A new criminal sanction system

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the Minister for Justice and the Committee on Justice for the previous debate on young offenders. We now move on to today's second debate, which concerns a new criminal sanction system.

What we are implementing now is one of the most important changes to Swedish criminal law in modern times. It is the last of many parts in this mandate period's major reorganization of criminal policy. It is also a settlement with the strongest symbol of the old Social Democratic criminal policy, for today we are abolishing the discount for crimes.

Quantity discount is an old, unjust system where every new assault, every new rape, every new theft and every new fraud has less and less impact on the sentence. The more people the perpetrator subjects, the less each new victim counts. Eventually, the discount can become so large that additional crimes are not even investigated. Then the perpetrator has ended up in a kind of criminal law free zone where new crimes no longer affect the penalty.

Madam Speaker! The quantity discount is a deeply offensive arrangement that undermines confidence in the justice system and leads to more crime in Sweden. Now we are abolishing it.

I will give some examples. In Ystad District Court, a man was convicted of two serious child pornography offenses. The material in this case showed particularly young children who were subjected to ruthless and deeply degrading abuse. The court sentenced him to the full penalty in the first case but then reduced the sentence in the second case. The perpetrator received a discount regarding the second child. It is deeply offensive.

In another case, a person was convicted of six elderly fraud cases, four of which were aggravated. He had deceived the crime victims into swishing money and handing over cards and codes, and the sentence reduction meant that despite having deceived six elderly people, he was out of prison already after one year. The last frauds were practically unpunished.

Madam Speaker! Behind every such crime, there is a human being. There is a child or an elderly person who has not only lost money but also security and trust in others.

Those who systematically cheat elderly people should not receive a greater discount the more people they manage to victimize. This naturally also applies to the criminal gangs and their core activities: narcotics crimes, weapons crimes, explosions, arson murders, fraud, and the recruitment of children.

A tragic case can show what the last thing I mentioned means in practice. A gang leader in one of our larger cities managed to have a 15-year-old boy place an explosive charge, and the boy was then killed in the explosion that followed. After that, the perpetrator threatened a number of other children to their lives if they were to snitch to the police. When he was sentenced, his discount was more than three years.

This is the bulk discount in practice. This is what the Social Democrats, the Centre Party, the Left Party and the Green Party will vote to retain today.

Madam Speaker! This is not enough. Today we will also vote on increasing the penalties for the most serious crimes by instructing the judges to use the entire sentencing scales – all the way up to the maximum penalty – for the most serious acts. But even that, the Social Democrats, the Centre Party, the Left Party, and the Green Party will vote against.

The Social Democrats write in the special statement they have submitted to the Chamber that the cost must be weighed against other societal needs. In plain terms, it means that they think this is too expensive. But, Madam Speaker, the great cost to society does not arise when dangerous perpetrators are locked up? It arises when they go free and can harm other people, destroy property, rob and rape.

The Social Democrats are calculating the cost of prison places, but who is calculating the cost for the children who appear in the child pornography? Who is calculating the cost for the pensioners who have lost their security and their trust in other people? Who is calculating the cost for a 15-year-old who was blown up to death after being pressured by a gang criminal?

These are also costs that have largely arisen due to the Social Democrats' multi-criminal experiments with Sweden. These are costs that one is now, therefore, refusing to take responsibility for.

Madam Speaker! Why does one refuse to do it? Why does one say no? Well, it is because there is an ideological resistance in the left-wing opposition – in the Social Democratic party and even more among their comrades in Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet. They do not want to tighten the penalties. If the red-greens win the election, there will be no abolition of the volume discounts. There is no support for it.

The Social Democrats, however, cannot allow this, as it would risk losing the election. Therefore, they have instead chosen to come up with an excuse, and that is what we have heard in the media when this has been discussed over the last few days. They are providing pure disinformation and claiming that this could not be implemented before 2040.

Madam Speaker! What is being claimed is not true. If this were not feasible, I wonder how it is then that the extensive investigation which forms the basis for this proposal suggests that it should be implemented as early as two years from now, i.e., 2028? How is it that the Prison and Probation Service is already calculating that it should be implemented in 2028?

The government says that this should be implemented during the next mandate period, and the Sweden Democrats naturally say the same thing. Everyone agrees: If Tidö wins the election, we will abolish volume discounts for crime. It is the Social Democrats and their friends in the opposition who say that it is not possible, and then they close their eyes and hope that we will believe this lie. However, it is a bluff – a bluff that grossly benefits criminals at the expense of crime victims.

Madam Speaker! We will proceed with the abolition of volume discounts. We will carry it out as we have promised. We do not intend to let Magdalena Andersson, Nooshi Dadgostar, or Teresa Carvalho stop us. Today, we intend to continue our work to provide justice for crime victims. We intend to abolish the volume discounts, because our goal is to make Sweden safe again.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! I will begin by saying that the Centre Party says no to today's proposal, but it is not because they are unreasonable proposals. We view it positively and think it is reasonable to introduce conditional imprisonment as a new penalty, to utilize the entire sentencing scale, to abolish the reasons of leniency, and to change the quantity discounts.

We say no because it is unreasonable to present legislation that cannot be implemented within a foreseeable timeframe. It is unreasonable that the government and the coalition partners have not created the resources and capabilities for its entry into force. This has now become a loud debate.

We have demands and ambitions that the legislation should be clear so that everyone who is in Sweden knows which laws and rules apply. It is normative, general-preventive, and good for everyone. We are now in an election campaign where we have voters and citizens to focus on. In that case, I believe it is important to have clarity here as well.

We have heard the member, also chairman of the Committee on Justice, stand and say: Today, the volume discount is abolished. How can the member claim that the volume discount is now abolished when, for one thing, it is not abolished at all but changed? There will still be a volume discount remaining.

Secondly, it is not happening at all now, but it will happen at some unclear point in the future. Can the member understand that the member's statement can be perceived as that the volume discount is being abolished and that this is being implemented now? We both know that is not the case.

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ulrika Liljeberg, for the question!

It is a rather unusual situation that we find ourselves in. The government has presented a proposal that the opposition says is so good that they want it to be implemented faster than the government and the majority are implementing it.

What we have said is that we will be able to abolish the volume discounts during the next mandate period. That was also something I was clear about in my speech. I am, in itself, positive that there seems to be an eagerness to do it faster, but one must also do things in a timely manner. Now we are going to have an election, and after that, we will implement this.

The idea that one should not be able to speak of it as an abolition today because it is not to be implemented until the next mandate period is strangely selective. That is how it looks in a multitude of different issues. We make decisions in the Riksdag, and after that, we implement the proposals.

They must be sent out in different ways because different authorities need to prepare and because different types of processes are to be carried out. In this case, it concerns the Prison and Probation Service.

That bulk discount is being abolished is a fact when we vote on it in the Riksdag. Then the Swedish Riksdag will have decided that we are no longer to have bulk discounts in Sweden. It is also a fact that the Center Party will vote no to this.

It is strange that one says they want something and then does everything they can to stop it when it can actually be implemented. If we are to seriously believe that Centerpartiet wants to implement this, Centerpartiet must naturally vote yes today, otherwise it becomes too transparent.

Why will one actually vote no? It is because one is preparing for a government with Vänsterpartiet. One knows that with Vänsterpartiet, one can never get this proposal through. Therefore, one is preparing for that now and claims that this cannot be implemented. It is low, weak, and a bluff. One owes the voters better.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! It is good, nevertheless, that the member now concedes that the amendment is not being introduced now. The member maintains that the volume discounts are being abolished, but that is also not correct. Volume discounts will remain.

I agree that it is an unusual situation. What is unusual is that the government wants the Riksdag to pretend that the legislation in substance and the possibilities for its entry into force are not connected at all.

I have full respect for saying "Now we are lowering the age of criminal responsibility" when it happens on September 10. I would have full respect if the member had said "Now we are doing this" if the entry into force had occurred at the turn of the year or even next summer, because then we have a point in time.

Now it appears that it is to take place during the next parliamentary term. But in all documents and in what applies, it states that one does not know with certainty when it can take place. This is what distinguishes the proposal.

We cannot pretend that it can be equated with having dated entry into force, such as when some agreement with some international organization is to be fulfilled or that legislation, for example, enters into force during war.

It is a completely different situation when the government puts a large penal reform package on the Riksdag's table and one does not know at all when it can come into force. Still, the member stands here and says that the volume discount is now being abolished. It is a double error. That is what is unusual in this situation.

It is remarkable that the fact that the legislation cannot be implemented within a foreseeable timeframe is downplayed in the way it is by a party that has the ambition to govern this country.

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Madam Speaker! If by "unforeseeable time" one means two years, then yes. What the Prison and Probation Service and others are calculating is 2028. That is the year we are talking about.

The reason there is an uncertainty about whether this will be implemented or not has nothing to do with this product. It has to do with the fact that Sweden is a democracy.

What I am saying is that it will be implemented during the next mandate period if the Tidö parties continue to have a majority. That is the statement we can give, but we cannot trump a parliamentary election.

If it were the case that the red-greens win the election, if the Center Party is part of the government after the election, it will not be implemented. That is also something I am open about.

I believe the voters understand that what we are now presenting is the Tidö parties' policy. We want to abolish the volume discounts, but the red-green parties say no. If they get into power, there will be no abolition of the volume discounts.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 1.

Sweden needs an offensive crime policy that meets reality. Organized crime has become a threat to the system. Almost once a month, women are murdered by men they once loved. More and more children are exposed to abuse and sexual exploitation. Against this crime, society must be stronger, tougher, and more persistent. Therefore, justice issues have rightly been prioritized in Swedish politics in recent years.

Sweden needs a tougher stance against this both dangerous and socially harmful crime. The government has done much that is good and necessary. We Social Democrats have also taken our responsibility. We have revised and developed our policy. We go to the election as a changed and more proactive party, not least in these issues.

When the government has presented proposals that make Sweden safer, we have voted for them. We have been involved in voting through double penalties for gang criminals, indeterminate prison sentences for repeat violent rapists, and that repeated aggravated rapes can now result in life imprisonment.

When the government recently tightened the penalties for 50 crimes, we also voted yes, even though we missed tightenings for serious economic crimes, child pornography crimes, and serious violations of women's peace. We will tighten those penalties if we receive the voters' confidence to form a government in the autumn.

For us Social Democrats, it is absolutely crucial that all criminal policy reforms are both legally sound and effective. We only vote yes to reforms that are well-thought-out, feasible, and funded. Pure hygiene factors, one could say. The Tidö government's latest criminal law reform, which we are now to decide on, does not come anywhere close to meeting those requirements.

Madam Speaker! The Government's proposal for a new penalty system contains several different parts, including a change to the much-debated volume discount. There are parts that are good. But there are also parts that are less justified and others that raise serious questions that are not answered.

Despite the fact that the bill contains political ideas and directions that we support, we will vote no. The product as a whole simply does not measure up.

The proposals are sloppily prepared, the prison places do not exist, and the financing most resembles a classic IOUs. Now Gunnar Strömmer intends to slip out the back way, and he hopes that the next company will take care of the bill.

The proposed legislative changes do not even have an effective date. We are therefore going to change the law in the law book but not in reality. The latter may sound like an administrative trifle, but it is not. It contradicts how the constitution stipulates that we shall enact laws in Sweden.

It is the people's representatives in Sweden's Riksdag who decide on both which laws shall apply and when they shall enter into force. But now the government is asking the Riksdag for a blank check. That is not something I intend to sign. It would be, in fact, deeply irresponsible towards the voters.

In the election campaign, we will hear "Now we have abolished the volume discounts!" from the Tidögänget. But it will remain. The truth is, therefore, that rapists, robbery-by-humiliation perpetrators, and elderly fraudsters will receive the same sentence discount for several years to come, despite the government's promises. This is not serious legislation. It is a castle in the air. It is a political sleight of hand. And as a procedure, the non-existent effective date is actually a pure parliamentary provocation.

Let me be clear: the Social Democrats' starting point is, and has been, that volume discounts shall be completely abolished for dangerous crimes that harm other people. But we will not lend our votes to any bluff reform.

The reason for the government's actions is obvious: the Prison and Probation Service does not have the prison places or the staff required. The volume reduction proposed in this bill, which the government has chosen to present as a whole, will, according to the Prison and Probation Service, not be able to be accommodated until 2040 at the earliest. And to implement legislation before then, the consequences of which cannot certainly be accommodated, would be irresponsible. It risks creating long queues to serve prison sentences and, in the worst case, a British scenario, where a future government is forced to release prisoners prematurely. That would be a catastrophe. If prison years are sentenced, one must have prison places in parity with this. It is that simple.

I note that the Moderaterna have had internal brainstorming sessions on how prisons can be expanded more quickly. Unfortunately, they have not listened to the proposals that we Social Democrats have put on the table here during this parliamentary term. They also seem to have pious hopes that crime will somehow magically drop drastically from one day to the next and that is what will solve the space shortage. But that, Madam Speaker, is wishful thinking. It is not serious crime policy.

In the bill that is now on our table, there is no plan and no credibility, only a blank check without coverage. I have also, of course, noted that the Moderaterna, after massive criticism of this bill, have had to manage the crisis, patch and repair, and suddenly have given an election promise to realize this entire reform already during the next mandate period.

