organized crime are measured with a different yardstick when selecting a penalty.

Mr. Speaker! With this said, I move for approval of the proposal in the committee's report and rejection of all motions and reservations.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating a bill concerning some of the most weighty issues in our society: organized crime, the most serious crimes, and how we protect the most vulnerable.

Shootings and explosions have, despite a certain decline, become a part of our everyday lives. We have a labor crime that exploits people and creates unhealthy competition, and welfare systems are challenged and exploited. Perhaps the worst of all is that we have children and young people who are drawn into a spiral of violence that extinguishes both lives and dreams for the future.

There is no doubt that we need to act powerfully. For the Center Party, the line is clear: We need to be both tough and smart against crime, and we will continue to work for a results-oriented, legally secure, and knowledge-based crime policy. It is with this starting point that we have taken a position on the government's proposal, and that is why we stand behind the fifty-odd sentencing increases that the government proposes.

We say yes to increasing the penalties for a number of serious crimes as well as to the total sentence for multiple crimes being able to become longer than today. Society's response must be in proportion to the public's view on the severity of the crime.

We also say yes to life imprisonment being able to be sentenced as a joint penalty for certain serious cases of repeated violent and sexual crimes. Here, however, we need to get a clarification on how this is to be used in relation to the recently introduced penalty of security detention. This must be clear in the legislation.

We also say yes to the presumption for detention being extended to include the crimes of gross violation of a woman's integrity, gross violation of integrity, and honor-based oppression.

It is important to begin with what we are for, because we simultaneously consider that the bill has serious flaws, Mr. Speaker. It misses the mark on central points while simultaneously introducing symbolic politics that is sometimes unclear. The Council on Legislation, who are thus Sweden's foremost legal experts, call the referral they received a rush job. They mean that it is not sufficiently well-thought-out and that the preparation does not meet the requirements of the constitution. They state that the government has launched a cascade of legislative matters without coordination, which makes it nearly impossible to oversee the consequences.

What is regrettable is that when we from the opposition raise this, we get a response from the government that we want slow legislation. But no, we see the problems. We want fast legislation, but we want skillful legislation. It is a matter of shame for any government to have lower ambitions for its proposals than that the Council on Legislation should say they are a rush job that cannot be assessed and where the Council on Legislation, in its opinions, has to receive lessons in criminal law.

We say yes to the proposals because Sweden needs them, but we would have liked to see more robust solutions to say yes to.

Now I come to a part of the legislative changes that we question. We want to go further in some parts, and furthermore, we are missing certain crimes.

Let me begin with the most urgent matter: the protection of our children. We see how 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds – sometimes even younger children – are exploited as tools by criminal networks. They are not the brains behind the acts. They are undoubtedly perpetrators, but they are also consumables in a cynical game.

The government's answer was until Thursday at 09:45 to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 13 years, but the government is no longer a majority government within the legal area, so now the proposal is 14 years.

Centerpartiet says no to that as well. A 14-year-old is still a child who needs care, education, and social interventions – not a prison cell. And yes, there is a difference between a 13-year-old and a 14-year-old and a 15-year-old.

If we really want to protect the children and at the same time strike at the gangs' innermost core, we must target the adults who deliberately destroy young lives and ensure that children destroy others' lives, those who recruit, those who order in several levels upwards, and those who make money from children committing crimes. That is where we need to strike, and it is incomprehensible that the government does not increase the penalties further for these crimes.

In Centerpartiets follow-up motion, we demand that the maximum penalty for the crime involving a minor in criminality be doubled and raised to eight years of imprisonment and not to six years, as the government proposes. It is here we need to have the focus.

I will now come to the issue of double punishment, and there Centerpartiet has primarily three objections. We believe that it should be an aggravating factor when crimes are committed within gang criminality. That is why, since 2023, we have had an extra aggravating factor for the gangs' crimes.

There is a basis for increased sentencing for crimes that have constituted a serious infringement on life, health, and safety, which have involved firearms and explosives or which have their background in conflict between groups of criminals. This shall be seen as particularly aggravating circumstances. One leaves it to the courts to conduct an individual assessment in each case – not as it is today, where the sentence is to be doubled even if it may have strange consequences in the individual case. There is, therefore, already a basis for increased sentencing.

