An enhanced civil defense and clearer reactions in cases of recidivism

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating a number of proposals to strengthen society's opportunities to prevent crime. The bills we will vote on later this week concern, among other things, the following.

Escape from prison, detention centers, custody, and youth homes, for example Sis, is criminalized. The risk of recidivism in crime is given greater significance during the sentencing. Possibilities to combine supervised release with imprisonment are expanded. Sharper possibilities for the correctional services to limit a gang criminal's freedom of movement, so-called residence regulations, if one is sentenced to supervised release or is released on parole, are clarified. It is about providing greater possibilities to individualize the release so that the interventions that can be offered today will function better. Finally, it is about tightening the rules regarding permission, so that one must have participated in treatment programs and the interventions offered during the time in prison. Not least, the correctional services will be given the opportunity to weigh in connections to a criminal gang or group that commits serious crime in decisions regarding permission.

Mr. Speaker! We will vote for the proposals in the report. We particularly welcome the parts where the government continues to work with the proposals concerning strengthening the correctional services' opportunities to work with the recidivism-preventing measures. We believe it is important to clarify that society's intention is that the time in the institution should be used to strengthen the inmate's opportunities to fare better so that fewer crimes are committed. It is very positive.

It is also good to limit the freedom of movement for those who have links to gangs in decisions regarding permission or upon conditional release where the risk of recidivism or participation in serious crime is imminent. Not least, it is necessary to strengthen the crime victim's perspective, so that the person who has committed serious crimes shall not have the right to move near the crime victim. We believe that it is crucial to break the wave of violence and the possibilities for continued recruitment to the gangs.

Mr. Speaker! We will, as said, vote for the proposal, but I still want to take the opportunity to point out a bit regarding the challenges of the correctional services. It is worth reminding in the debate that the vast majority of those who commit a crime at some point will leave prison. It is therefore crucial that the time in the institution is meaningful and used correctly. In that case, the correctional services and the probation services must be given the right conditions, and we see that the situation is increasingly strained. When we are out at institutions, in prisons and at detention centers, we meet staff who do everything they can so that people come out better, but we see that with double occupancy and a more strained situation at the institutions, incidents also increase. We can see that fewer participate in program activities.

We mean that it is important to sharpen the tools we are talking about here today, to limit misconduct and to prevent anyone from escaping, but we mean that it is equally important that the time is used correctly and that one has the right to employment, program activities, and studies during the time in prison.

We have, among other things, proposed in the chamber that there should be a goal for the Prison and Probation Service that 90 percent of clients with a prison sentence exceeding one year shall begin a treatment program during their execution. We also want to see increased cooperation between the Prison and Probation Service, the Public Employment Service, and external actors so that more can be channeled into a life without crime.

Mr. Speaker! The recruitment into gangs is the government's great failure. Over 700 percent more young people are suspected of serious crimes today than when the government took office. We see how the gangs continue to recruit and that more and more are lured into serious crime. This morning, the news came that more and more young girls are being drawn into serious crime and are suspected of being involved in the very most serious crime in the Syd region.

When society does not move fast enough, the speed in the gangs' recruitment circles increases instead. The most important effort moving forward in crime policy must be to cut the new recruitment to the gangs and push back the serious organized crime.

With these words, I move for the approval of the proposals in the report.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The bill we are debating today contains several proposals, and the Green Party supports all except one. Among other things, we argue that recidivism should be given greater significance in the sentencing and that stay orders should be able to be issued for the purpose of protecting the victim. That being said, the rest of my speech will concern our reservation and that we do not think it is a good idea to criminalize escape from detention centers and institutions. Even though we also consider it reasonable that society reacts when a deprivation of liberty is not fulfilled, it can be questioned whether a new criminalization is the most expedient and effective way forward.

The government's own investigation assesses that there are not sufficiently strong reasons to criminalize escape. The investigation points out, among other things, that it is unclear to what extent a criminalization would actually mean that inmates would refrain from escaping and thereby prevent escapes. The investigation also notes that the number of escapes is small and that the correctional services already today have a functioning and effective sanction system for various forms of misconduct during execution.

To counter escapes and deviations, the correctional services have for a long time strengthened security in the operations, including through improved security in premises and exercise yards, tightened routines for movements within the facility, increased control of visits, and more searches. Additionally, risk assessments of recidivism are conducted for all inmates.