Everyone who follows these questions knows that they are fantasies. Had it been realistic, and had it been the government's intention from the beginning, one would obviously have ensured that there was an effective date in this bill. But that is not the case. Therefore, I see this move mostly as a sign of moderate desperation. My guess is that the voters draw the same conclusion.

It is also interesting that the Moderaterna have already begun to rake in for the upcoming failure. Since they know that the prison places do not exist for them to be able to activate the reform as early as the next mandate period, they have during their election tour – without the other Tidö parties, nota bene – launched an alternative scenario where only the volume discount is extracted from the bill we are debating today.

Here, unfortunately, moderate dreams collide with reality. The fact is that a broken quantity discount presupposes a new proposition that passes this chamber. Allowing the quantity discount to precede the other parts of the proposition requires the government to activate only that part. But the new chapter 28 of the Penal Code that is proposed cannot exist simultaneously with the currently applicable Penal Code, which shall otherwise apply, where chapter 28 regulates the protective supervision. There simply cannot be two chapter 28s at the same time.

Madam Speaker! We do not know how the election will go. The only thing we know is that the next government, regardless of color, will need to return with a new bill on a new regulation of volume discounts. That is what we Social Democrats intend to do – immediately. But the Tidö parties' plan seems to be to wait a few years. We also know now with certainty that the Tidö parties have painted themselves into a corner.

Madam Speaker! To this, then, come the costs. The reform is estimated to cost around 41 billion kronor extra every year for the Prison and Probation Service alone. In addition, there are several billion for the police, prosecutors, courts, and other authorities. The bill for the entire proposal is 46 billion kronor per year. That is twice as much as the entire state's reform room for one year.

Just to make visible how much money we are talking about here: With 40 billion per year, we could double the police's resources or hire 50,000 new nurses in healthcare or build two new Karolinska hospitals per year or buy 25 new Jas 39 Gripen E, including spare parts, per year.

It is about large sums of money that – yes, Gunnar Strömmer – must be weighed against other things that Sweden needs: healthcare, schools, defense, the police, and the crime prevention work to prevent children from being drawn into gang criminality. But the government has not presented any proposals at all for how this is to be financed. At the same time, the government itself says that the money is finished, and so one borrows 200,000 kronor per minute. This equation does not add up.

Madam Speaker! The fact that the bill contains good parts does not make the whole acceptable. It is the government's responsibility to present proposals that can be financed and implemented. We Social Democrats claim to take responsibility for Sweden after the election, and then we can in no way vote yes to a reform that lacks an implementation plan, lacks financing, and lacks sufficient quality in its legal formulation.

To vote yes to this proposal would be like buying an apartment and signing the contract without a loan commitment and without a move-in date, and furthermore, delegating to the seller the decision of when one may move in – probably at some point in 14 years. Who would sign such a contract? Nevertheless, in practice, this is exactly what the government is now asking the voters to accept – to give their approval before the most important conditions are in place and simultaneously delegate to the government the decision of when, or if, the promise shall be fulfilled.

Madam Speaker! It is directly inappropriate that the Riksdag is expected to decide on legislation that is not intended to come into force for several years. That is not how we do things in Sweden. To make such extensive changes to the law book without them being to start applying in reality is nothing other than misleading the Swedish people.

But – and here I also want to be very clear – that we Social Democrats say no to this unserious bill does not mean that we think all the political ideas behind it are bad. Nor does it mean that we stand passive. On the contrary, the Social Democrats want to strike significantly harder against organized crime, against gangs, against men's violence against women, and against sexual abuse of children. We want to see increased repression, applied with precision. We Social Democrats want accurate sentencing increases, more police, and a Swedish mafia law so that we can prosecute more villains. At the same time, we want to make historical investments in stopping the new recruitment of children and young people.

When it comes to quantity discounts, we, just like the government, want multiple crimes to be punished more severely than they are today. This applies primarily to violent and sexual crimes. If we gain the voters' confidence to form a government this autumn, yes, then we will start with the sexual crimes. We will be able to do that immediately, and it will be executed quickly – for, Madam Speaker, politics is about will, but it is also about prioritizing and executing and being honest with the Swedish people.

The Riksdag will need to take a new approach to this issue in the next mandate period, regardless of the government's color, because the system must be reformed in an orderly, legally secure, funded, and feasible way. The government's bill runs an overriding risk of becoming outdated before it even sees the light of day. To begin by abolishing the volume discounts for sexual offenses is therefore not only right and reasonable. It is also how we use society's resources so that they make a difference. It is how we conduct effective crime policy for real. It is how we take the development of crime seriously.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Madam Speaker! In the same speaker's chair that Teresa Carvalho is now standing in, Morgan Johansson stood quite recently and defended the volume discounts – the volume discount that the Social Democrats once upon a time designed. Now Carvalho claims that the Social Democrats have reconsidered and indeed do want to abolish the volume discounts. But if they really wanted that, they would have voted yes to our proposal to abolish it in its entirety. The Social Democrats' objections are nonsense. Their own proposal is a half-measure that only abolishes the volume discounts for certain crimes; for most crimes, the volume discounts are not abolished.

This is about the Social Democrats actually wanting to keep the volume discounts but pretending to be something else. It is exactly like when the Social Democrats want to raise taxes but pretend that the citizens will not have to pay, or when they say they want to keep a strict migration policy but actually want to ease the rules.

What is most distressing is that one is being met with lies. It is claimed that this will not be possible to implement until 2040. That is not true. The year 2040 is an end date for the expansion. In Kriminalvården's own plan, they count on 2028. We can and will implement this next mandate period if we win the election.

Teresa Carvalho also says that this will be far too expensive. I can only note that one wants to spend more money on increased aid than it would cost to lock up criminals. It is also a prioritization, but it is not a prioritization I believe in.

Teresa Carvalho knows that she is lying about 2040 and so on. She is misleading the voters. The question is: Why does the member not stand for what she and the Social Democrats actually think?

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! I believe that I and the Social Democrats are better suited to explain to this House and to the Swedish people what I and the Social Democrats believe in than Fredrik Kärrholm is. Let me add that I have championed this issue here in the House for several years and have submitted motions in the Swedish Riksdag to abolish quantity discounts since 2020. Last year, the Social Democrats submitted a proposal to the Riksdag to abolish quantity discounts for violence and sexual offenses.

I note that Fredrik Kärrholm has observed that we Social Democrats have changed our crime policy since the last parliamentary term. That is good. I believe the voters have also perceived it.

Regarding the time duration, Kärrholm has two problems with his claims.

Firstly, the investigation did not propose what the government has put on the table. No, the investigation proposed what we Social Democrats then proposed in the Riksdag last year, that is, that the volume discount shall be abolished for crimes against life and health. It is still our position in this matter. It is not the investigation's proposal that the government has put forward, but the government has doubled the scope regarding the volume discount. The year 2028 therefore becomes completely irrelevant in this context. It is nothing more than a straw that Fredrik Kärrholm is grasping at.

Secondly, 2028 is a hypothetical point in time in the investigation. Nothing appears there about the volume reductions occurring at a certain date. It states clearly and distinctly in the investigation that 2040 is the earliest point in time when one can handle the volume reductions that this proposition will entail and which are a whole.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Madam Speaker! I can only state that Teresa Carvalho continues to propagate falsehoods. She refers to 2040. But Sweden's Minister of Justice, who is sitting here in the chamber today, has repeatedly explained that we will be able to carry this out during the next mandate period. The voters will simply have to decide whether they believe in Gunnar Strömmer or in Teresa Carvalho, who claims to take over his office. I know who I believe in.

I asked the member why the Social Democrats do not stand for what they actually think. I received no answer, but I did not expect an answer either. Instead, new falsehoods came. Let me instead explain this to the voters: Carvalho and Magdalena Andersson know that the Swedish people do not share the social democratic notion that it is actually a pity for those who commit crimes, that criminals are victims of society's injustices and that society therefore always has a responsibility to help criminals and give them a new chance.

The Moderates, on the other hand, believe that those who choose to commit crimes are responsible for their own actions, that crime victims deserve redress, and that there are dangerous individuals that society must be protected from. Therefore, the Moderates vote today not only to abolish bulk discounts but to settle the matter of defensive criminal law. The Social Democrats vote to retain it.

I actually do not wish for any further answer from the member, for I do not believe that I will hear a single honest word.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! In this chamber, we make decisions based on the materials we have received on our table from the government in the form of bills. In the bill that is now on our table, it appears very clearly that the Prison and Probation Service does not assess that it will be able to handle the volume increases until 2040 at the earliest. This is what the Minister for Justice writes in his own bill. We cannot take a position on what the Minister for Justice stands here in the chamber and claims a few hours before the vote. We take a position on what is written in the bill. In this chamber, we enact laws, Fredrik Kärrholm. We do not write wish lists to the plot.

Since Fredrik Kärrholm has obviously lost his hearing, I have to repeat what the Social Democrats think on this issue. We want to abolish the quantity discounts for violence and sexual crimes, Fredrik Kärrholm. We have presented that proposal here in the Riksdag, and that is what we stand for. We are honest with the voters and say that our prisons are packed and that we will need to start somewhere if we, as the Tidö coalition, are not going to wait for several years to abolish the quantity discounts when it comes to violent rapes and assaults. Therefore, we are going to the election on starting by abolishing the quantity discounts on violent rapes, assaults, and other sexual crimes. We can, in fact, achieve that quickly. One can choose that option or to make many changes for all crimes at some point in the future. The proposal that is now on the Riksdag's table implies the latter.

(Applause)

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

Paulina Brandberg (L)

Madam Speaker! Teresa Carvalho states that the Social Democrats will vote against the government's proposal and instead want to abolish the volume discounts only for sexual and violent crimes, if I have understood that correctly. This was also an announcement that we heard from the Social Democrats at a press conference the other day. I must say that I was quite surprised when I heard that the proposal was put forward by Thomas Bodström. Thomas Bodström is, as is well known, a criminal defense lawyer and should reasonably realize the enormous practical problems it would entail if our courts had to apply parallel principles for sentencing in the same case.

Madam Speaker! I want to be clear that I also think it is extremely important to abolish quantity discounts for violence and sexual crimes. The problem is that the proposal would probably work quite well in cases that only deal with violence and sexual crimes, but that is not how reality looks. In many cases, we see extensive crime consisting of several different types of crimes. Sometimes it is several different types of crimes against the same crime victim, sometimes it is crimes against several different crime victims, and sometimes it is crimes without crime victims. We see perpetrators who act alone and perpetrators who commit crimes in several different constellations against different crime victims.

With the Social Democrats' proposal, in plain Swedish, it would become a total mess in our courts. They would, therefore, need to make collective sentencing assessments and combine two different models in the same sentencing, and inevitably, difficult-to-justify threshold effects would arise.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! I did not hear exactly where Paulina Brandberg wanted to go, but perhaps I still have a sense of where it is heading. I will therefore try to provide answers to the speech.

Regarding the limitation, that is to say which crimes we envision should be included in a removal of the volume discount, the basis is actually the same as in the reasoning presented by the Penal Reform Commission. It is therefore not the Social Democrats who have invented this construction, but we lean on the same expert commission that the government has leaned on in all other parts that have emerged from this penal reform.

In this part, the government has however chosen to depart from the Criminal Justice Reform Commission's proposal – and quite significantly, moreover. One chooses to more than double the scope in this part, and it is clear that this has consequences both regarding the correctional services' capacity and regarding the financing. Ultimately, it obviously has consequences for when this can enter into force.

If one were to boil this down to something very simple, I understand it as that I and Paulina Brandberg agree that today's order with volume discounts is wrong – in many cases directly offensive – and that it should be changed. We Social Democrats think that the Penal Reform Commission reasoned wisely regarding making a delimitation where one primarily includes crimes against life and health – or violence and sexual crimes, as we instead usually express it.

This has, as said, several reasons, but it is clear that a very important reason is to be able to carry this out in some kind of near future. As the situation looks today, after all the sentencing increases that have been introduced both by the previous S-government and by the Tidö government, we must make delimitations. We see that we must start with the sexual offenses, so that this can be implemented quickly instead of having to wait for several years.

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

Paulina Brandberg (L)

Madam Speaker! The practical implementation difficulties that I raised in my first speech have been handled by the government by taking this broader approach. This avoids threshold effects, and it avoids the extreme injustice, quite simply, that would arise in our courts when different crime victims for different types of crimes were to receive completely different protections.

Teresa Carvalho said from the rostrum that the Social Democrats only vote through proposals that are feasible and legally secure. I wonder how Teresa Carvalho views the confusion that would arise and the criticism that would likely come from all referral bodies regarding such a proposal. I also wonder how she views the lack of legal certainty that would arise from, due to these different parallel systems, having no predictability in the system.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! If we take the broad approach that Paulina Brandberg and the government want to take, we end up in the situation we are in now, where we have to take a stand on a bill that the government itself says cannot come into force for several years. It will take so long that one does not even dare to set an effective date during the next parliamentary term. Therefore, we face the choice of whether we should do part of this, and do it quickly, or whether we should wait for several years and make a mass of changes in the sentencing and the penalty system for all crimes.

There, we Social Democrats have said that the most important thing for us is that the sentence reduction disappears for offenses against children and rape, for example. Let us start at that end! Then we can move on to other crimes. I am not saying that it is simple, but we make the assessment that it is fully possible – which is exactly the same assessment that the Penal Reform Commission made.

