A modern criminal statute of limitations legislation

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating the Committee on Justice's report JuU22 A modern criminal prescription legislation. The Social Democrats support the proposal in the committee's report.

Briefly, it can be said that the regulation looks as follows: All crimes that have life imprisonment in the sentencing scale are exempt from prescription. The prescription period for serious crimes is extended. The prescription period for aggravated violation of the peace and honor-based oppression against children shall be counted from the day the victim turns or turned 18 years old. Imposed prison sentences shall not be prescribed.

Why then does this law need to be updated? The old law is nearly 100 years old and was established in a time when modern tools were lacking. However, the law has been adjusted in recent years, and certain special regulations have been introduced. Murder and manslaughter have been exempt since 2010. The prescription period for rape and sexual mutilation offenses against persons under 18 years of age was abolished in 2020. The first legislative amendment that delayed the time for calculating the prescription for sexual offenses against children was introduced in 1995.

We can see that an update and a unified legislation are needed. The Social Democratic government therefore commissioned an inquiry, and it is the proposals from that inquiry that we shall take a position on in the chamber today.

With the technical and forensic developments, new opportunities to secure evidence and an updated police method of working, new opportunities will arise to solve crimes committed a long time ago, we Social Democrats argue. There is, however, also another reason to review the prescription legislation, namely to give crime victims answers and redress. Clearer rules give the person who has been subjected to serious crimes, or the person who has been left with many questions and few answers, an opportunity to get important answers. Not least, this gives society a chance to prosecute the guilty.

We know that many children are affected by serious crimes and violence. We also know that the clearance rate must increase. When it comes to serious crimes committed against children, there is therefore reason to clarify that the prescription period shall begin to be counted from the day the child turns 18. It is often decisive that the child gets older so that the child can tell. It is not reasonable that serious crimes against children are not prosecuted because the children do not dare or are unable to tell about serious abuses.

Another reason why we stand behind the bill is that the regulatory framework becomes clearer. For us Social Democrats, it is important that society signals that it should not pay to evade prosecution and thereby avoid prison sentences. It is important that serious crime with life imprisonment in the sentencing scale has consequences. The person who has committed such a serious crime shall receive their punishment.

In our committee motion from the general motion period, we, from the Social Democrats' side, highlight that it is important to move forward with this legislation. We have pushed for the government to finally place this on the Riksdag's table.

Madam Speaker! Sweden needs a modern criminal law, more police, and the right tools to tackle serious organized crime. We Social Democrats reformed the crime policy during our government's period and will continue to support measures that are effective in providing people with safety and confidence in the justice system. Today, a few more steps are taken forward in the work on a modernized criminal prescription legislation.

We must, however, do more. Several of the crimes affected by the legislative changes being debated today belong to the very most serious. It concerns crimes punishable by life imprisonment, such as murder and serious sexual offenses. It is also about changing society's view on crimes committed against children, particularly in a context of honor.

In conclusion, I would therefore like to take the opportunity to say something about the dark start to the year. Over 30 explosions hit Sweden in a month's time. Several explosions occurred here in Stockholm, where I live. The Tidö parties' one-sided focus on increased penalties and repression will not solve the problems in the long term. At the same time as we debate crime and punishment here in the chamber, we see how Sweden is being torn apart. With that, the society's resilience and robustness decreases.

The government chose, in the middle of the deepest recession in 20 years, to give high-income earners a substantial tax bonus every month. The school, social services, and ordinary families with children are being put on a starvation diet. We have mass unemployment, and we see how children's and youth's leisure activities are costing more and more. But the government's efforts to bring people into work, hire more social secretaries, and strengthen the school and families are lacking. In other words, the recruitment tap to bring more young people into crime is now wide open.

Madam Speaker! If we are to succeed in increasing safety and combating serious crime, we must manage to strengthen the police and the justice system and tighten the laws that must be tightened, while we build a unified Sweden at the same time. This government lacks that insight.