The deviations that occur from open institutions in security class 3 are often of an impulsive nature and linked to suddenly arising problems outside the institution, for example in the family. In such cases of misconduct, the correctional services can already today intervene quickly and clearly within the framework of the ongoing execution of the sentence. Parole can be postponed, the inmate can be moved to an institution with a higher security class, permissions can be revoked, and release preparation measures can be stopped. Even studies, vocational training, and opportunities for contact with relatives can be affected. If crimes are committed in connection with the deviation, this leads, of course, in addition to this, to a police investigation and a new penalty.

Mr. Speaker! Since the commission's mandate did include submitting a proposal on criminalization, such a proposal was presented. The proposal has been subject to consultation, and all the consultation bodies that have commented on that specific proposal question whether a criminalization would be effective. The consultation bodies point out that there are already consequences in the event of escape, and they emphasize that it is often better for the individual and for society for the consequences to be handled within the framework of the ongoing enforcement instead of through an additional criminal trial process.

The correctional services also agree that there are insufficient strong reasons to criminalize escape and consider that a criminalization would be associated with difficulties in application. Despite the investigation's assessment and the views of the referral bodies, the government proceeds with the proposal. As a reason for that assessment, it is stated that it is of great importance for the credibility, legitimacy, and effectiveness of the penal system that intake at a prison or detention center does not deviate. It is a reasoning that the Green Party partially agrees with, but at the same time, the investigation's conclusions and the referral bodies' views show that it is unclear to what extent a criminalization would be an effective measure to counteract escapes and that the number of escapes is small.

The Council on Legislation rejects the proposal, as they consider it very doubtful that the proposal would fulfill the stated purpose: to counteract escapes more effectively than today. They also emphasize that today's procedure, for example regarding decisions on postponed conditional release, has significant advantages as a reaction to an escape. The reaction can come quickly, and the procedure is not particularly resource-intensive. A conviction for escape, on the other hand, must be preceded by a preliminary investigation and a court process, which requires more time and resources. Such a reaction also risks coming so late that it is, in practice, executed only after the inmate has already been conditionally released.

Against that background, Miljöpartiet argues that the government has not shown that a new criminalization is the most effective and proportionate way forward. There is a value in clear reactions, but such reactions must also be well-founded and work in practice. If the government wants to proceed with a criminalization, it should return with a more thoroughly worked-out proposal that clearly addresses the objections raised by the investigation, referral bodies, and the Council on Legislation.

I therefore move for approval of the Green Party's reservation.

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are debating one of the government's many propositions submitted to the Riksdag. This proposition, Enhanced civil protection and clearer reactions in cases of recidivism, aims to strengthen civil protection in cases of serious and repeated crime, reduce the risk of recidivism, increase safety for crime victims, and sharpen the reactions in cases of negligence or recidivism.

There are several parts in the bill. One of them concerns the fact that escapes from certain forms of deprivation of liberty, such as prison, institution, and detention, will be criminalized. Other parts concern that recidivism shall be given greater significance in the sentencing, and the possibility of combining supervised release with imprisonment is expanded.

The person who is sentenced to supervised release or is on parole shall be notified of restrictions on freedom of movement if he or she is involved in or has a connection to a group that commits serious crime and risks committing crimes or otherwise contributing to serious crime at a certain location or in a certain area. This can involve, for example, gang criminals who need to have their freedom of movement restricted in order to be prevented from reoffending.

Stay-away orders shall be able to be issued for the purpose of protecting the victim. We think it is fully reasonable to strengthen the crime victim perspective when regulating these regulations anyway.

It is stated in the law that involvement in or connection to a group that commits serious crime shall be taken into account when making decisions on permission, that is to say that gang criminals should be able to receive more restricted permission based on the circumstances and the threat they pose through their gang criminal affiliation.

In the report, Miljöpartiet has a reservation with objections to a part of the report. It concerns escapes from detention, institutions, and custody. It is argued that a criminalization of this was not necessary. They perhaps even think – if I understood the previous speaker correctly – that it is a bad proposal to criminalize escapes from prisons and institutions.

As grounds for their motion for dismissal, they point out that there are quite few escapes and that it is unclear whether it has a deterrent effect and whether it is an effective measure. Those objections, Mr. Speaker, can be raised against a number of different crimes. If, for example, there are relatively few cases of aggravated rape in a year, one might perhaps wonder why it should be punishable. Should an aggravated rape be punishable if it does not have a deterrent effect? Is it an effective measure against an aggravated rapist that he receives a sentence for a rape? Who knows? When it comes to that category, the rate of recidivism is quite high.