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Madam Speaker! We recognize the rhetoric that the Social Democrats use: One says that this is not possible, and then one cites various types of legal and administrative arguments that have been constructed to fit one's own description. One says that it is unserious. One highlights figures that actually do not belong in the context and which one sets against something else, that is, creates false contradictions. It is a kind of smokescreen that one employs.

This is a fine old Social Democratic tradition. We recognize it from a former, quite well-known, Social Democratic Minister of Justice whom we had a lot to do with during previous terms, namely Morgan Johansson. It was he who said: Now we have done everything to reduce the shootings – now there is nothing more we can do!

Since the Tidö government took office, the number of shootings has been halved. Or what is it we are at now – is it an 80 percent reduction? I believe so.

Same Morgan Johansson, who incredibly enough was allowed to continue as Minister for Justice under Magdalena Andersson, also said: We can't do anything about the asylum migration, because it is regulated by international rules! It sounded roughly like what Teresa Carvalho is saying now, that is to say: That is something we have no control over; it just is what it is!

What happened next? Well, the Tidö government took office, and asylum-related immigration – including relatives – is now the lowest in over 40 years. The Social Democrats' rhetoric is therefore just a bluff. It is clear that this works.

Madam Speaker! Why does Teresa Carvalho not admit the real reason why one votes no today? Why does she not admit that it is all about the fact that there will be no abolition of the volume discount if Magdalena Andersson and Nooshi Dadgostar get power in Sweden? One is simply not prepared to spend the money that this costs, because they want to spend it on something else – for example, increased aid, which is therefore a more expensive reform than this penalty tightening reform would be.

Madam Speaker! Can Teresa Carvalho not be honest about what everyone already understands?

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! What no one understands is the following: If it were even possible at all on the world map that this entire reform could be launched next mandate period, why is there no effective date? Everyone understands that it is because no one believes that this will hold – not even with duct tape, Henrik Vinge.

I must say that Henrik Vinge is throwing a rather large stone in his glass house considering that the Tidö parties are not in agreement on aid. Henrik Vinge points to aid as a possible source of funding, and that is something the Kristdemokraterna would hardly accept.

Madam Speaker! I would like to take this opportunity to pose a question back to Henrik Vinge. I have, in fact, enjoyed digging a little bit into previous motions and requests, and I found something very interesting from 2022, which, after all, is not particularly long ago.

Then the Sweden Democrats wrote a statement in the Committee on Justice where they proposed that it should not be permitted to delay the entry into force of democratically made decisions on stricter sentencing with reference to capacity shortages at the Prison and Probation Service – that is, exactly what the Sweden Democrats are doing right now. Therefore, I simply wonder: Were the Sweden Democrats right in 2022, or are the Sweden Democrats right in 2026 – or is all of this just hypocrisy, Henrik Vinge?

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Madam Speaker! The only ones who are pushing for an entry into force are the Social Democrats and the left-wing opposition. It is they who say that the abolition of the volume discount should not occur during the next mandate period.

The Tidö parties are in agreement. We shall implement this during the next mandate period – that is exactly what we have stood and said throughout this entire debate. It is the Social Democrats who say that it is not possible. It is the Social Democrats who lay out smokescreens and invent different types of arguments to somehow obscure the picture for the voters.

It is clear: the Sweden Democrats and the Tidö government will implement this during the next mandate period. The red-green opposition will not. This is what this entire debate is about.

When it comes to the aid, it is not primarily about a source of funding but rather about a promise that the Social Democrats are making. It is about exactly what they are now criticizing the Tidö parties for. They are making a promise of 50 billion, unfunded and without an effective date. It is more expensive than the criminal justice reform. Exactly what they are now accusing the Tidö government of doing, they are doing themselves in the case of the aid.

This is not a question of technicalities or that we cannot afford it. It is a question of priorities. The Tidö government will prioritize the abolition of the volume discount. The red-greens – Nooshi Dadgostar, Magdalena Andersson and Teresa Carvalho – will prioritize aid and grants. This is what today's debate is about.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! The emperor is naked. The bluff is called, Henrik Vinge. If this bill was intended to be able to enter into force in the next parliamentary period, the government and the Sweden Democrats would obviously have inserted an effective date. They have not done so, however, because they know that it will not hold.

Everyone can see that the Tidö parties cannot agree on how the party will be financed. The bill for this legislative proposal is 46 billion kronor per year. That is twice as much as the reform space over one year. How this is to be financed, the government does not say a word about – and neither do the Sverigedemokraterna, for that matter, in any coherent sense.

Henrik Vinge repeats: It is possible, it is possible, it is possible. But if it had been possible, it would, again, have been in the bill. It is the bill we take a position on, not empty election promises from individual parliamentary candidates or parties. We actually do not take a position on what is presented here in the parliamentary rostrum, but we take a position on what is in the bill.

I understand that Henrik Vinge does not care particularly much about the democratic processes here in the Riksdag; that has become clear with all desirable clarity. But there must actually be some order in a legislative process.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Madam Speaker! For decades, Sweden has had an insufficient criminal law. During my years as a police officer, I witnessed this at close range.

I remember one case in particular. A twelve-year-old girl was tricked down into a basement by a man. Down in the dark basement, he threatened her with a knife and sexually assaulted her. The terror must have been horrific. The sentence was not even two years' imprisonment. It was one year and nine months, and the man was released after two-thirds.

A short time after he had been released from prison, he committed new assaults. He attacked a nine-year-old girl, pulled her into a bush and raped her brutally. Shortly thereafter, this dangerous pedophile was at large again.

I see Teresa Carvalho sitting and laughing in the rows of seats. Please listen to what I am saying now! This is what defensive criminal law looks like in reality. Teresa Carvalho told that she met a police officer this summer. I worked as a police officer for over ten years.

Unfortunately, this is just one of tens of thousands of examples of how the inadequacy of criminal law results in human suffering that could have been avoided. It is precisely this – that it should be avoided – that our change of the criminal law aims for. That this system has not been corrected by previous governments is an inexcusable political betrayal.

Madam Speaker! That reforms are historical is an overused claim in politics, but what we are debating here today is a historical reform. In 1962 – 64 years ago – the Riksdag adopted the Penal Code. In 1989 – nearly 40 years ago – the last major reform was implemented. It aimed to further reduce the use of prison sentences. With the 1989 reform, we got a system where the perpetrator's interest in avoiding prison came to weigh heavily. The crime victim's need for redress and society's legitimate interest in protection had to take a back seat.

Now, the government's ambition is that more criminals should be imprisoned and that they should receive longer sentences. The reasons for this are two. Firstly, it is about crime victims receiving justice. This need is as human and important as care, understanding, and respect. Secondly, it is about preventing and deterring crime. Someone who is locked up simply cannot commit new crimes out in society. For well-known forms of crime, harsher sentences also have a deterrent effect. This is what our well-meaning friends on the left refuse to acknowledge.

Now we see how the gang-related violent crime is decreasing thanks to an offensive crime policy and increased penalties aimed at organized crime. This saves lives. Also, burglaries and several other types of crime are decreasing significantly.

With stricter penalties – through the criminal justice reform that we are talking about here today – we can also ensure that other forms of crime decrease. We can, for example, ensure that fewer nine-year-old girls are raped, simply by having violent pedophiles locked up.

Madam Speaker! We have already tightened some fifty sentencing scales, ensured that aggravated rapes can lead to life imprisonment, introduced security detention as a specific penalty, introduced double sentences for gang criminals and more than that. Today, the Riksdag decides on further legislative changes of greater principal importance. This is about much more than discounts. What is being debated today is the completion of the system shift that the government has worked intensively on during the mandate period.

It is about removing the presumption against imprisonment, about ensuring that the entire range of penalties is used, and about removing unfair mitigating circumstances. These mean, among other things, that a perpetrator, for example a rapist, receives a milder sentence because he loses his job or because he injured himself when he committed the crime.

Madam Speaker! Before the 1991 election, the Moderaterna had election posters with the text: Remove the revolving doors in Kumla. The Moderaterna won that election, and Gun Hellsvik was appointed Minister for Justice. She spoke then about the need to make fundamental changes to criminal law. Important steps were taken, but the work was not completed during the then shorter – three-year – mandate period.

Hellsvik noted that it would require additional parliamentary terms before the criminal policy was reformed in the way she and the M sought, but when the S regained government power, the renovation was put on hold. The sentencing debate remained. The presumption against imprisonment remained. The order where the sentences were concentrated at the lower ends of the sentencing scales remained. For three decades, nothing of principal importance was changed.

It has only been nudged until now. The Social Democrats have obviously been completely uninterested in changing the foundations of criminal law. Here in the speaker's chair stood Morgan Johansson as recently as the last parliamentary term and defended quantity discounts. But with the Moderate-led government elected in 2022, and under Justice Minister Gunnar Strömmer, we have finally resumed the work of reforming the inadequate criminal law.

Madam Speaker! It is obvious that the Social Democrats do not want this. They are happy to talk about tough measures and the need for change, but when the reform is on the table, they vote no. They vote no to abolishing volume discounts, no to removing the presumption against imprisonment, no to using the entire range of sentences, no to stricter penalties, and no to settling the matter of defensive criminal law. The Social Democrats fundamentally want to preserve the criminal law that they themselves created at one time. They want to keep it. They do not want any systemic shift, and this is about ideology.

The Social Democratic social analysis asserts that it is actually a pity for those who commit crimes, that criminals are victims of society's alleged injustices, and that society therefore has a responsibility to help the criminals and give them a new chance in all circumstances. The Social Democrats view incarceration as a necessary evil that should be minimized. This is what they do not want to say, because they know that the Swedish people do not agree.

The Moderates, on the other hand, believe that those who choose to commit crimes are responsible for their own actions, that crime victims deserve redress, and that there are many dangerous individuals that society must be protected from.

I also note that the Social Democrats do not mention the rule of law. Not a single word is mentioned about the state's fundamental responsibility to protect citizens from violence and crime. Nor are crime victims mentioned even once in the Social Democrats' follow-up motion.

Madam Speaker! I am grateful that we have a government that safeguards the rule of law and that Sweden can now obtain a criminal law worthy of the name, which provides redress for crime victims and which protects honest citizens. And when life imprisonment is not sentenced, the convicted person shall, to the greatest extent possible, be reintegrated into society. Redress, protection, and reintegration are three purposes without contradiction, three parts of the same rule-of-law responsibility, and this is ensured with this reform.

An important part of the reform is to make the sentencing more nuanced. This means that the entire sentencing scale shall be used. It may sound obvious, but in practice, sentences are in most cases handed out in the lower part of the sentencing scale, while the upper part of the sentencing scale is rarely used and the maximum penalty is in principle never handed out. That is not how it should be. The sentencing scale shall mean what it indicates. The sentencing scale is not a theoretical framework. It expresses an expectation from the elected Riksdag of which sentences the courts shall actually hand out.

Another important part is that multiple crimes are given greater significance. The so-called quantity discount means that repeated crimes automatically result in a sentencing discount according to a mathematical model. Only the first crime gives the full sentencing value. The second crime gives only one-third, the third one-sixth, and after that, hardly anything.

This is a profound injustice, because behind every crime there is a human being: a new young man who has been robbed and humiliated, a new retiree who has been deprived of his savings, a new young woman who has been subjected to abuse. The second crime victim's suffering is no less than the first. The second crime is no less illegal than the first.

But for those who have committed enough crimes, continued criminality has in practice remained unpunished. It is absurd that the police every day arrest criminals who do not care one bit, because they know that it will have no consequences. Now we are changing this.

There are plenty of research studies showing that incapacitation of specifically high-frequency offenders is a very effective way to reduce crime in society. Of great importance is also that the presumption against imprisonment is removed. In today's system, the starting point is that imprisonment should be avoided. That order has its gaze directed towards the perpetrator's interest in avoiding imprisonment while the victim's interest and society's need for protection are neglected. It is not a reasonable order, and we also adjust this.

Even unjust mitigating circumstances are removed. The person who harms themselves when committing a crime shall not receive a lower sentence. The person who loses their job due to their crime shall not receive a lower sentence. That a long time has passed since the crime was committed shall not in itself be a reason for mitigation of the sentence.

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats are not only voting no to abolishing volume discounts. They are voting no to this entire criminal law reform. This is a legal policy line from the Social Democrats. But they do not dare to stand by it, so now they are trying to shift the focus from substance to process. They claim that our reform is not serious. It is a completely baseless accusation against an investigation of over 2,000 pages and a preparatory process that has been ongoing for three years. I have personally debated these issues for over ten years, and this is an extremely well-thought-out reform. The Social Democrats furthermore claim that nothing can be realized until 2040. It is a pure and utter lie.

The Social Democrats also claim that it will be too expensive. But that it would be too expensive to lock up criminals is, if anything, ill-considered. Here, a total lack of understanding is revealed regarding the fact that the socio-economic costs of crime far exceed the cost of more prison places. It can be noted that the Social Democrats want to spend even larger sums on increased assistance. This is therefore not about what Sweden can afford, but about what one prioritizes.

The Social Democrats' own proposal involves none of what we are proposing, except for removing the quantity discounts for certain serious crimes. The vast majority of crimes, however, will continue to be covered by the quantity discounts, including fraud, drug offenses, and child pornography offenses.