(Applause)

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! I begin by expressing great appreciation for this committee report. However, there are points to be put forward that could make it even better. From the Left Party's side, we naturally stand behind all our reservations, but I move for approval only to reservation 3.

It has already been said from the rostrum that we have a prescription legislation that has a century behind it. Previously, there were very limited possibilities to secure evidence after a long period of time. In this area, very much has happened, not least such things as have to do with DNA. We also have other tools – forensic and technical developments have made it so that we have better possibilities to handle these issues today.

Here in the speaker's chair, there has been talk about prescription in general. However, there are three types of prescription in the field of criminal law.

One type is the statute of limitations for prosecution. Here, it is about how much time may pass from the time a suspect has been remanded in custody or received a summons to the time an indictment is filed. The gap may not be as large as it wants to be. A positive thing with this investigation is that it is stated that there shall be an interruption of the statute of limitations if a summary order is approved, which is reasonable. There, we should also have a limit.

Something else that I believe is interesting for the public is the prescription of sentences. A prison sentence can cease to be valid – be prescribed – if it is not commenced within a certain time after the judgment has become final. This time is determined based on the length of the prison sentence. We become extremely upset if persons evade all or parts of their prison sentence. There must be limits to this.

According to the proposal in the bill and the committee's statement, several of these limits shall be tightened. Above all, crimes that carry life imprisonment shall be exempted from prescription. The prescription period is also extended for other more serious crimes.

I think it is important that special attention is paid to children. It has been the case since before that the prescription period for a number of crimes against children, not least sexual offenses and violent crimes, does not begin to be counted until the child turns 18. It is therefore only when one is of age that one can take control of one's case, report to the police and begin to pursue one's case so that a conviction can be obtained. It may have felt impossible to do this earlier, but now it has loosened. Now, aggravated deprivation of liberty and honor oppression against children are added, and even here, the counting shall therefore begin from the age of 18. We appreciate, of course, that children are better protected by this.

Like the other two matters today, this legislation shall enter into force on April 1, so things are moving quickly. Now we have February 26, and soon it is March and after that April. Furthermore, I dislike that one chooses April 1, because this should not be an April Fool's joke but be taken completely seriously.

Prison sentences shall be exempted from prescription, as it is reprehensible in many ways and not least a mockery of the crime victim if the convicted person can evade the sentence imposed.

Some of these questions we have touched upon in other contexts. For example, society sometimes has difficulty reaching those it wants to serve. It can be about service of summons, judgments, or the execution of sentences. Here we must continue to argue. Just the other day, it was revealed in the media that one does not always succeed in taking away the driver's license from those where there is a judgment that they should not keep their driver's license due to drunk driving or other negligence in traffic. Here, service and execution have not succeeded, and therefore, upsettingly, they can continue to drive dangerously in traffic. This is another dimension of the fact that we must achieve effect from the decisions made within the justice system.

So, as for the Left Party's reservations. We think, among other things, that it is wrong for the legislation to have retroactive effect. It is a principle of legal certainty. Retroactivity is almost never accepted. One exception is favorable decisions, i.e., when the legislation eases a pressure. Here, however, it is the opposite, and it is very difficult from a legal certainty perspective. In my opinion, it also shows that one is not taking the principles for legal certainty that Sweden has had since long ago fully seriously.

Another of our reservations concerns the calculation of the prescription period for young offenders. The Government intends for it to be done in the same way as for adults, that is, by basing it on the maximum penalty for the crime. That may sound fair, but it is not. When it comes to young people, there are a number of rules that can become relevant, and both mitigating and aggravating circumstances can be considered. But now the possibility to consider mitigating circumstances is removed, and the rules then hit young people disproportionately hard.

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

Katja Nyberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is with great satisfaction that I stand here today as we debate one of the most important reforms that the government base has so far presented within the Swedish justice system, namely a modernization of the criminal prescription legislation.