With those motives, one could decriminalize a number of different criminal and reprehensible acts. What I want to emphasize when I highlight the government's position is precisely that this is a reprehensible act, which in itself deserves criminalization.

Mr. Speaker! In recent years, we have seen a number of escapes and releases. For example, an armed release of a 17-year-old convicted of murder occurred in the spring of 2023 in connection with a dentist visit. Every escape is a mockery of the crime victims and their relatives. And it is a slap in the face to the police and prosecutors who have succeeded in prosecuting the criminals. It is also an attack on the correctional services' employees and is offensive to the citizens. It can also mean that dangerous criminals move freely in society.

The government and the Sweden Democrats have taken a number of measures to increase security in institutions, in order to prevent and deter escapes and break-outs. But it still occurs that deprived persons of liberty escape. In those cases where it happens, there must be a reaction from society that reflects the seriousness of escaping.

Today, as has been said, it is not punishable in itself to escape from, for example, a detention center, a prison, or the Migration Agency's detention. It is not reasonable. Society's signals must be unambiguous, and the consequences for the person who escapes must become even more tangible.

Mr. Speaker! I honestly believe that many citizens would be surprised if they knew that today it is practically legal to escape from a prison sentence. Therefore, we submit this bill, which, among other things, means that escape and attempted escape shall be criminalized. The offense covers those who have been sentenced to imprisonment or closed juvenile care, or who are held in detention due to suspicion of a crime and who escape. But also foreigners who have been taken into custody and escape from the Swedish Migration Agency's custody are covered. The penalty for escape is proposed to be imprisonment for a maximum of two years.

We also propose that a gross degree of the offense should be introduced. The offense shall be capable of being assessed as gross if, for example, it is preceded by careful planning and if it has been organized or in some other way particularly reckless or dangerous. It may involve that persons on the outside have assisted or that weapons, violence and serious threats have been used. The penalty for gross escape shall be imprisonment for at least six months and at most four years.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats' crime policy provides justice for crime victims and security for the people. The clear results speak for themselves. The number of explosions and shootings has decreased, and fewer and fewer people die in the gang criminal settlements when we let the rule of law move forward its positions, give police and prosecutors new tools, and present new sentencing increases that deliver results.

The Social Democrats can, of course, pretend that they agree in substance with the government and the Sweden Democrats on large parts of the Tidö Agreement's crime policy. But one must remember that the Social Democrats, during not a single one of their years in government, took a single initiative to implement any part of the crime policy program that we are now implementing.

Mr. Speaker! This concerns, among other things, the criminalization of escapes. There, the Social Democrats' previously compact opposition is now found in a single reservation from the Green Party, that is, the party that the Social Democrats most of all want to design tomorrow's criminal policy together with.

With that said, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I felt that I had to say something because a strange comparison was made with sentences for aggravated rape where it appeared as if those situations were to be comparable.

It sounds like the member did not listen to my speech, where I tried to explain why we do not think this is a good idea. It is not that there will be no consequence if one escapes today. Nor is it that Miljöpartiet intends for there to be no consequence, just as we obviously do not think there should be no consequence for persons who commit serious crimes. There is nothing in our crime policy that suggests that.

We are constantly trying to find a balance and see if the measures that are proposed achieve the desired effect. Here, the views from, for example, the investigation itself, which forms the basis for the proposal, and all the referral bodies that have bothered to respond to just this part have been critical. And the Council on Legislation has questioned whether it will achieve the desired effect. That is the reason for our reservation – not that we think it would be a good behavior or a behavior that should not lead to any consequence.

Let me restate what I said in my speech. The Prison and Probation Service can already today intervene quickly and clearly against persons who escape. Parole can be postponed. One can be moved to a facility with a higher security classification. One can have permissions revoked, and one can have their pre-release measures stopped. One can also have other types of benefits revoked or affected in various ways, for example, the right to study or have contact with one's family. This, therefore, already has a consequence.

Our objection is whether this is effective or not. Or will it just be a signaling policy that does not have the desired effect? That is the reason for the reservation.

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I understand exactly the Green Party's objections. It is precisely the same rhetoric that the Social Democrats put forward for eight years in government when we, year after year, tried to get a criminalization of escapes in place. Morgan Johansson was very firm and put forward approximately the same objections as the Green Party does here today.