Madam Speaker! Since the Riksdag authorizes the government to decide on the effective date, it is unfortunately not enough for the Riksdag to vote on this today. Sweden also clearly needs, after the election, to have a government that wants to implement this reform. It is necessary for the Riksdag to authorize the government because it is true that we do not know the exact date when the correctional services have sufficient capacity. This is therefore the responsible way to resolve this in order to get these reforms in place as soon as possible.

If the Social Democrats had wanted to see these reforms, they would have voted for them, but they do not want to.

Madam Speaker! What we are voting on today is a historical correction, from ambiguity and laxity to clarity and consistency, and from starting from the perpetrator's interests to instead prioritizing the crime victim's need for redress and society's need for protection. The Social Democrats vote no. The Moderates vote yes.

I vote in favor of the government bill and against all subsequent motions.

(Applause)

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has a serious problem with crime. We must be honest about that. And the government has prioritized crime during the mandate period, but ambition is not the same as implementation. This needs to be contrasted with the complete failure of the flagship issue that we are debating here today, namely the major overhaul of the criminal justice system. What everyone in this chamber knows, but which does not become quite clear for the Swedish people, is that the proposal the government has put forward is a rush job. It is not my choice of words, but the Council on Legislation's. They write that the matter cannot be considered sufficiently substantiated and furthermore reject two of the reform's core parts, one of which is precisely the government's focus in this proposal.

We in Vänsterpartiet believe that there can absolutely be reasons to review criminal law. The problem is that the government has so unilaterally focused on just that part. Throughout the entire mandate period, they have forgotten to do the most important thing, namely both the broad crime prevention work that prevents people from engaging in crime at all and the work of ensuring that people who are involved in crime get out of it before they commit the most serious crimes.

It is about exactly those types of measures that we in Vänsterpartiet have proposed time and again. We have, for example, proposed national guidelines for offender programs with binding requirements on what an offender program must contain. The government's response to this was to appoint an inquiry. But this inquiry will be reported first barely two months after the election, while the increased penalties are to be hammered through now, four weeks before the election. Preventive work is apparently not as urgent for the government. They prioritize being hard and tough instead of proposing measures that actually reduce crime in society.

What could have been an interesting and serious debate therefore becomes the exact opposite. It creates great uncertainty among the Swedish population. Particularly great is the uncertainty among the crime victims, whom the government says it wants to protect specifically through this reform. How can one be sure that the justice system stands on one's side? Will one truly receive redress? Are the right people being punished?

One of the most important things the population asks is: How can this actually lead to a reduction in crime? It should be a self-evident matter that what we members of the Riksdag do here in Sweden's legislative assembly should always and primarily be for the benefit of the Swedish people and that we have the best interests of the Swedish people in mind in every individual decision.

In a democracy, this means that we can have different opinions about what is actually best. Then we debate and compromise, and in the end, the majority decides. That is how it should be, but then the issues must be properly prepared. The truth here is something completely different.

What the government is doing is not in the Swedish people's interest. It is primarily about themselves. They promised around and held thin, as the saying goes. Instead of admitting their mistake with a held head, they choose to hold their breath. They close their eyes and hope that no one will notice anything, because they think it is worse to admit that they didn't manage to get everything done in time. Therefore, they would rather present a poorly elaborated proposal.

Unfortunately, this has become a hallmark of the government. It is probably also what will become its legacy. It applies to proposal after proposal during this mandate period: too fast, too ill-considered, and too imprecise. It earns a high grade for intention but the lowest grade for implementation. One ignores the experts' objections, even though the warnings given are highly relevant to take into consideration. That is not how you lead a country, especially not in times like these.

We in Vänsterpartiet are prepared to change the penal code but not to implement such extensive changes on such loose grounds. The government itself says that this reform, fully implemented, will cost over 46 billion kronor a year. The prison and probation service alone will account for around 41 of these. Those are the government's words, not mine.

According to the Prison and Probation Service, it will also not be possible to see the reform fully implemented until 2040. We are therefore talking about 14 years. And how much time did the investigation have to produce the largest transformation of criminal law since the introduction of the Penal Code? Well, 22 months, after the government shortened the time. Almost 2,000 pages became the result. After that, it took a little over a year before the government finished a government bill.

It should be said that it was required that the government requested that the Riksdag be convened extra during the summer to manage the matter before the election. That is exactly what we are doing now.

Given that the time perspectives are so long, a number of questions arise. Would it not be reasonable, let alone relevant, to let the investigation continue for longer? This in itself could also give it the opportunity to evaluate and analyze all other changes that have been implemented in the area of criminal policy during the mandate period. What effects do they have? How should the criminal justice system best be adapted based on those decisions?

It is simply difficult to see why it is such an urgency to rush through this right now. It cannot, therefore, be fully implemented until in 14 years, according to the bill and according to the government itself. This is shown by the fact that the government has not even been able to provide a proposal on when the reform should enter into force; the Riksdag is to delegate it to the incoming government to do.

It will also take four parliamentary elections before it will be possible to see the reform fully implemented. The Prison and Probation Service itself estimates that the need for new places will be 29,000 in 2034. We are therefore talking about almost a tripling of today's capacity.

Despite all this, we in the Riksdag are to vote on this haste – four weeks before election day and before the Swedish people have had a chance to say what they think about this. So, one is not conducting politics for the best of the Swedish people.

The government itself has chosen to focus on individual parts of the bill to justify this urgency, but to vote for the entire bill because one thinks a single part is important is not acting seriously.

The government has presented a number of different propositions during the mandate period. Many of them have concerned smaller changes than this one. If it were so important, one could have easily presented a specific proposal regarding just that change which one now chooses to speak most about, but that was not done, probably because it would then become obvious that it is not practically feasible in economic terms.

The government is therefore placing an unfunded proposal on the Riksdag's table, where it is highly unclear whether it will even come into force within the next 14 years. It is based on an investigation where the experts who participated in it themselves have stated that the time constraint meant they did not have the possibility to conduct a complete and unconditional analysis of the proposal's effects.

Why this haste? Why is it not more important that the Swedish people receive well-functioning legislation that holds together? The answer is unfortunately probably that it is about electoral tactical reasons. This is something we in Vänsterpartiet do not stand for. Swedish legislation and the Swedish justice system are worthy of much more respect than that. The Swedish people are worthy of respect.

Let us say no to this poorly elaborated proposal. We can let an investigation have more time to come forward with new, better and feasible proposals in the near future without preconditions, so that we can achieve what must be the goal for all of us: reduced crime in society. This, Madam Speaker, I believe is the objective that the Swedish people expect of us as legislators.

I move for approval of reservation 1.

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet talks a lot about ambition versus efficiency, Samuel Gonzalez Westling. It puzzles me a bit, because efficiency has well been the hallmark of the criminal justice reforms we have implemented during this mandate period.

When we took office, one could read about shootings and explosions almost every day. Today, they are halved or even fewer. Tens of thousands of Swedes have avoided being subjected to crimes such as burglary, summer cottage burglary, and thefts of boat engines. From one year to the next, we had more than 50,000 fewer thefts in Sweden, thanks to the reforms we have implemented.

Point by point, we show that what we do has an effect. It makes a difference for people. It is also the answer to what Samuel Gonzalez Westling said about why it is so urgent. It is because people die if we do not hurry. People become crime victims if we do not hurry.

If we had listened to the objections that Vänsterpartiet and the others in the red-green opposition had on all these points and if we had stopped and not carried this out, we would have had thousands of crime victims in Sweden who would have been harmed or had their property stolen. They have now escaped that thanks to the fact that we have been in a hurry.

One must still give the Left Party credit for being one of the few parties here today that is actually honest about its intentions. If one reads the documents that the Left Party has submitted before the debate, one sees that they do not want to abolish the volume discounts, but rather they want to keep them. Fundamentally, they do not believe in a more repressive policy. I think one should give the Left Party some kind of credit for being open about that.

There are two sides in Swedish politics. There is one side that wants to abolish the volume discounts, and that is the Tidö side. Then there is the red-green side, with Vänsterpartiet, which – if they get into power – will retain the volume discounts.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! I did not perceive any question, but it was probably more of a speech.

It is like this: Vänsterpartiet is interested in ensuring that things improve overall. That is why we also say that we must carry out a total revision and review what is working and what is not, and then propose measures that will have an effect in the future. That is also the objective of what we want to achieve after the election when we get to be part of the government.

The objective is to reduce crime in society, and that means we must ensure that things also get better. It cannot be that we only ensure that people feel afraid and insecure in society, but we must ensure that people get it better so that life becomes better to live in in all different ways. I therefore do not quite know what the contradiction is in what Henrik Vinge is talking about.

The government and the Sweden Democrats want to introduce a system that would make the entire justice system quite insecure in the future. One will not know when the reforms are to be implemented at all, when the costs will come, or what they are to be financed with. Where will the money come from?

We are not getting any answer on that from the Sweden Democrats and the government, and that is why it becomes very difficult for us and for the Swedish people to understand the urgency at all. It would not have been necessary to shorten the time for the investigation and to come up with relevant proposals. The investigation could have been allowed to run its course, come up with real proposals, and then we could have had a serious debate about it.

Today, one cannot have a serious debate. The Council on Legislation and all experts are sawing the proposal to pieces.

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Madam Speaker! I think we have a serious debate. 22 months is almost twice as long as a normal investigation takes, which means that the investigation has had a long time. It is also a significantly longer investigation in terms of text than an investigation normally is, so I think the objection that it is unserious is difficult to take seriously.

If one listens to what Vänsterpartiet says, it sounds as if there are no contradictions: They want to implement a criminal justice policy that is effective, which means that crime decreases and which means that people's lives improve. But why then do they vote against all proposals that mean that crime decreases and that people's lives improve? Why do they vote against the policy that has led to the number of shootings being more than halved? Why do they vote against the policy that has led to the theft of boat motors, burglaries in summer cottages, and thefts overall having decreased by tens of thousands every year? Why do they vote against that policy?

Why is one voting against the policy that will lead to those who, for example, commit repeated child pornography crimes actually being imprisoned for the crimes they commit? Today, we have a situation where a full sentence is handed out for the first child who is subjected to it. For the second child who is subjected to it, a slightly lower sentence is handed out, and for the third, hardly any sentence at all.

When we are dealing with this type of repeat offender, people who show that they are totally ruthless, people who lack inhibitions and who repeatedly subject other people to serious crimes, would it not be more reasonable to lock up such a person even longer to protect children and other people instead of giving the person a discount?

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! I actually do not even understand what Henrik Vinge means. We have voted for proposals here in the chamber as well. We take a position on each proposal, individually, separately. We have, for example, voted for increased penalties for about fifty crimes. We noted that economic crimes, which affect society to an enormous extent, were not included. But that is probably because the government and the Sverigedemokrater do not want their friends to get caught in the crossfire. It is often they who commit that type of crime.

Our criticism of some of the proposals is that there are also other parts that must be considered in this. We think it is reasonable that if one commits a crime, one should be locked up. Absolutely – one should be punished if one commits serious crimes. But there must also be some form of balance in society. There must be an opportunity to be able to feel a freedom when one lives in a society. If we were to introduce a police state, it is true that not particularly many crimes would be committed. But where did the freedom go? Those things need to be included in the calculation, and that is also what we do in every individual consideration.

When we take over power, we will review, investigate, and make assessments of what is working well and what effects it has in the long run. That is something one must do in a society. That is something one must do when sitting in a government and in the Riksdag to make decisions on different types of legislation.

The main objective for Vänsterpartiet is, of course, that as few crimes as possible should be committed in society so that people can feel as free as possible. Freedom is something that is incredibly important for Vänsterpartiet.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and for the rejection of all reservations.

It is well known in the Chamber that the bill we are debating today has been met with criticism from several referral bodies, including the Council on Legislation. For the most part, the criticism focuses on the fact that it has not been shown that stricter punishments lead to reduced crime and that incapacitation is fundamentally inhuman. It was also that reasoning that lay behind and largely constituted the motives for the criminal law reform introduced in 1989, when the presumption against imprisonment came to characterize criminal policy and the choice of penalty.

The question is whether the criticism from the referral bodies has support among the people in general. Over the years, as a police officer, I have had extensive contacts with crime victims and others who have been directly or indirectly affected by crime. It is about individuals who have had their lives destroyed. Crimes of violence and sexual offenses have caused lifelong physical injuries and mental trauma for life. It is about individuals who have had their finances crashed and property destroyed. It is about small business owners who are repeatedly hit by thefts and vandalism or are extorted and forced to pay criminals for protection.

Madam Speaker! My impression and my experience is that the majority, both those affected and people in general, think that we in Sweden have too low punishments and that the courts most often settle in the lower part of the sentencing scale when sentencing. In many cases, the sentence becomes a suspended sentence, conditional supervision, community service or another non-custodial sentence.

It is a liberal view on crime and punishment where consideration for the criminal's well-being weighs more heavily than the crime victim's demands for redress and compensation for their suffering. In many cases, the matter is not even tried due to a decision not to prosecute or limitations in the preliminary investigation. To the extent that there is a prosecution and a conviction, the penalty is reduced in many cases when professional criminals and habitual offenders receive a bulk discount.

Many experience this relationship as offensive, and against that background, I believe there is support and understanding among the general public for the now proposed changes.