Sweden has for a long time had a prescription legislation that has not kept pace with developments. For decades we have had an order where criminals have been able to evade justice solely by staying away long enough, an order where perpetrators of serious crimes have been able to go free, not because they have been proven innocent but because the time has run out. It has created a legal uncertainty for crime victims, who have been left in uncertainty. It is therefore a step in the right direction that we are now tightening the legislation.

With the new law, all crimes with life imprisonment in the sentencing scale will be exempted from prescription. This means that we no longer risk that serious criminals escape punishment simply because they have managed to stay hidden for long enough.

Furthermore, the prescription period for several serious crimes is extended, which gives the police and the judicial system a greater opportunity to prosecute criminals even long after the crime has been committed.

Madam Speaker! Firstly: All crimes that have life imprisonment in the sentencing scale shall be exempted from prescription. This means that crimes such as gross sabotage, particularly gross assault and gross arson now fall into the same category as murder and rape of children – crimes that must never fall into oblivion.

Secondly: The prescription periods for several serious crimes are extended. For example, aggravated assault, robbery and rape will have a prescription period of 15 years instead of 10 years, and particularly aggravated assault and aggravated rape will have a prescription period of 25 years instead of 15 years.

Thirdly: The prescription periods for crimes against children are further tightened, which means that certain crimes, such as aggravated violation of privacy and honor-based oppression, now receive a prescription period that begins to be counted from the day the victim turns 18.

These are important steps to strengthen the rule of law and put the crime victims first.

Madam Speaker! Justice should not have an age limit. Prescription was once a tool to handle the technical difficulty of proving old crimes. But times have changed. Today, there is enormous development within forensic technology, DNA evidence, forensic databases, and international police cooperation, which makes it possible to solve cases several decades after the crimes have been committed. To then let a criminal go free simply because a legal time limit has expired is not only unjust but directly harmful to the trust in our justice system.

We are all familiar with cases where perpetrators have escaped justice due to prescription. Crime victims have had to live with the fact that their perpetrators will never be held accountable, despite new evidence. This is unworthy of a society governed by the rule of law.

Madam Speaker! The perspective of the crime victim must carry the most weight. The Sweden Democrats have long fought for a policy where the rights of the crime victim weigh more heavily than those of the criminal. For us, it is clear that it is the crime victim who should be at the center, not the perpetrator. By abolishing the statute of limitations for sentencing, we send a clear signal. The one who commits a crime shall serve their punishment regardless of how much time has passed. We cannot have legislation that encourages criminals to go underground for a few years and then return as free persons. It is a signal policy that, in practice, undermines our entire justice system.

Madam Speaker! We have heard criticism from some parties, primarily the Left Party, who argue that this legislation may be problematic from a legal certainty perspective. It can be argued that the evidence becomes harder to assess after a long period and that this could lead to uncertain judgments. But let me be clear: No legislative change alters the requirements for evidence in a Swedish court, no one is convicted without guilt being established beyond reasonable doubt, and the technology for solving old crimes is better than ever and will certainly also improve in the future.

Furthermore, criticism has been voiced that the law will have retroactive effect, meaning that longer prescription periods will also apply to crimes committed before the law's entry into force, if they have not yet been prescribed. Here, I think it is important to emphasize that it is not the act itself that is given retroactive effect. The crime was just as impermissible then as it is now. What is given retroactive effect is the prescription. This has also been implemented previously, for example when the prescription period for murder was abolished.

Madam Speaker! Swedish crime policy has for all too long been characterized by a naivety where criminals have been seen as victims of society rather than as responsible individuals. With this reform, we take yet another step away from the soft line, put crime victims in focus, and strengthen the rule of law. We ensure that criminals cannot count on going free by hiding, and we give the real victims, the crime victims, the redress they deserve.

With this said, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Lars Jilmstad (M)

Madam Speaker! Today, the Riksdag will take a position on the report A modern criminal law prescription legislation. Behind the somewhat complicated words are changes that there is great reason to truly welcome.