What I noted was that it is pointed out that the escapes are quite few, and therefore no criminalization was needed. It is unclear whether it has a deterrent effect, and therefore one does not want to criminalize escapes. It is also unclear whether it is otherwise effective, and therefore one does not want to criminalize escapes. These are three reasons that I think are quite weak in this context.

What I highlighted in my speech was that an escape from a facility, prison, or detention center is a reprehensible act in itself, which means that through one's reprehensible actions, one deserves a criminal law consequence. I do not think there should be impunity for those who subject the correctional services to, for example, situations that escalate as a result of an escape. These can be violent situations where the staff can be very badly harmed.

One causes a disturbance, and one shows no respect for the rule of law in general if one chooses to attempt to escape. We simply think that it is a reprehensible act that deserves a criminal consequence. That is the motive for why we move forward with the proposal.

We also think it is important to take into account the public's confidence in the rule of law. We do not believe that it is sufficient for a permission to be revoked or similar. It is far too weak a response for those who choose to deviate or escape from a custodial sentence.

We simply think differently on the issue. That is completely permissible and only good. It makes it easier for the voters to make their choice. If one thinks that it should be criminalized to escape, one can vote for Sverigedemokraterna. If one wants it to be sufficient that a conditional release is postponed, one can vote for Miljöpartiet.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer!

That the number of escapes is low is something the investigation itself notes. That was one thing I referred to, but it is not the entire reason for our reservation regarding this part. Without it, it is more about the efficiency and whether we can expect the number of escapes to decrease as a result of a criminalization.

It is usually what one is looking for with their criminal policy proposals and measures. One wants different types of crime and reprehensible behaviors to decrease. That is the purpose. Here, all instances that have spoken out seem to question whether that will be the consequence.

Again: This is reprehensible behavior. One must not escape. It already has consequences. It is not just about withdrawn permissions, but it can also result in relocation to a facility with a higher security classification. One can also have various benefits withdrawn.

The Council on Legislation also says that this is something that, of course, uses society's resources, which then need to go towards the preliminary investigation, the court process and so on. It can therefore mean a reaction that comes late. In practice, it might only be executed after the person detained has already been released on parole. That would be foolish.

It is better if there is a direct consequence: You escaped, so now there will be no more permissions. Now you will not be granted conditional release, but we will handle it at once.

To paraphrase what the member said: If you want measures that have an effect, where we take into account what different expert bodies and the Council on Legislation say, even in crime policy, you can vote for Miljöpartiet in the next election.

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I notice that the member first distances herself from the reasons and motives she herself stated for voting no, namely that few escapes occur. It was apparently not the Green Party that said it, but it came from a referral body. But in the final conclusion, it is still one of several main motives for choosing to vote no to criminalizing escapes.

The chairman says that it has an unclear deterrent effect. I have not stated that it is the deterrent effect that is the main reason why we are proceeding with a criminalization of escapes. This is reprehensible behavior that shall have a criminal consequence. That is just how it is – black or white, period, now it is clear. Now you go into prison again if you escape.

What is right and wrong in society must be simple and understandable. For me, it is incomprehensible that it has been crime-free to escape from a prison sentence. It is almost embarrassing that we have not addressed this earlier in our country.

We have, as we have said, different motives for our different voting outcomes in the vote. We can only conclude that if one wants criminalization of reprehensible behaviors and wants a political leadership that takes political responsibility for its decisions and does not just lie flat for easy objections from referral bodies, one should vote for one of the parties that are governing the country right now. If one, on the other hand, wants a somewhat more wavering government that would rather lean back and is satisfied with the status quo, one can vote for one of the red-green parties.

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Mr. Speaker! This bill contains a number of different legislative changes with a common direction, and it is clear. Civil protection shall carry more weight. Recidivism shall have greater consequences. Crime victims shall no longer be those who are forced to adapt their lives to the perpetrators. It is fundamental.

If one commits new crimes time and again, it must be reflected in the punishment. If one escapes from a facility or Sis, it must be a criminal offense. If people are subjected to threats and violence, we must be able to ensure that they do not have to encounter the perpetrator where they live.

Mr. Speaker! Many parts of the bill have been addressed. But the bill is broad, so I intended to focus on certain parts.