Secondly, the proposed definition of criminal networks is far too broad and general. There is a lack of a clear definition of what an activity within a group of persons who have committed serious crime is, that is: What is a criminal network? What is a gang? This opens the door to arbitrariness, and we know that the police have classified football supporters in Sweden as criminal networks. We do not think that is reasonable.

Now to the third and perhaps most attention-grabbing part of the proposal on double penalties, which leads to completely unreasonable consequences that conflict with the public's sense of justice: Crime victims for the same act will be judged differently. I had intended to mention an example, because it is so offensive, regarding that a man who is a gang member and assaults another gang member shall be punished twice as harshly as if he assaults his wife. However, we have here in the debate heard an example regarding a rape that was a revenge reaction in criminal networks. Such a rape will result in a twice as high sentence as a rape committed in another context.

We have now received answers from both the Sweden Democrats and the Moderates that they think it is perfectly reasonable that a rape involving violence within the gangs should lead to double the sentence and that another rape can lead to half of this sentence. I think it is an important message to victims of rape.

Centerpartiet sees instead that we as a country need to fight the gangs smarter than today. The criminal economy turns over 350 billion kronor. With the new forfeiture legislation, 82 million has been seized. That is good but far too little; those funds would not even suffice to run the Police Authority for a day.

We need to stop the money before the crimes are committed. The fraud advertisements need to be stopped from the platforms, and we need to see the banks' work against fraud. We need to stop the black labor force which, at best, does not pay tax and, at worst, has its origin in pure human trafficking. We need to stop the narcotics that harvest lives. We need to do more and smarter things, and that also needs to be visible in the sentencing scales. As I began by saying, there is much that is good, but we can do more. Sweden can do more.

With that, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of the Centerpartiet's reservation 6 regarding doubling the penalty for involving a minor.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! Today we have heard much said about parts of the criminal law reform. It is the largest that has been developed in modern times, and there will also be a second part which we will debate here in the chamber later this summer.

This reform is, in my opinion, necessary on many levels. There have been opinions about the reform both in this house and from people outside this house, and that is good. The government's policy shall be scrutinized, and one is allowed to have views on it. I think we should respect that people have them. But it does not always mean that the views are correct.

My colleagues in the Tidösamarbetet have exemplary accounted for what the bill contains, so I do not feel that I need to repeat it. I and the Liberals – everyone in the Liberals – also stand behind the bill in its entirety. Therefore, I only intended to focus briefly on a few things in the bill that I think are extra good, Madam Speaker.

That many women today are subjected to hate and threats from someone they live with or have lived with is nothing new. It has been said by many in this speaker's chair before, including by me, and it has been said for a long time. Despite that, we see no real change. Women continue to need to flee from and hide from violent men. The statistics on women who are murdered show constant figures year after year.

I hope and believe, however, that the tightenings in the area that have been made will yield results. I am thinking of the stricter rules upon violation of a restraining order and on the increased use of restraining orders with ankle bracelets. I hope that precisely the use of ankle bracelets can get properly started and that in the future we perhaps can also see those sentenced to a restraining order receive an ankle bracelet from day one. In my world, a violent man shall not get two chances.

Madam Speaker! It is high time that we, from the political side, truly put our foot down against these men and show that we mean business. The nonsense must end. We cannot have it so that a man can continue to threaten or stalk a woman, without him knowing that it is he who must move. He shall know that it is he who will have his freedom of movement restricted. It is he who shall have a difficult life, not the woman he threatens to kill.

If I remain in the Riksdag for one more mandate period, I will not give up until it feels proper for the person who does not understand the message that he should back down and do something other than destroy the lives of others. He shall understand that it is wrong and that we are serious. He shall receive a message that even he can understand. I promise to drive this.

In the bill we are debating today, there is a new measure that I believe is a step in the right direction to be able to reach those who do not understand better, and that is that the presumption for detention, i.e., the mandatory detention, shall also cover the crimes of aggravated violation of a woman's integrity, aggravated violation of integrity, and honor-based oppression. In my personal election manifesto before the 2018 election, I wrote that I wanted to see this, and now – eight years later – it is becoming a reality. I thank you for that.