For us here in the chamber, the word prescription does not need any further explanation. For many others, it may need to be said that the current legislation means that the person or persons responsible escape prosecution after a period that varies in length depending on what punishment can follow in the event of a conviction. In principle, as we have heard earlier here, the current prescription periods have consisted of nearly 100 years.

Now, systematic changes are being proposed. One given reason, which has also been emphasized by previous speakers, is that technical developments have made it possible to resolve even very old crimes. We have all read about or heard of so-called cold cases that could be solved with the help of refined DNA technology or through other forensic advances.

Even modern genealogical research has, both internationally and in Sweden, led to crimes being solved a very long time after the crime itself. As recently as last week, we also debated here in the chamber the government's bill on biometrics in crime fighting, which we will also decide on later today. What we are debating today is a logical consequence of the increased possibilities for crime fighting that so-called biometric methods provide.

Another important reason is that we have had a development that has caused the vast majority of us to take a stricter view on serious crime. The vast majority think it is offensive that criminals should be able to escape legal sanction by ensuring they remain untraceable for an sometimes quite short period.

A third, very important reason for the now proposed changes is, as I see it and as has also been pointed out here earlier, the victim's perspective. For victims of crime or relatives of victims, it has often felt offensive when even serious crimes can no longer be investigated because the statute of limitations has expired. In some cases, the perpetrator may even be identified without it being possible to do anything about the matter.

Chapter 35 of the Penal Code will be replaced by a new chapter with changed, read: extended, prescription periods. For all crimes where life imprisonment is included in the sentencing scale, prescription will not occur.

I do not intend to go through the new chapter's enumeration of prescription periods for all punishable offenses but simply state that less serious crimes, which at most can lead to imprisonment for one year, receive a prescription period of two years. At the other end of the scale, we can see that the prescription period becomes 25 years if the penalty scale includes imprisonment for more than eight years, and for crimes where life imprisonment is included in the penalty scale, there is, as I mentioned earlier, no prescription at all.

The prescription periods can in practice become longer. That is the case if it concerns a number of crimes against very young people. In that case, the prescription period is counted from the day the crime victim turns 18.

Madam Speaker! What I have touched upon so far are changes that can be seen as natural in the context of technological development and a stricter view on serious crimes. The victim's perspective has, as I have previously said, also weighed heavily. Collectively, this has led to changes that there is every reason to welcome. This can also be said about a few more points that I want to take up here.

The first is that the legislation enters into force as early as April 1. We have seen and continue to see a criminal development where many of us wish that legislation that can in different ways reverse this sad development can be implemented faster. We know that the government fundamentally shares this view and sees the timing for the change we are discussing today as an example of this.

The second point concerns the fact that the changes have a kind of retroactive effect. The extended or abolished limitation periods will therefore also apply to a number of crimes where the currently applicable limitation period did not expire before April 1.

The last point that I want to bring up and which I find very satisfying is that sentenced prison terms are not subject to the statute of limitations. Hopefully, we will thus avoid upsetting cases where someone hides in Sweden or abroad for just that long that the penalty manages to become time-barred and the convicted person can laugh at an impotent penal system.

Madam Speaker! I would like to move that the Riksdag adopts the decision in accordance with the Committee on Justice's proposal and rejects all reservations.

(Applause)

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Swedish crime policy has for far too long been characterized by a naive view of crime and punishment, a view where the perpetrator's rights and care for them have often been allowed to weigh more heavily than the crime victim's right to redress. This is unacceptable, and it is an order that we Christian Democrats are working intensively to break.

By implementing the Tidö Agreement's agenda, the government is making a comprehensive reorganization of Swedish criminal policy and Swedish criminal law, a reorganization that has its starting point in a fundamental shift in perspective: to move the focus from the perpetrator to the crime victim and to society's need for security. Part of this shift in perspective is what we are debating here today, namely a modern criminal law statute of limitations.