Madam Speaker! The State has a fundamental responsibility to ensure order and security. People must be able to live in peace and quiet. In that regard, crime fighting is crucial and punishment is a supporting part. If one commits a crime and harms others, one must receive their punishment and atone for their crime. That is fundamental. But the penal legislation must also have a deterrent effect. We are talking here about a general prevention which in itself is expected to be crime-preventing.

Criminals are, believe it or not, usually rational. One weighs opportunities against risks. The risk of detection and clarification of the crime is in itself a deterrent factor, but also the expected punishment in the event of an arrest is weighed in and can result in one desisting. If the risk of severe punishment is high, one desists. Clarification and punishment are thus linked with each other. A low punishment makes the risk-taking tendency increase. The crime of driving under the influence is a good example where the threat of punishment is a strong crime-preventing factor.

We must not underestimate the value of increased clearance and harsher penalties and their effect on the propensity and will to commit crimes. I think that speaks in favor of the line that is now being proposed. Compared to a majority of other European countries, Sweden has a higher proportion of reported crime and lower penalties, which also speaks in favor of a tightening.

Madam Speaker! General prevention is good, but we know that it does not work on everyone. There are criminals who commit serious crimes and mostly recidivate after serving their sentence. Often it concerns serious violent and sexual crimes. It is offenders who pose a danger to us others if they are allowed to remain in freedom.

Many of us have studied law at one time or another. There are some judicial rules that Olaus Petri has established. They have a few hundred years on their backs but stipulate, among other things, that the one who abuses freedom is worthy of losing it, and I think that has some weight even today.

Dangerous persons and repeat offenders must be incapacitated for longer periods for the safety and security of others. In those cases, repressive measures also have a crime-preventing effect.

Over the years, a number of perpetrators of serious violence, pedophiles, and other sex offenders have relapsed into crime after release. Now, we give the danger requirement increased weight prior to a planned conditional release. Likewise, the view on recidivism is tightened when one has been sentenced to the proposed penalty of conditional imprisonment. In the case where the new crime was committed during the probation period for conditional imprisonment and warrants a harsher punishment than a fine, the recidivism should in principle always lead to a harsher reaction.

New is also the view on the current quantity discount – the so-called aspiration principle – which is changed to a model for sentencing that implies that the three most serious crimes are counted in full and that only after that can a reduction in sentence become relevant.

Madam Speaker! Forecasts and calculations have been made regarding costs and capacity needs for the forthcoming reform. It is clear, all other things being equal, that if crime remains at current levels, and the clearance rate increases and the sentences become longer in terms of imprisonment, the cost for both the Prison and Probation Service as well as other parts of the justice system increases.

It can also be that increased clearance and incapacitation lead to fewer crimes. We already see today the effect of the border police's work with deportations and re-entry bans. It has resulted in a large reduction in the number of reported theft crimes. Rumor has it that criminal gangs are deterred from operating in Sweden due to the high risk of getting caught in the police's net. Such things actually speak for us moving towards a reduced number of crimes.

The effect of new legislation and new police working methods is now beginning to be noticed in earnest. It has been said here earlier that there has been a significant decrease in the number of shootings. The same applies to explosions, which at present have more or less ceased – pepper, pepper. More crimes are also interrupted at the preparation stage, and criminals who have hidden in other countries are deprived of their liberty.

It is welcome that the clearance of serious violent crimes has increased significantly. This naturally affects the occupancy of the facilities already today, but this cannot reasonably affect the ambition to continue increasing the clearance and prosecution. Criminals who commit serious crimes and repeated crimes shall serve their sentence and be incapacitated for the protection of others. What must now be prioritized is a rapid increase in capacity within the Prison and Probation Service.

More remains to be done, of course, but I believe we are on the right track. The trend is positive, but it is a matter of holding on and persevering. That a united opposition proposes a rejection of the bill is alarming in the event that it were to go so badly that they would have the opportunity to form a government after the election in September.

Over the last four years, the government, with the support of the Sweden Democrats, has shown that a change is possible. We can break the crime curve and discern less crime and a safer society.

Finally, Madam Speaker, it is important in the near term that changes are phased in over time in a sensible way. It is also important to say that the statements regarding the year 2040 lack foundation. It is clear that much will happen during the coming parliamentary term.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the previous speaker, Torsten Elofsson, who is about to leave the Riksdag. The member will be missed.

Today we are debating the report based on the government's proposition on a new criminal penalty system. I want to say initially that we have a situation with serious organized crime that threatens to tear apart the foundations of our society. Shootings and explosions have become part of our everyday lives, but I still want to say that I am the first to rejoice over the current reduction of that violence. It was necessary.

We see, however, a continued labor crime that involves people being exploited and which creates unhealthy competition for honest companies. The criminal economy is estimated to amount to 350 billion kronor. We do not see it decreasing significantly. Narcotics continue to claim lives and destroy life situations. The welfare systems risk being drained. Small businesses and individuals are still affected by mass crimes.

What is perhaps worst of all is that children and young people are drawn into a spiral of violence that extinguishes dreams for the future and lives. There is no doubt that we need to act forcefully.

For the Center Party, the line is clear. We shall be both tough and smart against crime, and we will always work for a results-oriented, legally secure, and knowledge-based crime policy. It is always with that starting point that we review the government's proposals.

Madam Speaker! The Government has put these proposals on the table today, and I want to say that the Center Party basically stands behind them. We do not think at all that it is unreasonable with a new penalty in the form of conditional imprisonment. We think it is reasonable with increased use of the entire sentencing scale and an amended regulation of how a joint sentence shall be determined for several crimes, that is, amended quantity discount. We are for abolished grounds for leniency – the so-called reasons of equity. It is reasonable legislation – actually, particularly the amended quantity discount and the abolished reasons of equity.

The proposals have, admittedly, received criticism from the Council on Legislation for poor preparation, that they are not sufficiently well-thought-out and that the preparation does not meet the requirements of the constitution. The Council on Legislation has previously stated that the government has launched a cascade of legislative matters without coordination and that it is difficult to oversee this. At the same time, that is how it is in politics that we work in real time. One needs to be both principled and pragmatic. Therefore, the Center Party has said yes to most of what has been placed on the Riksdag's table. It has been a record amount.

We have, however, said no to search zones, anonymous witnesses, real-time AI facial recognition, and a lowered age of criminal responsibility, which have been debated previously. I can note that search zones have been used a handful of times and that anonymous witnesses and facial recognition have, to my knowledge, not been used at all. We can observe that the tools we were against did not become any game changer – which perhaps is now a Swedish term.

We have, however, been for too much. We have been for increased resources for the justice system, and that was truly necessary.

We have been for preventive and secret coercive measures, cameras in general, stay-away orders and biometric legislation. We have stood behind the proposal to rent prison places in Estonia, about fifty sharpened sentences, extended parole for serious crimes, life imprisonment for serious violent rapes and security detention. The last two things are clearly such that one should receive heavy sentences, speaking of abolished quantity discounts.

We have been for the criminalization of escape and much more, and we have now announced that we are for an extension of preventive measures until 2028.

There are, however, fundamental prerequisites that need to be in place for us to say yes to legislation placed on the Riksdag's table. Now I will come to the reasons why we say no to today's bill.

Can we clear something up first? The proposal before the Riksdag does not mean that the volume discounts are being abolished, but rather that they are being changed. That is why it was honorable of my Christian Democrat colleague in the Committee on Justice when he explained the construction of the new volume discount. It is changed but not abolished.

Then I want to bring up something else. We had a debate here earlier today. For those who did not see it, we discussed with the Minister for Justice that one should read the documents and that it is something that is good. It is almost something we could call for.

Thus, I come to the core point. We say no to this proposal because there are missing resources, capabilities, conditions, and a timetable for this to be able to enter into force. I did not think there was any disagreement about that.

Outside in the press center, it is the spoken word that counts, but here in the chamber, it is the written word that counts. I awaited the report from the Committee on Justice yesterday to see what it says about the date of entry into force. There it says what I believed we all agreed on.

Let me read that before: "The Government notes that at the current time it is not possible to determine at what point a sufficient capacity to handle all proposals is achieved." That is what applies and what we have to base our starting point on.

Now, years and other things will come up. But I think that the spoken word and the election promises belong in the press center, but here in the chamber we should stick to the adjusted report that was adopted yesterday.

If a new announcement had been made, I would have respected and appreciated it, but it was not. This is the Tidö government's official and only position: It is not possible to determine the timing.

One cannot pretend that the legislation in substance and the possibilities for its entry into force are not connected. A vital part of leading a country is to create the economic and capacity-related conditions so that necessary and important legislation can enter into force at a point within a foreseeable time.

If one as a party questions it and says no, one is apparently now "soft on crime." But no, it is to stand up for a legal tradition, for our accepted way of legislating and for reasonable expectations of the government's ability to govern and lead the country. That is the reason why we say no.

I dare to recount what the current Minister of Justice, Gunnar Strömmer, often says when he responds to criticism regarding rapid legislative processes: I have never been stopped at home in Ö-vik by people saying that they want me to legislate a bit more slowly.

I have also never been stopped by anyone who thinks I should legislate a bit more slowly. But I have also never been stopped by anyone who says: "Can't you advocate for legislation whose consequences are unknown, which all experts say no to, which the authorities are not ready for, or which one doesn't know when it will come into force?"

It is clear that they do not ask it, because they assume that we do not. They assume that the government does not. It is a great responsibility to lead our country, and the government has not taken that responsibility in this part.

The Prison and Probation Service assesses that the space and personnel requirements resulting from the current proposals will be able to be fully addressed at the earliest in 2040. It is not I who is saying it, but I trust what is stated in the report: that it is not possible to say when this is to enter into force.

The Court Administration's assessment is that the proposal risks leading to a shortage of competence, increased processing times, large cost increases, and longer negotiation times. I note that, but I also read in the report that the government does not know when this can come into force.

This is the fundamental reason why the Center Party believes the government's proposal should be rejected. We welcome that it is returned when both parts are in place – the substantive legislation with capabilities and prerequisites and that this can enter into force. It is important, so I welcome it.

We do not say no because it is wrong or substandard in substance, but because the government's ability to create the conditions for its implementation is both wrong and substandard.

With that, I move for approval of reservation 1.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech and thank you for this parliamentary term, which is nearing its end! I have many times appreciated our exchange of views because I believe the Member is fundamentally an intellectually honest politician.

I do not agree with her regarding her conclusions about the process, but I note that she agrees in substance with the government's ambition. It is very pleasing that we share the same sense of direction.

I would like to ask a genuinely intended question. The member says that this does not mean we are abolishing the volume discounts. But "discount" is a metaphor borrowed from retail and is not a legal-technical term. It has been used as a metaphor because there has been a mathematical model.

It has meant that the courts in their practice, just as in the retail trade when there are discounts, have calculated that the second crime is only worth a third, the next a sixth, and so on. That makes the metaphor quite apt.

What we are doing now means that we will not have such a mathematical model. As a general rule, the penalty for each crime shall be added. After that, the court shall make an overall assessment to ensure that the punishment is proportionate. The starting point is that every crime shall be counted.

This is basically how it works in all countries in the Western world. I swear, there is no country in the Western world that has an absolute accumulation. But that hardly means that one has a quantity discount in Texas.

I wonder if the member could not nevertheless admit that the metaphor "bulk discount" is no longer particularly apt in light of this reform.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! I would first like to say that I too have appreciated our debates. Directness and clarity are underrated in politics. I really appreciate that. Thank you, Member!

It is good that we get this clarified. When we talk about abolishing the discount, it is not the discount itself that is the problem for me, but it is that one says that one is abolishing it. When the common person goes to a store where there are certain items that are discounted and someone then says "This item has no discount," many probably think, I believe, that one pays full price – 100 percent.

That is not what will happen here. As the member says, there will be a calculation so that the consequences will not become completely disproportionate, such that many combined crimes with a lower sentencing scale suddenly should result in a longer sentence than a more serious crime. This is also described in a good way in the report that I have received.

I think it would be more correct to say that it is a modified quantity discount. I think it is well described. We have heard other members bring this up. I think the member is now significantly more balanced in his description than he has been previously. We have heard from several in the rostrum that it is now being scrapped or abolished.

Of course, there are different ways to express oneself. There is political language, legal language, and everyday language. But I find it hard to believe that one could misunderstand when someone says that one is scrapping or abolishing something and means "changing" it.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Madam Speaker! I nevertheless maintain that we shall abolish the volume discounts.

What we call quantity discount, that is, the rules for sentencing that we are now proposing an amendment to, were deeply unfair and had serious consequences in the form of far too lenient sentences for dangerous, high-frequency offenders.

My entire political career has aimed at reforming this penal system, and I am very proud to conclude this mandate period by voting for an eminent proposal which, in my opinion, definitely abolishes the bulk discount. It would, after all, surprise me if the member after this legislative change continues to call this a bulk discount.

I also want to take the opportunity to point out that what we are doing now is of historical significance. I mentioned in my speech earlier that it was over 60 years since the Penal Code was adopted in this chamber and nearly 40 years since the last major reform of criminal law was made. That we have now made these major changes is not just about it being fair and morally right, but it is also about solving very serious crime problems: the organized, system-threatening crime but also the major problem we have with sexual offenses in Sweden.