The second thing I think is good in the bill is that the government is now taking a firm stand regarding repeated rape. With the new rules concerning persons who commit repeated crimes, it will now be possible to sentence substantial penalties for both repeated rape and aggravated rape. It can actually happen that the court sentences a person to life imprisonment when this person is sentenced for several cases of aggravated rape. I hope that the judges will also do that.

Life imprisonment for repeated aggravated rapes is the right thing. There must be an end to the coddling; I repeat that. No one should sit for only three years for seven rapes, eight sexual assaults and six sexual molestings, as a certain person did. He sat for three years. This person also continued his criminality – he continued to rape – after he had served those three years.

There must be an end to the naivety we have shown when it comes to exactly rape. Dangerous individuals must be locked up and kept locked up for as long as possible. With the reform we are debating today, the so-called Nytorgsman would probably have received 18 years in prison for the rapes and sexual assaults he committed. It is a punishment that would have made a difference.

Once again, and finally, Madam Speaker: Dangerous persons shall be kept locked up, and they will do so to an ever greater extent with this reform.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! The serious crime in Sweden is a very grave societal problem. Society must do more to prevent crime and protect people from crime. Victims of crime shall receive redress, and those who commit serious crimes shall be met with clear, proportionate, and legally secure punishments.

During our time in government, we in Miljöpartiet took the initiative for a large number of increased penalties and other reforms to strengthen society's ability to combat crime. We therefore have no principled objection to increased penalties. On the contrary, we argue that increased penalties can be justified when they are well-balanced, legally secure, accurate, and anchored in a clear need.

We cannot, however, stand behind the proposals that the government presents in the bill we are debating here today, and I shall devote my speech to trying to explain why.

The Council on Legislation describes the proposals as a matter of urgency, and we do not believe they are sufficient for such an extensive reform of the Penal Code. It is not just about individual flaws, but about the fact that the proposal as a whole rests on a weak analysis, an unclear systematic approach, and insufficient consideration of how the reforms affect the justice system and the correctional services as a whole – not to mention society as a whole.

We cannot consider the government's proposal as anything other than punitive populism. The government is proposing significant increases in penalties without convincingly demonstrating that they will reduce crime, increase safety, or provide a more coherent sentencing system.

The Government proposes in its bill some sentencing increases which we in the Green Party are not opposed to in themselves. This concerns, among other things, the proposals for harsher penalties for involving a minor in crime, aggravated rape, aggravated rape of a child, and contact for the purpose of meeting children sexually. We have nevertheless chosen not to pick out and stand behind certain parts of the bill, even though we, as said, have no objection to them at all, and it is precisely about the Council on Legislation's views.

The Council on Legislation emphasizes that the government's handling of the matter, where it proposes certain selected sentencing increases without conducting a broad review of the entire Penal Code, risks making the sentencing system even more incoherent. We believe that we cannot contribute to such a development. Sweden does not need more individual sentencing increases on top of an already difficult-to-overlook system; instead, what is needed is a new, broad, and thoroughly worked-out review of the Penal Code. We look forward to being able to contribute to that in a future government – possibly.

When I listened to some contributions from colleagues on the red-green side, I also heard a consensus on this, even though the different parties have landed on slightly different conclusions. Some have chosen to pick out certain parts that they think fit well and can stand behind. We have chosen not to stand behind this, despite the fact that we have nothing against certain increased penalties, because we believe that the issues that the Council on Legislation points out are too extensive.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the proposal on double penalties for crimes in criminal networks, the criticism is particularly heavy. The Government goes further than the investigation's proposal, which means that all crimes in criminal networks shall, as a starting point, be punished with double the penalty. All referral bodies reject the proposal, even though some bodies – such as the Prosecution Authority, the Economic Crime Authority, and the Police Authority – are more positive towards a broader basis for increased penalties than today.

When the Green Party was in government, we contributed to introducing a specific basis for increased sentencing for certain crimes in criminal networks directed against a person's life, health, or safety, for example in crimes such as murder, assault, human trafficking, and unlawful deprivation of liberty. It was an important change to show the seriousness of grave and organized crime.

Several of the referral bodies, however, question whether there is a need to further tighten the penalties for crimes in criminal networks. They argue that today's specific grounds for increased penalties are sufficient. Several referral bodies also highlight the risk that the proposal relatively devalues other serious crime, for example, violence in close relationships, which colleagues have also raised here earlier today.