A central part of the bill concerns that recidivism shall result in a significant increase in the penalty. Recidivism shall be reflected in the sentence you receive.

Mr. Speaker! It must nevertheless be said that most people who serve a custodial sentence do not reoffend. At the same time, the statistics are very clear. Having already reoffended is the single greatest risk factor for continuing to commit crimes and continuing to reoffend.

For those people who have six or more correctional sentences, the recidivism statistics are high. Over 90 percent recidivate within three years in crimes with a new correctional sentence. This means something important. When the same people repeatedly commit new crimes, it is no longer about a one-time occurrence. It is not about people who make mistakes. Instead, it is about people who systematically commit new crimes and create new crime victims. Then we must be able to react more clearly.

That is why we now put forward the proposal that recidivism shall have a much greater impact during sentencing for new crimes, not for symbolic reasons but because it protects people. The person who is deprived of liberty cannot simultaneously commit new robberies, new violent crimes, or new assaults out in society. It is a concrete crime-preventing measure.

Mr. Speaker! Another part of the proposal is that we criminalize escapes and deviations from institutions, prisons, and Sis. It is remarkable that this was not already criminalized in Sweden. I am quite sure that most people in Sweden believe that it is criminal and forbidden to escape from a prison sentence. But that is not how it has been, and that is what we are changing now.

Those who deviate from the rule of law expose both staff and the public to risks. This applies in particular in cases of parole. We have, for example, seen very serious situations at Sis-homes in recent years.

We have seen high-profile escapes from detention centers and institutions during recent years. As has been said here, Mr. Speaker, a criminalization does not solve everything. The security work within the criminal justice system and within Sis is absolutely crucial. Much work has also been done, it must be said, and much has changed. The issue has been taken seriously, and the number of escapes from Sis and prisons has decreased in recent years.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, and it is important to remember, escapes from open institutions have doubled over the last five years. This is a steadily growing problem.

For me, this is about credibility and about people's trust in the justice system. It is also about the fundamental principle that the person who tries to evade a prison sentence should not be able to do so without new criminal law consequences.

For those sitting at home at the kitchen table, it seems obvious that those who try to evade a prison sentence should also be met with new sanctions. It is precisely that obviousness that is now being introduced into the legislation.

Mr. Speaker! I want to move on to the issue of residency bans, residency regulations, permissions, and conditional release. Even here, there is a clear example of the important shift in perspective that has occurred in Swedish criminal policy in recent years. For far too long, it has been the crime victim who has had to bear the major consequences. The one who has been subjected to a crime has had to move, change their habits, or live with the fear of encountering their perpetrators in their own area.

It is an incorrect order. It cannot be the one who has been subjected to a crime who should have to adapt their life, while the perpetrator moves more freely and without clear restrictions. Therefore, the possibility of using residency requirements and geographical restrictions is now clarified and strengthened, including in cases of parole. It is about us being able to say more clearly: You are not allowed to stay here. You are not allowed to be near the victim. You must not be able to show up at a workplace, the children's school, or other environments where crime victims should have to feel anxiety.

It is a reasonable order. Permission is not a right, and conditional release does not mean that one should relinquish control over persons with a high risk of recidivism or connections to criminal networks. On the contrary, public safety must carry more weight.

If a person is judged to pose a risk of continued crime, threats, or influence against crime victims, it shall also have concrete consequences for which permissions can be granted and which residence requirements apply upon release. It could involve that a person who has been granted permission shall not be able to move in the area where the crime victim lives or stays for other reasons. It could involve clear geographical restrictions after conditional release in order to protect people who have been subjected to crimes.

Mr. Speaker! This is a crucial part of the shift in perspective that is now being implemented in Swedish crime policy. We are strengthening social protection, sharpening the view on recidivism, criminalizing escapes, and strengthening the protection for crime victims – simply because it is just.

With that, I would like to vote in favor of the bill and in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Justice's report on reinforced community protection and clearer reactions in cases of recidivism. The report addresses several important and necessary parts to combat organized crime and strengthen safety in our country.

Centerpartiet supports the committee's proposal and welcomes the tightenings that are now proposed. To criminalize escapes from Sis and institutions, to give recidivism greater significance in the sentencing, and to expand the possibility of using residence requirements are all necessary tools to strengthen public safety.

When a person is sentenced for a crime, the society's reaction must be clear and consistent. The punishment shall be executed, and it shall occur in a secure manner. Escapes should not be able to occur. The state, in the form of the police and the correctional services, should have ways of working that make escapes impossible.