Here I would perhaps have wished for a slightly more constructive approach from Centerpartiet. Even if not everything is perfect, I think one must see that we have an internal security crisis to handle and have a slightly more solution-oriented focus. With that said, I hope that we can achieve a good cooperation in the coming mandate period.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! I appreciate that request and also hope that we can continue to have a good cooperation.

In my speech earlier, I admitted that not all legislation is perfect. We say yes to a great deal even though it has received sharp criticism. One must be firm in principle, but as I say, we live in a reality where we need to handle problems; there we have many times been pragmatic. We have been so in a large number of cases – I will not again burden the debate by reading out everything that Centerpartiet has been for. But I also said that we drew a line here.

What I have pointed out, which I see as a major flaw – even such a major flaw that we say no – is partly that it is claimed that volume discounts are being abolished, which we have different semantic interpretations of, and partly that it is made to appear that it is being abolished now. If one now says that it is being changed, it does not matter that it is being done now.

I have read it before, so I perhaps do not need to do it again. What is being said is that it cannot be determined at what point there is sufficient capacity for this to be able to enter into force. If the basic prerequisite that legislation should be able to enter into force within a reasonable time is the foundation for me, it apparently is perceived as a detail by the government, and that makes me concerned. Creating the conditions and capacities for the implementation of legislation is an important part of governing and leading the country.

I have said previously that if it had been said that it should take place within a month or even a year, I would not have had any problem saying that it is now completed. But in this case, we do not know at all when it will be. It is this fundamental requirement that makes Centerpartiet unfortunately forced to say no in this case.

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Madam Speaker! I appreciate the substantive approach to this discussion. But my question is not of such a technical nature, but perhaps a bit more of a confidence-related nature.

Today, very many people are being subjected to the type of crime that often leads to bulk discounts. We have, for example, many elderly people who have been subjected to frauds that in practice might not even be investigated because the perpetrator is already suspected of a long series of crimes of the same character. Young guys who are robbed of their mopeds, homeowners who experience burglaries, summer cottage owners who have their boat engines stolen and not least traders who are subjected to systematic thefts are things that we both have heard about to a considerable extent.

Many of these report to the police, at least the first times they are subjected to it. But eventually they receive the message: The investigation is closed, and we will not proceed with your case. The reason is that the perpetrator is already suspected of a long series of similar crimes. He has practically hit the ceiling for the bulk discount. There is no reason to investigate further, because the punishment will not be affected.

The message, then, is that the crime you were subjected to did not matter. The rule of law will not concern itself with it. It will not give you any kind of redress.

Madam Speaker! My question is: What does Member Ulrika Liljeberg think this does to people's trust in the rule of law? What does it do to the trust that people feel for society and for the state when one realizes that one just as well could have ignored reporting the crime?

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! I believe that people would have thought it would be good if the government had ensured that there were conditions for this legislation to be able to pass. That is what people would have wanted. People would have wanted to have a government that ensures that this can be achieved.

Instead, the government states ”that at the current moment it is not possible to determine at what point a sufficient capacity to handle all proposals is achieved”. This is a fact. It does not rest on the opposition but on the current government and its coalition partners to ensure that this is possible.

This is something that needs to be put in place. It would have been a different matter if there had been a year or something, but this was adjusted in the Committee on Justice with the member as chairperson yesterday. This is the latest – the ink has hardly dried. We do not know when this can be introduced, despite other statements today.

The reality looks as the member describes: We have several bottlenecks that someone has to push through. It could be that a preliminary investigation is not initiated, because it does not appear to be any reason for it. Or it could be that a limitation of the preliminary investigation occurs before the case even goes to indictment. Furthermore, there is an existing volume discount even for that which has gone to indictment.

We therefore have a system with several such possibilities in Sweden. Therefore, we think that an amended volume discount would be a welcome proposal. But there are no conditions for this to be able to enter into force. I have repeated it, and I am happy to repeat it again: It is not possible to downplay that element in the legislative process – that it shall be able to enter into force.

In these replies, I am struck by the fact that the starting point for the member and other colleagues is that this will come into force, but it will not. No one knows when, and this is the major deficiency. It is a pity that we in the Riksdag are now forced to say it to those who ask the most relevant question, which the member is asking.

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Madam Speaker! I think it is we in here who ultimately decide when this shall enter into force. It is therefore up to the government to launch the reform. It is we in here who appoint the government.

There is currently a majority that says they want the government to launch this during the next mandate period. But it is a slim majority because the Center Party is, therefore, taking the opposing side. The Center Party is not prepared today to vote yes to this proposal being implemented. And they are not prepared to be part of the majority that wants to implement it during the next mandate period.

I am having difficulty reconciling these two narratives. I am having difficulty reconciling that, on one hand, one says that one wants to implement these proposals, but on the other hand, now, well, they are going to expose them to an enormous risk. We are going to have a tied vote today. It will depend on a single individual member because the Centerpartiet will vote no. Should the proposal fall in the chamber due to some random event – we have all read in the newspapers about elevators that don't work and so on – it is because the Centerpartiet votes no.

Then the Centre Party goes to the election together with the Left Party to form a red-green government. Is there anyone in here or anywhere else who believes that the chance of the bulk discount being abolished increases if we get a no in the chamber today and then get a red-green government with a left-wing party that refuses to implement this?

Madam Speaker! Does the Centre Party believe that there is a greater or lesser chance that the bulk discount will be abolished soon if one both votes no in the chamber and contributes to the Left Party being involved in governing the crime policy in Sweden?

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! I repeat once again: This will not come into force, and the government does not know at this moment when it will happen. That is the point.

When it comes to what for us are important fundamentals in the legislative process, we are prepared to say yes. But we think that what we are debating today is a way of legislating that does not belong here in the chamber. I have previously compared it to what one does in one's press center when one has press conferences and speaks about what one wants.

I also noted that the member has changed his way of expressing it. He has gone from saying "now we are abolishing this" to saying "we want to abolish this." It is more honest to say that this is what one wants, but one must also be able to create the conditions for it.

When proposals are placed before the Riksdag, the Swedish people – this is important legislation – also expect that there are conditions in place for it to be able to enter into force. Here, a practice is being established that does not belong in our Swedish way of legislating. This is not an accepted way of legislating.

This is perhaps how it is done when it concerns preparedness and crisis laws or if an approval of something has been required. When it concerns renting prison places in Estonia, it is required, for example, that our contracting party must approve it. It is a completely different situation than now.

The Government has control over both the legislation, the resources, and the capabilities for this to come into force. Therefore, it is expected that all such things will be in place within a foreseeable and reasonable time when a proposal is submitted to the Riksdag. I do not intend to read from the report for the fifth time, but let me say again: The Government does not know when the whole thing can come into force.

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

Paulina Brandberg (L)

Madam Speaker! When one reads judgments from our Swedish courts, it is not difficult to find examples that in a painfully clear way show why our sentencing system needs to be fundamentally changed. We see judgments where the perpetrator is indeed convicted, but where the overall sentence is still so difficult to explain to the one who has been subjected to the crime that the justice system's ability to provide redress can be questioned.

Madam Speaker! I also want to give a concrete example.

On June 5 this year, the Court of Appeal for Skåne and Blekinge announced a judgment in a case concerning a man who over several years had engaged in very extensive sexual offenses against children. He was convicted of, among other things, one aggravated rape of a child, ten rapes of children, four aggravated cases of exploiting children for sexual posing, and a very large number of other sexual and child pornography offenses. In total, it concerned nearly 300 offenses.

It is when one reaches the Court of Appeal's assessment of the severity of the crimes that today's problems become clear. The aggravated rape against a ten-year-old child alone had a severity value of five years' imprisonment. Another rape against a child alone had a severity value of approximately four years. Eight additional rapes against children each had a severity value clearly exceeding the then current minimum sentence of two years' imprisonment. One further rape against a child corresponded to two years' imprisonment. In addition to this came the four aggravated posing offenses, two aggravated child pornography offenses with a severity value of at least one year and three months each, and all the other criminality.

In the grounds for the judgment, one can see how the Court of Appeal reasons regarding exactly this issue with the bulk discount. One begins with the most serious crime. Then, one adds a gradually decreasing portion of the penalty value for each of the other crimes.

This is precisely the core of the problem. The more crimes a person commits, the less impact each additional crime has in the overall sentencing. If one commits enough crimes, additional crimes have no impact at all. In the example I mentioned, one can see that the vast majority of the crimes were essentially unpunished. In practice, one could therefore just as well commit a few more crimes without risking a higher sentence.

In the case in question, the Court of Appeal applied this principle and determined the total sentence to be imprisonment for ten years and six months.

Madam Speaker! I want to be clear: this is not a criticism of the court. The court has done its job and applied the system that we as legislators have given it. But it is the system that is the problem. Today, we in the Swedish Riksdag have the chance to change this system.

For the child who was subjected to the eighth or tenth rape, the abuse was no less serious just because the perpetrator had already raped other children. For that child, it was 100 percent of an abuse, yet the crime progressively carries less significance when the sentence is determined. This is difficult to explain to a crime victim. And it is actually even harder to defend.

In this context, I would like to pose a question to Miljöpartiet. From Miljöpartiet's specific statement, it appears that they will vote no to the proposed abolition of the quantity discount with the justification that "a holistic assessment must be made on a case-by-case basis, and there must be a measure of proportionality when the impact of additional crimes on the sentencing is to be assessed." Miljöpartiet therefore believes that today's system is more proportionate than if we abolish the quantity discount.

It would be very interesting to hear Miljöpartiet explain to all those crime victims who have been deprived of justice in court how they justify that this is proportionate and that the crimes committed against them should not be counted if their perpetrators have also committed a number of other crimes.

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats, as is known, have proposed to abolish the volume discounts for violent and sexual crimes. It is positive that we agree on that. But I still do not understand how the Social Democrats can look other crime victims in the eye.

The Liberals' and the government's position is that the principle that every crime shall have a reasonable impact shall apply regardless of the type of crime.

Let me give another example. Now I would like Teresa Carvalho to listen extra carefully, because it concerns a type of crime that the Social Democrats in particular should be well acquainted with, namely telephone fraud against the elderly.

In December last year, the Court of Appeal for Western Sweden judged a case concerning organized telephone fraud. From various call centers, perpetrators had systematically called and deceived, primarily elderly people. One of the defendants in the case was convicted of 139 aggravated frauds.

The Court of Appeal found that the penalty for each of the serious frauds exceeded six months' imprisonment. When the perpetrators had deceived themselves into obtaining around 300,000 kronor, a single crime corresponded to one year's imprisonment, and for the largest amounts, the penalty was even higher.

I am, therefore, speaking about 139 serious frauds, where a very large number of people have been deceived out of their money.

For the person I am speaking about, the Court of Appeal assessed the total criminal value at nearly five years. After reduction for detention with restrictions, the sentence for all the crimes became four years and six months.

I want to ask the Socialdemokraterna: Why should these specific crime victims have to wait? Why should it be taken for granted that the tenth rape should count more, but not the one hundred and thirty-ninth serious fraud? Crime victim number 139 has not been less deceived because the perpetrator had already deceived 138 people before her. And would it not have been commendable if the Socialdemokraterna, at this point, had developed a special sensitivity for how vulnerable elderly people can be when they are called by persistent salespeople?

Madam Speaker! Today's vote is about something much larger than what punishments our courts shall impose. It is about restoring the social contract that many in our country actually feel has collapsed.

We live today in a Sweden where more and more people feel that it is not even worth reporting the crimes they have been subjected to. They feel that it will not make any difference anyway. When I worked as a prosecutor, I heard this quite often. It actually hurt me directly, because I could hardly say that they were wrong.

It is completely obvious to me that Sweden as a society has for far too long totally deprioritized the perspective of crime victims. When people have talked about us having a humane crime policy, they have always talked about humanity in relation to the perpetrators. It is as if one is completely blind to the humanitarian suffering that all crime victims have been subjected to when they have been deprived of the opportunity for redress and when they have been forced to live lives where they have constantly had to look over their shoulder because their perpetrators have been released too early. One has disregarded the suffering that exists among those crime victims who would not have had to become crime victims if dangerous perpetrators had been incapacitated during more reasonable periods of time.

This betrayal has gone on for far too long. It is actually our damned duty as legislators to do everything we can to set this right as quickly as possible. The proposal that the Riksdag is to vote on today is an important part of this work.

Madam Speaker! The proposal for a new penalty system that is being discussed in the Riksdag today contains, in addition to the abolished volume discount, several other important parts that are all important pieces of the puzzle in restoring confidence in our rule of law.

The opposition objects to the fact that the reform lacks a fixed date for entry into force and to the fact that the entire funding is not on the table already today. It is of course true that it is unusual to decide on a reform of this size without simultaneously determining exactly when it should begin to apply. But with the uncertainties that exist, particularly regarding the capacity of the correctional services, it is actually more responsible not to lock ourselves into a date that we do not know today whether the justice system can handle.

We must, therefore, separate the question of whether this reform should be implemented from the question of when it can be implemented. If one thinks that we in Sweden need a justice system where every crime victim counts, one should vote yes to the new sentencing system. If one, on the other hand, thinks that it is better as it is today, one should vote no. I myself move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

(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. Shootings, explosions, drug trafficking, economic crime, violence in close relationships and sexual offenses create a great insecurity in the home, on the streets and squares and in society at large.