Madam Speaker! Nor does the government's proposal regarding fifty sharpened sentencing scales appear sufficiently elaborated. It is, as said, fundamentally welcome that the sentencing scales are being reviewed. Many have remained unchanged for a long time, and that has contributed to the system becoming less coherent. For that very reason, it is important that a review of the sentencing scales has a holistic perspective.

Among other things, the Prosecution Authority points out that the investigation, despite the ambition to take a holistic approach, has not landed on any consistent principle for how the overlaps between different levels of severity should be handled. Some sentencing scales have large overlaps, others have smaller ones, and some have none at all. The proposal implies that the penalties for different types of crimes will not stand in reasonable proportion to one another.

As several referral bodies point out, the government's proposal implies a general increase in repression. Some referral bodies support certain individual sentence increases, but then precisely as delimited exceptions, not as support for the bill's general restructuring. At the same time, other referral bodies, for example the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå), Stockholm University and Civil Rights Defenders, reject all proposed amendments or direct heavy criticism toward the whole. Among others, Brå and the Bar Association point out that the sentence increases are weakly substantiated and that the investigation does not provide convincing reasons for why significantly higher penalty levels are in the interests of crime victims.

Overall, the review of the government's proposal shows that the deficiencies in the bill are not limited to any single part. A consistent pattern is visible of the government going further than the investigation suggests and not taking into account views from the referral bodies or the Council on Legislation, that the need for the reforms in certain parts is not demonstrated, and that the consequences for the justice system as a whole are insufficiently analyzed. This strengthens our conclusion: that the bill should be rejected in its entirety and replaced by a new, broad and thoroughly worked-out review of the Penal Code.

Madam Speaker! The Green Party considers that the unusually sharp criticism that the Council on Legislation has directed at the government's proposal carries great weight. They reject the government's proposal in its entirety and write that the proposals appear to be a rush job, are not sufficiently well-thought-out, and lack so much in quality that they do not have the prerequisites to become new law. The Council on Legislation also considers that the handling does not fulfill the constitutional requirements for preparation.

Furthermore, the Council on Legislation points out that several referral bodies have been strikingly critical, but that the government has not taken sufficient account of this, and that the government does not present any basis showing that the increased penalties can be expected to reduce crime or increase safety, which from my perspective is very much the point of criminal justice policy.

Madam Speaker! The flaws in the government's proposal are closely linked to how the basis for the reform was developed. The Penal Reform Commission had 22 months to produce a very extensive basis of nearly 2,000 pages. Furthermore, the investigation period was shortened by two months following a supplementary directive in January 2024.

Here I compare it with a government investigation that I led in 2017 where we did not have the task of submitting a legislative proposal, which truly simplifies an investigator's assignment. We were to shed light on the situation for trans people in Sweden and had twelve months to do so. It was incredibly stressful. Therefore, I can easily imagine how stressful it was to submit this extensive investigation in 22 months, with little deduction.

Three of the investigation's experts argue that the lack of time meant that the work was primarily directed towards producing legally functional constitutional proposals that met the directive's requirements for a higher level of repression, rather than making a complete and unconditional analysis of the Penal Code. The experts also emphasize that it is not possible to foresee the consequences for crime policy or for lawbreakers.

Miljöpartiet considers that an investigation that lacks the time to assess the collective consequences of the proposals and whether the proposed increased penalties will lead to reduced crime should not form the basis for new legislation. This applies particularly in an area where several parallel and recently implemented reforms affect the collective effect. Criminal law must be handled from a holistic perspective.

I say again, however, because we are, in my opinion, discussing the wrong thing, that we therefore agree that a review of the Penal Code is needed and are not against general sentencing increases. Many sentencing scales have remained unchanged for a long time. The government's review, on the other hand, has not been sufficient. We believe that a review of the Penal Code must have a broad mandate and sufficient time to properly analyze the proportionality of the sentencing scales to one another, assess consequences, and propose reforms that can actually contribute to reducing crime and reducing recidivism.

Madam Speaker! The Government's bill rests on the assumption that stricter penalties in themselves will contribute to reduced crime and increased safety. It has, as mentioned, been pointed out that the Government lacks sufficient grounds to draw such conclusions.