Despite criticism of the proposal, the Center Party considers that a criminalization of escape is in line with our and the public's view of the rule of law and should be introduced. In the same way, it is reasonable to reiterate that crime should be met with a sharper reaction than now. Those who systematically, regardless of reason, engage in a criminal path and expose others to danger and suffering should know that society takes their actions seriously.

The proposals concerning stricter, and I would say smarter, conditions for permission and pre-release measures are also welcome. They give the correctional services better opportunities to make individual assessments and ensure that the transition from the institution to a life in freedom becomes safer, both for the individual, for society and, perhaps above all, for the crime victims. This is better in the same way: It is smart and good.

Mr. Speaker! With that said, laws and harsher penalties are part of the equation. For the tools to have a real effect, and for us to truly be able to push back the serious organized crime and reduce recidivism, other parts must also function better. It is about the correctional services, and its staff, competence, and physical capacity.

I and the Center Party are deeply concerned. For several years, we have seen how the correctional services are being brought to its knees. The occupancy rate at prisons and detention centers has been over 100 percent for a long time. In the Swedish Prison and Probation Service's latest capacity report from this year, a picture is painted of a continued, very strained situation. The staff are doing a fantastic job, but with safety risks and under difficult conditions. It is an unsustainable situation.

Lack of space must never be a reason to compromise on the safety of employees or inmates or on the quality of the care and the relapse prevention work that the correctional services are to provide. We must not compromise on the correctional services' vision "better out," regardless of whether it is education, treatment, or employment that is needed.

An overcrowded institution is a security risk. It increases the risk of threats, violence, and unauthorized influence, and it complicates the work of breaking a criminal lifestyle. A stay in an institution must not become a school for more serious crime. In that case, it becomes a Catch-22 for the government.

Two things are required: the right resources and enough places. The government has, just like the previous one, made historical investments in the justice system. This is good and necessary, and the Center Party stands behind them. But when it comes to the bottleneck, that is, the expansion of our institutions, it is going too slowly. I know that the government is aware of it. Some things are being done, but it is not enough. We have pointed out that, given the long lead times, there should be about thirty construction projects underway, but in reality, there are only a handful.

It is a failing grade. Clearer leadership and better delivery are required from the government and responsible authorities. All alternatives need to be investigated, and we cannot afford to wait. For every day that passes with overcrowded facilities, the risk increases that—despite the legislation being laid before the Riksdag today, which the Centerpartiet stands behind—it will not be possible to fully utilize the legislation in the fight against recidivism and reduce the risks for the staff.

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party stands for a justice policy that is both tough on crime and smart regarding the causes of crime. The legislative proposals on the table today are an important part of this. This is absolutely crucial for us to be able to create a safer Sweden for everyone. With that, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! A relatively large proportion, approximately 35–40 percent, of those who have been convicted of a crime relapse into new crime. Factors that, according to the statistics, are associated with the risk of relapsing into crime include, among others, age, gender, number of previous relapses into crime, what kind of crime it is in question, sentence duration and, to some extent, what penalty has been served.

Sweden probably has some of the world's highest costs for criminal justice. It is well known that persons who repeatedly commit crimes account for a relatively large proportion of the total crime in society. It is therefore socio-economically justified to have powerful measures to counteract recidivism. It is in that perspective that the proposal currently before the House should be seen. In addition to the fact that recidivism affects a large number of crime victims, often with great suffering, it also, as mentioned, entails large societal costs.

Mr. Speaker! What does it actually cost? Well, Swedish correctional services are the most expensive in the EU. A prison place in Sweden costs on average 3,800 kronor per person per day, which corresponds to approximately 1.4 million kronor per year per inmate. In high-security prisons, the daily cost is even higher and averages just over 4,300 kronor per inmate. In parentheses, I can mention that in our neighboring country Denmark, there is a cost of approximately 2,200 kronor and that the recidivism rate is largely the same. We perhaps have a little to learn from the Danes even in that case.

In 2024, 8,200 people were detained in institutions at a cost of 11,480,000,000 kronor. If we were to reduce recidivism by 15 percent, society would save more than 1.7 billion annually in direct costs solely for a reduced number of institutional places. A 10 percent reduction would reduce costs by almost 1.5 billion. These are large savings within correctional care alone. To this are added savings within the justice system, healthcare, social services, and insurance companies, to name a few. If we succeed in reducing recidivism and also get released individuals into production, we also get increased tax revenues at the other end.