Society must do more to prevent crime and protect people from crime. Crime victims shall receive redress, and those who commit serious crimes shall be met with clear but proportionate and legally secure punishments. This is a self-evident starting point for Miljöpartiet.

Harshening of penalties can be justified when they are well-balanced, legally secure, accurate, and anchored in a clear need. During the Green Party's time in government, a large number of harshenings of penalties were also carried out, along with some other reforms to strengthen society's ability to combat crime. We tightened, among other things, the penalties for crimes that often occur in the criminal environment. We strengthened the legislation against sexual offenses and made it punishable to involve children in crime.

We also appointed an inquiry in 2021, the Flerbrottsutredningen (Multiple Offenses Inquiry), which submitted several proposals concerning harsher penalties for multiple offenses. It submitted its report in 2023.

The investigation suggested, among other things, as you are surely aware, that the penalties should be tightened particularly for those who have committed a very large number of crimes or several crimes involving a serious violation of the crime victim. We have just received a number of examples of this from Paulina Brandberg.

The investigation proposed that the possibility of sentencing to imprisonment for several crimes that would individually only result in fines should be utilized to a greater extent than today. The investigation also proposed that a collective assessment of the severity of the punishment should always be made based on the combined damage, violation, or danger that the crimes have caused.

So this came at the beginning of 2023.

In our justice policy motion from the autumn of 2023, we wrote about this subject:

"The reduction in punishment for multiple offenses, commonly referred to as the discount for multiple offenses, exists to create a reasonable proportion between repeated criminality and the sentence imposed. The reduction in punishment is fundamentally good for preventing unreasonable sentences; for example, a number of thefts should not result in the same sentence as a serious rape. At the same time, society must take a stand against recidivism and show that it should not pay off. For example, in a number of high-profile cases, it has been shown that the level of punishment for those who have relapsed into serious sexual offenses has not been in proportion to how seriously many perceive the crimes to be."

The then Social Democratic and Green Party government therefore appointed the Multi-Crime Inquiry ... to review the system. The inquiry proposes that the penalties should be toughened for those who are convicted of several different crimes at one and the same time. The Green Party agrees with the inquiry's assessment and considers that the inquiry's proposals should be taken forward by the government.

Madam Speaker! I mention this, of course, because the debate that has preceded today's debate and decision has become quite strange. It has been presented, and continues to be presented, as if one side wants to remove the volume discounts while the other side does not want to do anything at all. That is, therefore, not true.

What the Green Party opposes are far-reaching, accelerated, and ill-considered sentencing increases that have no demonstrated effect on crime. According to us, the ultimate goal of harsher sentences must be that they should reduce the risk of crimes being committed – i.e., that fewer people should have to become crime victims.

We can observe that the increased penalties that the government proposes in this bill show major flaws. One is moving forward with perhaps the most far-reaching reform in the field of criminal law without showing that the proposals will reduce crime, strengthen legal certainty, or provide a more coherent and proportionate sentencing system. On the contrary, the proposals risk making the sentencing system even more incoherent and less legally certain.

This is not 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, unclear systematics, and insufficient consideration of how the reforms affect the legislation, the judiciary, and the correctional services as a whole.

Here I have to pause a bit and refer to an interpellation debate that I found when I was looking for what had happened with the Flerbrottsutredningens proposals. It is quite funny. There it appears that the government first considered introducing the proposals and then decided not to do so, partly with reference to the referral bodies' criticism and that it was not a sufficiently thoroughly conducted investigation, which sort of made the entire criminal justice reform too incoherent.

This criticism is recognizable, so to speak. I want to point out that several different governments have clearly taken different measures to try to address the problem that we are debating here today, but there has been criticism from referral bodies and others that the reforms have not been sufficiently well-thought-out and so on. The government has therefore previously refrained from submitting proposals that were on their table already about two and a half years ago.

I will now go back to what I originally intended to say. We believe that this proposal is punitive populism. The government is restructuring central parts of criminal law at a high pace, despite the fact that the referral bodies and the Council on Legislation have repeatedly pointed out that the proposals are flawed, that the whole is difficult to oversee, and that the proposals lack support in research and risk involving major consequences for both individuals and society as a whole.

As an example, it can be mentioned that the penalties for different types of crimes will not be in reasonable proportion to each other and that the proposals will lead to very large costs, a heavily increased burden on the correctional services and worsened opportunities to prevent recidivism. This is not taking responsibility.

The Green Party would like to conduct a major review of the Penal Code. In that review, they should also be tasked with proposing increased penalties when it is judged to be justified and effective.

Madam Speaker! The government's bill contains four changes which together mean a fundamental reorganization of the sentencing system. A system of conditional imprisonment shall be introduced. The sentencing shall be changed so that the entire sentencing scale is used to a greater extent.

Today's order in cases of multiple offenses, the so-called quantity discount, shall be replaced by a system based on the principle that the penalty values of the individual crimes shall be added together and that several grounds for sentence reduction, the so-called equity grounds, shall be removed or limited. The Government describes this as a modernization.

Miljöpartiet argues that in practice it is about a significant increase in repression, which risks making the system less legally secure and predictable and less effective in preventing recidivism. The crime victim perspective is not strengthened by the courts having poorer opportunities to avoid obviously unreasonable outcomes. The crime victim perspective is strengthened by crimes being prevented and investigated, trials being conducted in a timely manner, crime victims receiving support and protection, and by those who have served their sentence being given real conditions to not fall back into crime.

Madam Speaker! It is very noteworthy that the government does not submit any proposal regarding when the legislative changes shall enter into force. As a reason for this, the government states that it is not possible to assess when the Prison and Probation Service will have the capacity required to handle the proposals. As we know, the Prison and Probation Service is already today in a very pressured situation with overcrowding, staff shortages, and upcoming reforms. Therefore, no specific date is proposed, but instead, the government refers to the fact that the legislative changes shall enter into force on the day that the government decides.

The Council on Legislation naturally directs clear criticism towards the procedure. The absence of proposed dates for entry into force must be assumed to mean an entry into force only in several years' time. The Council on Legislation therefore considers that there can be no need for a parliamentary decision in the near future.

Miljöpartiet naturally shares this objection. It is a strange, almost unique order to push through one of the largest criminal law reforms ever without being able to state when it should begin to apply. That the government cannot propose a date for entry into force shows what the judiciary, authorities, civil society, and the Council on Legislation have warned about throughout the entire mandate period: the government's criminal policy has pressured the justice system too hard. The consequence is that the government cannot even realize its own policy in a responsible manner.

Miljöpartiet considers that the unusually sharp criticism directed by the Council on Legislation towards the government's proposal carries significant weight. The Council on Legislation does not reject the bill in its entirety, but it rejects the proposal on increased use of the full range of penalties and the proposal on the assessment of the severity of punishment in cases of multiple offenses. This must be understood as two core components of the whole.

The Council on Legislation considers this to be a very extensive reorganization of the sentencing system. The overall impression is that the preparation does not meet the requirements that must be imposed on legislation of this kind. That the government chooses to proceed despite this criticism, we in Miljöpartiet believe, shows a remarkably low interest in the fundamental principles of the rule of law.

Madam Speaker! The flaws in the government's proposal are closely linked to how the basis for the reform was compiled. The commission had 22 months to produce a very extensive basis of nearly 2,000 pages. This has been raised in the debate several times. I do not, of course, believe that the individuals who wrote the commission report are incompetent or ignorant about their fields. But this is a massive undertaking of investigation work, and 22 months is not particularly long.

Three of the investigation's experts argue that the lack of time meant that the work was primarily focused on producing legally functional constitutional proposals that met the directive's requirements for a higher level of repression, rather than on conducting a complete and unconditional analysis of the Penal Code – such as the one Miljöpartiet believes is needed.

The experts also emphasize that it is not possible to predict the consequences for crime policy or for lawbreakers. We believe that an investigation that lacks the time to assess the cumulative 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 overall effect. Criminal law must be handled from a holistic perspective.

Miljöpartiet considers that a new review of the Penal Code needs a broad mandate and sufficient time to both analyze and propose improvements and such sentencing increases as can be justified, and also to assess the consequences. It is about proposing reforms that can actually contribute to reducing crime and reducing the risk of recidivism. Sweden needs a criminal law that is both clear, well-thought-out, and accurate. In that case, the government's haste is not sufficient.

Madam Speaker! It is evident that the government's collective criminal law reform will have major economic and practical consequences. The burden on the Prison and Probation Service is already great today. Overcrowding increases the risk of threats and violence both for inmates and for staff, and the rapid expansion risks deteriorating the quality of care and the work on preventing recidivism.

Miljöpartiet wants to give the Prison and Probation Service the resources required to handle today's situation and expand 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 Prison and Probation Service can reasonably handle. It is not responsible towards either inmates, staff, crime victims, or taxpayers.

One of the most serious problems with the government's proposal is the consequences for the work on preventing recidivism. A crime policy that almost exclusively focuses on incarceration risks overlooking what is actually required for people not to commit new crimes after release. If the facilities become more overcrowded, if the staffing density decreases, and if rehabilitation is weakened, there is an obvious risk that more people will leave Kriminalvården with weaker future prospects and a higher risk of recidivism.

The Prison and Probation Service itself has warned that the government's proposal will have a very large impact on the agency's operations and capacity. This, together with the already pressured situation that the Prison and Probation Service finds itself in, risks worsening the agency's opportunities to conduct high-quality recidivism prevention work.

For us in Miljöpartiet, it is clear that those who commit crimes should face clear consequences. At the same time, society must do more to ensure that those serving their sentences do not commit new crimes; otherwise, we fail both the crime victims and the safety in society.

We therefore want to strengthen the Kriminalvård's conditions to carry out qualified recidivism prevention work, improve the possibilities for rehabilitation, care and release, as well as strengthen efforts against dropouts and use the tools that can actually break recruitment, substance abuse, spirals of violence and recidivism. That is how safety is truly built.

I also want to comment on what the Liberal representative said earlier. It was, like, a clip from our rather long specific statement, which comes from our motion. It is about this issue of proportionality. The quote began with: "A holistic assessment must be made on a case-by-case basis." But before that, it states that this can, in theory, mean that several less serious crimes end up with the same penalty as one or a couple of very serious crimes. It was therefore that which preceded what the Liberals then quoted. A holistic assessment must be made on a case-by-case basis, and there must be a measure of proportionality.

It is this that I believe quite a few of us actually agree on. Is it reasonable that in the case of a very large number of petty thefts, for example, one adds up and totals all the penalties? That is not what anyone here believes, as I have understood it. Then the penalty value becomes so high that it would exceed the penalty value for aggravated rape or murder, and I have not understood that it is that proposal that is on the table. That is what our specific statement is about.

I just wanted to conclude with this and move for approval of reservation 2.

(ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN: I would like to inform the members that the speaking time was exceeded by over 50 percent.)

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Madam Speaker and Ulrika Westerlund! I appreciate the Green Party's empirical approach that I have heard in several debates here. They want to do what actually works rather than what sounds good or what is carried out for some other reason.

I wonder when that attitude will lead to the Green Party admitting that it was wrong to try to stop all the criminal policy reforms that the Tidö parties have implemented during this mandate period. The Green Party has, apart from in some single cases, actually done what could be done to stop us when we have overhauled Swedish criminal policy, even though this is now proving to lead to a number of improvements.

Not least, shootings and explosions are not at all as common today as they were when Miljöpartiet sat in the government. On the contrary, they have decreased drastically. But it is not only this, it also concerns property crimes. Burglaries in homes and summer cottages have decreased by more than half. Even thefts in general, of boat engines and other things, have decreased by more than half.

Point by point, one can see that this more repressive, effective crime policy is working. If one has the approach that the Miljöpartiet says they have, it should lead to some reflection and some humility.

Madam Speaker! Now we are talking about volume discounts. I would like to ask a question to Miljöpartiet: How is it that you are voting no today? Think of a person who commits, for example, a long series of child pornography crimes and thus subjects one, two, three, four and perhaps even more children to some of the worst types of abuse that exist. The more crimes that person commits, the lower the punishment they receive.

Does the Green Party think it is reasonable that that person receives a lower sentence? Isn't it more reasonable that we give a stricter sentence to the one who commits repeated crimes and who turns out to be a ruthless person that other people must be protected from?

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Henrik Vinge for the question.

Dagens Nyheter made a compilation when approximately half the time of this mandate period had passed. They looked at how often the opposition parties had rejected or agreed to the government's proposals. Among other things, the crime policy was included in the compilation. If I remember correctly, Miljöpartiet had voted yes to about 40 percent of the government's proposals at that time. I believe we have been at approximately that point since then.

Quite often we have said that we do not want to go as far as the government proposes and that, for example, the inquiry's original proposal was better. If we had been involved in the negotiations regarding which proposal was to be presented, we would probably have voted yes to more proposals. We have absolutely not said no to all of the government's proposals. It is simply not true.

We have heard various speakers give quite a few examples of heinous crimes. I do not believe that anyone here in the chamber thinks this is okay or is unaware that serious crime occurs. I believe that we all want to combat this serious crime, not least such crime that affects individual individuals in a very offensive way.

That was also what the Multi-crime Inquiry, which we were involved in appointing, focused on. It proposed, among other things, that one should in particular tighten the penalties for those who have committed a very large number of crimes or several crimes involving a serious violation of the crime victim.