Miljöpartiet starts from the premise that all parties have as a goal for their crime policy that crime should decrease, that is, that fewer people in total should have to experience being a crime victim. If that is the goal, the policy must be designed based on what actually works.

Harsher penalties can in some cases be justified to demonstrate the seriousness of the crime or to prevent dangerous individuals from being out in society and committing new crimes. But when the government uses reduced crime and increased safety as central arguments for general sentencing increases, they must also be able to show that the measures reasonably lead to that. Interesting in this context must also be that the person who is punished does not commit new crimes and create new crime victims.

Madam Speaker! It is evident that the government's collective criminal law reform will have major economic and practical consequences. According to the investigation's estimates, the proposals could entail costs of between 16 and 23 billion kronor approximately per year.

The Prison and Probation Service also estimates that the combined effect of the Penal Reform Inquiry's proposals, together with other sentencing increases, may result in a need for approximately 29,000 more places in detention centers and prisons by 2034. This corresponds to a threefold capacity compared to today.

Miljöpartiet can state that the burden on the correctional services is great already today. Overcrowding increases the risk of threats and violence for both inmates and staff, and the rapid expansion risks worsening the quality of care and the work of preventing recidivism. In recent days, we have also been able to take part in a horrific reporting in the newspaper Arbetet about inmates being subjected to sexual violence by other inmates in their own cells, because they share cells due to the overcrowding.

Miljöpartiet wants to give the correctional services the resources required to handle today's situation and expand the capacity where it is needed. We cannot, however, stand behind a criminal justice policy that fills the prisons at a faster rate than the justice system and the correctional services can reasonably handle. It is not responsible towards either inmates, staff, crime victims, or taxpayers.

We see instead a need for other solutions that can reduce the burden on the staff, for example through greater opportunities for electronic monitoring when it is appropriate and legally sound. We also want to strengthen the correctional services' conditions to work with treatment, education, release, and desistance activities so that fewer recidivate.

Madam Speaker! One of the most serious problems with the government's proposal is precisely the consequences for the work of preventing recidivism. A criminal justice policy that almost exclusively focuses on incarceration risks overlooking what is actually required for people not to commit new crimes after release. If the institutions become more overcrowded, if the staffing levels drop, and if rehabilitation is weakened, there is an obvious risk that more people will leave the correctional system with weaker future prospects and a higher risk of recidivism.

Instead, we want to strengthen the conditions for the correctional services to carry out qualified recidivism prevention work, improve the possibilities for rehabilitation, care and release, as well as strengthen efforts to prevent dropouts and use the tools that can actually break recruitment, substance abuse, spirals of violence and recidivism. That is how safety is truly built. It is to have a genuine crime victim perspective.

With that, I move for approval of reservation 2.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Ulrika Westerlund! It was interesting to listen to.

We are used to Miljöpartiet mostly saying no to and not liking the government's proposals in various parts, even if you agree to some.

But I reacted a bit to two things. One was this matter of the double burden in the criminal justice system. Now the government, in an emergency situation, has chosen to rent 600 places in Tartu in Estonia as a way to, in any case, temporarily relieve the criminal justice system's resources until we have more prison places built and in place in Sweden.

The second thing I reacted a bit to was that Ulrika Westerlund almost disqualified the investigation that forms the basis for the bill. I quickly brought up information about who participated in the investigation, which is apparently regarded as an urgent matter. It was led by police commissioner Petra Lundh, former prosecutor general and president of the Court of Appeal. A county governor was involved, as well as the director general of the Crime Victims Authority, university personnel, and individuals from the Bar Association. A chief judge also participated, so the judiciary was also represented. Considerable resources were allocated during this time to produce the investigation. It was not the case that a single investigator sat and worked on this. I think the participants were well-qualified. I would very much like to hear Ulrika Westerlund's comment on this.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Torsten Elofsson for the questions.