Mr. Speaker! We Christian Democrats therefore support the proposal for amendments to the Penal Code and the Prison Act which aim to strengthen public safety in cases of serious and repeated crime and reduce the risk of recidivism. We also welcome the tightened reactions in cases of misconduct regarding recidivism. Recidivism shall have significance in the sentencing. It is reasonable that society takes seriously that individuals return to a criminal path after having served a sentence.

We are also positive towards conditionally released persons being subject to restrictions on their freedom of movement – the so-called residence requirement that has been mentioned by previous speakers – if there are links to gang crime or organized crime, this in order to minimize the risk of the conditionally released persons becoming involved in serious crime again in one way or another. A residence requirement can in such cases be combined with electronic surveillance if it is not obviously unnecessary. The proposal thus implies a presumption for electronic surveillance in these cases.

In the same way, there are reasons to restrict freedom of movement to protect crime victims, for example, if someone is convicted of a crime in a close relationship. I can also imagine that corresponding protection may be relevant for witnesses if there are motives of revenge behind it. Repeated offending is more serious than isolated crimes. We are talking here about habitual offenders and professional criminals. It is therefore reasonable that the rule on increased penalties for recidivism is changed so that it largely affects the sentencing.

The group of young correctional clients reoffend to a large extent, and we have an increased need for support and supervision in that regard. To reduce the risk of recidivism in that group, there should be increased and better cooperation between the correctional services and the social services in the responsible municipality. It is also a proposal that the safety committee has put forward. It is proposed to appoint assistant supervisors from civil society who can provide advice and assistance in various contexts. It has been mentioned by previous speakers that precisely youth have a high recidivism rate, and it is particularly urgent that such types of activities are on site. It is a free fall when one leaves the correctional services and the social services are to take over, especially when it concerns Sis detainees.

Mr. Speaker! The proposal currently before us also means that escape is criminalized. At present, there is no criminal penalty in cases where one deviates from the institution or during leave. As stated earlier, the escapes themselves are few. But there are reasons to clarify that an escape has consequences, perhaps primarily for those serving sentences in institutions with security class 3, where escapes or deviations are most common. The criminalization means that Sweden now joins the other Nordic countries, all of which have criminal penalties for those who escape.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! What is a punishment? Yes, a punishment is a reaction to an action that society has decided is not okay. Which actions shall be punishable is actually something that we in this house decide. With that thought in mind, one can understand what a great responsibility it is to be a member of Parliament.

A punishment can be different things. It can be a fine. It can be working for free for a shorter period. It can be treatment. It can be care. It can also be imprisonment in jail.

We have earlier in the debate heard about how the penalties are being tightened in different ways. The previous crimes shall now be given greater significance in the sentencing. That is to say, more consideration shall be taken into account regarding previous crimes and recidivism. We have also heard about how, in connection with parole, one can be subject to a stay-away order to a greater extent. These are good proposals, I think. They sharpen society's view on recidivism and provide a better view of punishment and consequences from a crime victim's perspective.

But what I intended to point out, Mr. Speaker, is that we now – finally, perhaps many will say – are making it criminal to escape from a prison or to deviate from a parole. It has probably been strange in many people's eyes that it has not been punishable to escape from a prison.

No, I am not so naive as to believe that all people will change their behavior regarding committing crimes just because you make something punishable. That is not how the system works. Punishment does not always prevent crime. But they function as a deterrent for many, when they see the action and the consequence and think that the consequence is too great for it to be worth committing the action. In plain Swedish: It is not worth robbing someone to get money when you risk getting a prison sentence.

Then there are those who think the punishment is not severe enough. It is about how the risk of getting caught stands in proportion to the illegal act someone might consider committing. Here, one can compare it with the legislation on traffic offenses – some might think it is worth the risk of having to pay a few thousand extra when they want to arrive a little earlier.

With that said, one can ask whether there will be any more escapes or deviations now that we are criminalizing escapes. Yes, there will be. But I believe that above all, those who have shorter sentences will consider whether it is worth deviating from a permission if it can result in a few months' addition to the sentence. I believe that it will make a difference. I also think it is important from a principled perspective – it should not be legal to escape from a prison. This is what we are changing now, Mr. Speaker.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 3 June.)

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