The legislative changes will, as stated, enter into force in just over a month, on 1 April 2025, and change the rules for how crimes are prescribed in Sweden. I will not go into more detail on this as many speakers have mentioned it previously, but in short, it is about that sentenced prison terms are never prescribed and that the prescription period is extended for serious crimes.

The Christian Democrats' message is clear: If you commit a serious crime, you should not be able to hide behind the clock. There should be no free passes where you escape your responsibility. You should not be able to travel to sunnier lands and lie there and take it easy for a few years to then return and be free from responsibility without having had to serve your sentence.

Victims of crime shall receive redress, and criminals shall feel the weight of the rule of law, regardless of whether it takes 1 year, 5 years or 30 years before we catch them. Therefore, stricter prescription legislation is required.

Madam Speaker! This is not a day too early, and we Christian Democrats have for a long time pushed for exactly these changes. Over the last ten years, approximately 100 crimes per year have been prescribed because individuals who were convicted chose not to report to the correctional services to serve their sentence. This is in itself a mockery of all those crime victims who have fallen victim to these perpetrators.

This bill is also about protecting society from dangerous individuals. With the new technology and the new tools that have been added to the justice system, more older crimes can now be solved. In that case, it is crucial that the prescription legislation keeps pace with developments and does not constitute an obstacle to letting older crimes be solved.

We also see several examples from other countries where new technology has made it possible to convict perpetrators several decades after the crime. Swedish police and prosecutors have the ability, and we must continue to learn from these experiences.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats are the value-driven party. We strongly oppose the value relativism that has characterized Swedish justice policy, where a misplaced tolerance and a naive perspective have caused the boundaries between right and wrong to become blurred. It is unacceptable. Sweden shall be a society where good norms and values stand at the center and where responsibility and consequences go hand in hand.

In a constitutional state, one thing must be self-evident: The one who commits a crime shall be prosecuted and serve their sentence. No one who commits a serious crime shall be able to hide behind the clock and believe that time erases all guilt. Justice must be served, and the crime victims must receive strengthened redress.

With this said, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! Prescription is actually something strange. The state has decided that if one simply stays away from prosecution for long enough, one escapes punishment.

Now it is so, but many of us probably think that it is high time that the prescription periods are changed. They have been a bit too generous. In fact, it took until 2010 before the prescription period for murder was removed.

A functioning constitutional state cannot allow gross criminals to escape justice simply because time has passed. If you stay away long enough, you avoid punishment – where is the logic in that? I can see none. If one has committed a crime, it must be tried in court, and if one is judged guilty there, one must take their punishment, period.

Crime victims carry their traumas every day, and their suffering must be acknowledged and addressed. For the justice system to be fair and credible, we must guarantee that the perpetrator is held accountable, regardless of when the crime was committed. Crime victims cannot and must not have to wait to receive the justice they deserve.

Something that I also think plays a role and that has been mentioned here earlier is the development of technology. It has made it possible for us to handle old crimes with a precision that was not possible previously. With the help of DNA, digital traces, and witness statements, we can now link perpetrators to crimes long after they have been committed. To then hold on to outdated prescription rules is simply a betrayal of those who have been affected.

Now the government is removing the prescription periods for all crimes that have life imprisonment in the sentencing scale. The prescription period for robbery is being extended by five years and for aggravated rape by ten years, to take a couple of examples.

For crimes with shorter sentences in the sentencing scale, however, no changes occur in the prescription period. One can discuss why, but according to the police, it is not so common that persons who have committed that type of crime evade justice.

Finally, Madam Speaker: This reform marks a clear and decisive step in the shift we see today from having protected the perpetrator to an excessive extent to putting the crime victims in focus. It is about changing perspectives and recognizing that it is the crime victims who should be at the center of the legal process, not the perpetrator. To change the prescription periods is a shift towards a more just and more compassionate justice system, and I believe that the majority of the Swedish people agree with that.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 16.)

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