First, I want to comment on this regarding Estonia. During our debate, it emerged that the opposition in Estonia is very likely about to tear up this agreement. The current government in Estonia has not done its homework in the same way as the Swedish government, which tried to anchor the agreement to ensure that there was support from a sufficiently large part of the parliament so that it would not be torn up in the event of a change of government. It seems that this was not done in the same way in Estonia. Consequently, this may not even be a temporary respite; we risk getting back a large number of detainees immediately if there is a change of government in Estonia, as I understand the reporting. In this issue, there is an ongoing populist and rather tricky debate in Estonia that I actually do not sympathize with at all. But there seems to be a high risk that this will not be possible to carry out.

We were against this because we do not think it is realistic to handle our problems with an insufficient number of places in institutions in this way. If it turns out as it seems in Estonia, we might be right about that. Then one must try to review the correctional services' problems with capacity in other ways. One must expand and implement reforms at a realistic pace. Dangerous persons should, of course, be imprisoned – everyone agrees on that. But there may be others who can serve their sentences in other ways to relieve the correctional services.

Regarding the investigation, I do not, of course, question the competence of the individuals who carried it out. The criticism from the Council on Legislation that I quoted concerns a lack of time and resources, not that these individuals themselves would not be capable or lack sufficient competence; they obviously do. It is also the case that the investigation's own experts write that the lack of time entailed certain limitations, for example, that one could not perform a complete and unconditional analysis of the Penal Code. This is what I consider to be the major problem.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Ulrika Westerlund for the answers.

When it comes to the issue of prison places in Estonia, it becomes a bit strange to say no because the opposition in the Estonian parliament might potentially say no. This is an attempt from the government's side to solve an acute task that Ulrika Westerlund also pointed out in her speech. Double shifts are occurring, and it is tough at the facilities. Here, they are trying to relieve the pressure. It could turn out as Ulrika Westerlund says, but then we have at least made an attempt. Then we have to conclude that it did not work and we cannot fix it as we go.

When it comes to the investigation, it can be stated that the entire expert group signed and gave its support to the investigation and the result that was reported. I can understand that there are other lawyers who have different views. Law is not an exact science – one can think different things. It can also be the case that in some places in the referral bodies, they are influenced by the reform that was carried out in 1989, I believe it was. Several of those concerned who have commented were involved in that correctional reform which is now seen to be changing and falling into line. It is clear that they may then be critical of the current proposal.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I perhaps did not express myself clearly enough. It was not because of the debate in Estonia that we said no, as we were not aware of it when we introduced our follow-up motion. There were other, principled reasons – we do not believe that Sweden should handle its own problems through these types of obviously temporary solutions. Then, during the debate itself, I was made aware that such a discussion is taking place in Estonia, which appears extremely unfortunate. I only wanted to mention it when the question arose.

The criticism of the investigation should, as stated, not be seen as a criticism of the competence of the persons involved. But I think it becomes very strange if one tries to completely dismiss this type of viewpoint. For example, the Council on Legislation writes: "The handling of the legislative matter has been substandard and does not meet the constitutional requirements for how government matters shall be prepared. The criminal justice reform investigation was given far too little time to fulfill its extensive mandate and, although the investigation's report was very extensive, it did not contain sufficient basis for the referral bodies to be able to assess the proposals in a satisfactory manner. To this is added that the referral bodies were given far too little time. … The proposals lack so much in quality that they do not have the prerequisites to become new law. Generally, the referral to the Council on Legislation is not sufficiently well-thought-out. For the Council on Legislation, it appears as a rush job."

This is not something that a government should be able to wave away. Referral bodies naturally have their political reasons for saying no to certain things, but here it is more about criticism of how the extensive reform proposals have been presented. I believe that the penal code and criminal policy deserve more. We could have given this more time and provided the opportunity for a broad and unconditional review. I hope to be able to contribute to this in a potential future government in which we are included. I look forward to that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lorena Delgado Varas (-)

Madam Speaker! A young person who had previously committed a crime told that the decision to receive rehabilitation instead of prison made it so that he regained control over his life. He learned to live according to the rules and understand the importance of respecting himself, his family, his community, and the value of an education.

We stand here today and debate the government's bill Double penalties for crimes in criminal networks and stricter sentencing scales. Nearly 50 sentencing scales are being tightened. A new rule on double penalties is introduced, and the possibilities for detention are significantly expanded. The government calls this a necessary rectification. Unfortunately, many – and we – argue that it undermines the foundations of the rule of law.

Of course, we share the view that the violent gang crime is an acute societal problem. But to respond with a disproportionate expansion of criminal law is to treat the symptoms and not the root cause. It might even have the consequence that we get even more severe and harder crime. Research shows that there is weak or no support for the idea that generally increased sentencing levels reduce crime. The Bar Association, which represents the judiciary's own professionals, advises against all proposed amendments. Their conclusion is crystal clear: The purpose is only to raise the level of repression, and there is nothing to suggest that it will affect the development of crime.

Most worrying is the proposal on double punishment. The same act, such as an assault, could be punished twice as severely depending on whether the perpetrator or the victim happens to have a connection to a so-called criminal network.

Madam Speaker! It is a departure from the principle of proportionality. An assault is an assault. To claim that it is twice as serious just because it occurs in a certain context is not so logical or legally sound.

The consequences become directly unreasonable. The chairman of the Bar Association gave a rather clear example, which has been mentioned a few times here today. If a criminal assaults another criminal, then it becomes two years in prison. If he then goes home in a rage and assaults his wife, then it becomes one year.

According to that logic, it is therefore less punishable to beat one's wife than to beat another criminal. To create such an order is absolutely not to build a rule of law. It is an order where the authorities can label someone as a network criminal. It leads to unforeseen and unjust consequences, especially since the concept does not even have a legal definition.

It means that a person can be branded as belonging to a criminal network on various grounds. One can look at how young people today are branded as belonging to a network. It could be that someone has added them to a chat where there are criminals. Or they might be part of a criminal network, but there is nothing that allows one to assume that.

We know who will be hit hardest by this. It is already vulnerable groups such as young people in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas, people with substance abuse issues, and people who already stand furthest from society's safety net. That type of policy will probably punish poverty and exclusion instead of abolishing them.

The government speaks of striking hard against gang crime. But they forget all the children and women who are forced to carry weapons, hide drugs, or act as couriers through threats, violence, and sexual assault. With the government's proposal, they are punished just as harshly as the gang leaders. This could cause the victims to become perpetrators. It will not punish those who make themselves rich at the expense of people who are already in a vulnerable situation. They simply forget what power the gang leaders have over young people across the country.

Madam Speaker! Real justice is not always about longer sentences. Women must be able to tell about abuse without being prosecuted themselves. Mothers must be able to protect their children without being suspected. Girls who are forced into gangs must receive support and not prison. Children must be protected from the real criminals and be given a chance at a better future.

Sweden needs more social interventions. Often it is dismissed by saying that in some way we do not want to see the crime that exists. If one is active out in the areas where very many are affected, one knows that the structures do not work.

Today, social services sometimes abandon young people in the middle of ongoing interventions because there are no resources. One has to prioritize. Which child should one save, and which child should one wait a bit with? It is a major problem.

We have measures that do not address the whole family but perhaps only the child. You do not see the whole picture of the problem where you have a family that stands without resources to be able to pay for the month's food. It is a problem that we need to address before we move on to increased penalties, or double penalties as in this case.

We need a better school. Today, there are children and young people who go to school without anyone even reacting to the fact that they do not even participate in lessons. One does not have the capacity or the tools to make interventions.

We need substance abuse care. Today, for example, we could read about Brommahem. That is also part of this. We have allowed private companies to make themselves rich at the expense of people who do not have a roof over their heads.

That is where the people who are most vulnerable in society end up. It is women who have suffered violence, people with substance abuse problems and young people who have nowhere to go. What support do they receive from living in hostels where they are not even given clean beds to sleep in?

If you really want to do something about this, you should start by supporting families and supporting the children. Change the reality that exists today and give the municipalities the tools and resources they need to do so. Do not create an environment that will generate even more serious crime.

Do something about the people who profit from this. It is not the youths who get imprisoned, or who risk being imprisoned, when you have passed your laws. It is not they who profit from this. They lose. They cannot even think about a future after the age of 25. Those who profit from this are in the offices here in the city center. They know how to handle the money and how to make themselves even richer from it.

This is a proposal that has not received anything positive from the referral bodies. The Council on Legislation does not think the proposal is good either. We move for the rejection of the entire bill and will stand behind reservation 2 from Miljöpartiet.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 15 June.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)