One can truly say that, for example, child pornography crimes involve serious violations. We therefore contributed to this investigation coming to fruition and presenting this type of proposal. We think that those types of increased penalties are reasonable. We vote no today for the same reasons that my colleagues in the opposition have explained. It is about practical feasibility and the fact that there is not even an effective date.

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is naturally positive, if it is true, that Miljöpartiet supports 40 percent of these reforms, but 40 percent is not even halfway. If we had implemented 40 percent of the criminal justice reforms that we have implemented during this mandate period and stopped there, many people today would have been shot, but they are alive thanks to the fact that we have stopped crime.

This applies in particular to the most far-reaching and extensive proposals on the preventive surveillance of criminal gangs, which we have debated previously. We know that if they had not been intercepted, they would have exploded in residential areas, and innocent people would have risked being shot to death. Thousands of Swedes would have been exposed to different types of crimes, assaults, thefts, and violence. All this would have happened if we had stopped at 40 percent. Therefore, I am very happy that we went all the way and that we continue to go all the way.

Madam Speaker! Throughout the entire debate, we have heard that there is an agreement to carry out the abolition of the volume discount. There are few parties – possibly one party – that admit they want to keep it. All others say that they want to abolish it in one way or another, yet they still vote no. Even if one has views on details or on some part of the implementation, one must ask: Does the probability that the volume discount disappears increase if one votes no to the proposal? Does the probability that the volume discount disappears increase if one intends to form governments with parties that want to keep it?

I believe it has become clear to everyone in this debate that, if one wants to get rid of the volume discounts and have stricter penalties for serious crime, it is the Tidö parties that one needs to vote for. The red-green parties will not be able to manage to do what is necessary to make Sweden safe again.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! My colleague, Ulrika Liljeberg, accounted for a number of proposals that have been voted through here in the chamber but which have not resulted in tools that have been used. We also opposed the proposals that she exemplified. There are thus a number of examples of tools that have been voted through and attempted to be given to the judicial authorities but which have had no effect.

As I said earlier, it is not a question of black or white or yes or no. One can also adjust proposals or present proposals that investigations have suggested instead of twisting them another turn as the government has sometimes done. The Miljöpartiet would probably have contributed to that.

When it comes to the volume discounts, I have not heard anyone here say that they do not want to change the volume discounts in any way. All parties have said that they do. Even in the event of a change of government, which I truly hope will happen, the volume discounts will be changed. The volume discounts will, regardless of the outcome of the vote today, not be removed, and they really will not be removed now, as several of my colleagues have pointed out previously. They will be changed at an uncertain point in time.

The Social Democrats have said that they want to prioritize a certain type of crime for which they want to remove the volume discounts. It sounds extremely likely that we would also think it is a good proposal, not least because it has quite large similarities with the proposals presented in 2023 from the inquiry that we jointly commissioned. It is therefore a proposal that has some history behind it and which I do not believe we will have particular difficulty agreeing on.

It is absolutely impossible to present it as if today's discussion is about whether we should have volume discounts or not, or whether they should be introduced today or not at all. These are not the questions we are discussing if we are to be truthful, and I truly hope that we try to be when we stand in the Swedish Riksdag and talk about these important issues.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I have had the great pleasure of sitting and listening to today's debate. It is difficult, I think, to free oneself from the experience of that it has at times been almost an academic seminar on form, process, system, and procedural rules. I have caught myself quite many times wondering where the people are in all of this.

There is no doubt that we as a government and as legislators have a great responsibility to ensure that the justice system functions and that the correctional services have reasonable conditions for their mission. Nor can one free oneself, I believe, from the fundamental, principled moral obligation that it is, after all, the citizens who are our principals.

I also find it almost offensive to hear that the system's shortcomings in every situation are to be paid for by the crime victims. That is what constantly becomes the consequence. I am the first to say that the correctional services' capacity is a central issue. That is why we, in a very responsible manner, tailor our reform so that it will work with the correctional services.

The entire approach is that one starts with the system and that individual people and crime victims should pay the price for it. It is actually an unreasonable starting point. The word crime victim did not actually appear in the Socialdemokraternas follow-up motion – not even once – and actually not even in the specific statement.

I listened very carefully to Teresa Carvalho's opening speech, and the crime victims were not mentioned even once in that speech either. I hope that is an oversight. It is possible that she has focused very much on the procedural issues. I also cannot free myself from the thought that this is still somewhat symptomatic.

From our side, the entire approach in the reform is to shift the focus from the perpetrator and the system to societal protection and the crime victim. That is why we are constantly talking so incredibly much about the crime victim and have it as a guiding perspective all the time when we design our reforms.

In February 2022, the so-called Nytorgsmannen was sentenced to five years in prison. He was sentenced, among other things, for 7 rapes, 8 sexual assaults, 6 cases of sexual harassment, and 1 case of aggravated breach of the peace to five years in prison. Shortly after he was released, he committed new crimes. In September 2025, he was sentenced for 1 rape, 3 cases of child pornography crimes, 35 cases of sexual harassment, and 3 cases of sexual harassment against children. For these crimes, he received four years in prison.

I do not understand how the courts rule, but this shows a fundamental systemic error in our criminal law. Today's order all too often leads to crime victims not receiving redress and to dangerous individuals being released with the risks that it entails for other people – for new crime victims. I believe that very few citizens perceive this as reasonable and just punishments for the immense violations of privacy and costs that crime victims have to endure and bear.

I am genuinely surprised that four of the Riksdag's eight parties, the Social Democrats, the Centre Party, the Left Party, and the Green Party, with such an extraordinary commitment, are mobilizing to vote no to the government's bill. It is a betrayal, I believe, against all crime victims. It is also a significant danger to the surrounding society if we are now to take societal protection seriously.

For the last four years, the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, Liberalerna, and Sverigedemokraterna have worked together systematically and at a high pace to restore safety in Sweden. A central part, but truly not the only one, concerns the punishments. It is based on the fundamental principle that dangerous criminals should be imprisoned so that everyone else dares to be out.

The starting point is also that the penal system in Sweden for far too long has taken into account and proceeded from the perpetrator and has not been adapted to a reality where community protection and the crime victim are at the center.

If a person is convicted of several crimes at the same time, for example, only the most serious crime is counted in full. The rest receive a discount on a steeply falling scale, additionally with automation.

The starting point of the legislation is that imprisonment shall be imposed as a last resort. If there is a milder penalty, it shall be chosen. When the punishment for individual crimes is to be determined, the starting point is always to begin in the lower part of the sentencing scale, with the result that the middle or upper part is rarely used.

A penalty can also be reduced because the perpetrator has lost their job as a result of their crime, because the perpetrator is old, or because the perpetrator has caused themselves injury when they committed their crime.

These are things that we mean are expressions of a perpetrator perspective which, both practically and morally, is something that we mean must be changed.

It was also the background to the government's decision in the summer of 2023 to task the then Director of Public Prosecutions and current Police Commissioner Petra Lundh with conducting a comprehensive review of the penalties and consequences, something that has not been done in over 30 years. Furthermore, it is a measure that has historically been strongly requested, among others by the Council on Legislation and many referral bodies. The time of patching and mending must be over. Now it is time to take a systematic grip on the whole, and that is what we have done.

Approximately two years later I received the result: two volumes, almost 2,000 pages. We sent it out for consultation for four months, and since then we have continued to work on it at a very high pace at the Ministry of Justice.

On August 1, the first package entered into force with about fifty sharpened sentencing scales, double penalties for gang criminals and up to life imprisonment for, among other things, repeated aggravated rapes.

The second package – for this is a whole that hangs together – is therefore that which we are discussing today. It concerns how the system shall function regarding how punishments and other sanctions shall be determined.

These proposals are the core of the shift in perspective from the perpetrator to the crime victim and societal protection. The fundamental questions we are now discussing – quantity discounts, reasons of low culpability, and how the entire sentencing scale shall be used – are what constitute the shift, where we give more weight to the crime victim and less weight to other considerations.

That is why we propose that the presumption against imprisonment – that the starting point is that if possible, another punishment than imprisonment should be chosen – shall be removed and replaced with conditional imprisonment. We propose that new rules shall be introduced which mean that the entire sentencing scale and not just the lower part shall be used. We propose that several so-called grounds of equity shall be removed – not all but parts. Not least, we propose that the discount for quantity as it looks today shall be abolished.

As several have pointed out today, today's system is a table with an automatic mechanism. That is what the discount system is; that is where the metaphor and the image come from. In a completely schematic and automatic way, the most serious crime is calculated in full, the second most serious gets a third, the third most serious gets a sixth, and then it often becomes nothing.

This means that very many crime victims never receive any redress. The crimes they are subjected to have no effect on the punishment, which in very many cases means that they also never become investigated.

The reason why this is so important is, of course, best illustrated by reality, by us constantly returning to what consequences this has for individual people.

It means, therefore, that the 80-year-old who is convicted of child pornography crimes does not receive a reduction in sentence because he is old. That is what we want to achieve. Today, he receives a reduction in sentence because he is old. It means that the accomplice who, in order to help gangs, embezzles money in his work shall not receive any reduction in sentence because he loses his job as a result of his crime, which he does receive today, or that the rapist receives a reduction in sentence because he was injured when he committed the crime, which he does receive today. It is this that we want to change.

Volume discounts are super important, but it is also the other parts of the reform. They are connected.

It means that one of the defendants who was convicted of several crimes in connection with the explosions in Norrköping during 2023 would have received nine years of imprisonment instead of five years as a starting point.

It means that the men who systematically robbed elderly women, aged 84–98, in their homes could have received up to eighteen years in prison instead of nine years.

It means that the Nytorg man, as I mentioned initially, could have received twice as long a sentence at the first opportunity and that the crimes he committed when he was released never would have had to happen. Through that, very many people would have escaped being subjected to crimes.

This is the core of what we are discussing today. The consequence of saying no to this is, therefore, no to increased redress, no to better societal protection, and no to just punishment.

I still think it is striking to follow the four parties that are against it. The Centre Party, for heaven's sake! You have completely lost your minds here. I hear what you are saying, Ulrika Liljeberg. In terms of content, this is a very classic conservative reform. You are supposed to sit here with us and not hang out over there with the others.

It is not only the care deduction that is being bickered about here. It is very difficult to reach an agreement in this quartet. Here at the end, however, it has been mobilized to reach an agreement on a no – to this! I actually find that to be both striking and quite deplorable.

You agree on the "no," but if we look at the follow-up motions, it is obvious that you do not agree on very much more. The Social Democrats do not think it is worth the money. The Green Party agrees with that but also wants to start over completely and conduct a completely new review of the Penal Code, if one reads the follow-up motion. The Centre Party likes this but still wants us to follow up on all previous reforms before we decide on new ones – so that is at least what it says in the follow-up motion. The Left Party does not think general sentencing increases are needed. I listened carefully earlier when it was said that we are now to start over with a new, unconditional review of criminal law. That was what was said here earlier from the Left Party's side in the speaker's chair.

It could not be any clearer than this. With a red-green government, important proposals such as those we are talking about today – that the entire sentencing scale shall be used, that pedophiles shall not receive lighter sentences because they are old, that quantity discounts shall be removed – will never come to fruition, neither during the next mandate period nor ever.

The Social Democrats' now somewhat last-minute cobbled-together "narrow" version of volume discounts does not include the reasons for cheapness, which are so deeply offensive. This does not include the entire range of penalties, and neither does conditional imprisonment for that part, something that would actually ease the pressure on the system and help us sort out so that the right people are imprisoned.

It is said that it would be so uncertain what happens with our proposal. Well, we have placed a proposition on the Riksdag's table that will be voted on this afternoon and have the opportunity to get this rolling during the next mandate period. You will have to start over from the beginning with a government basis that does not agree on anything – speaking of castles in the air, bluffs, and other such things. There were many metaphors about infrastructure earlier that were difficult to keep up with, but they are all very accurate for your side. We have nevertheless held our own and are now on our way.

Overall, this reform will be able to enter into force during the next parliamentary term if the blue and yellow team gets the chance to continue. One thing, however, is very certain: It will never happen if the red-greens were to get the chance to return to Rosenbad.

Unlike the left side, we will prioritize the funding of the reform. We will implement it responsibly. We will ensure that we drive up the pace in the processes regarding the expansion of the Prison and Probation Service. We will provide the funds required to make it possible. We will be prepared to do other things required to ease the pressure, including renting more places abroad if that is what is required.

Our firm opinion is that it is about priorities and being prepared to do what is required. The first step is reasonably to vote yes to the bill that will make this possible.

Madam Speaker! When we took over government power, all curves were pointing in the wrong direction. Now we see that very many and very fundamental curves are not only starting to point in the right direction but are also pointing very much in the right direction. Just think that the deadly violence which was so paralyzing for our society, with more than one person murdered a week, has fallen by almost 80 percent in these years! It is an outstanding achievement of our entire society. Twice as many criminal actors are also arrested abroad.

We see that other crimes are also falling. The robberies are falling. The burglaries are falling.

We have over these four years shown that it matters what one does. There is a fundamental hopefulness in that. We have shown that much of what everyone said was impossible has actually finally been able to be implemented. Today there is the chance to take the next important step in this by voting for fairer punishments, improved restitution for crime victims and protection for society. The blue-yellow team says yes, and the red-green team says no. It is also a quite significant message to the citizens ahead of the election on September 13.

(Applause)

In this speech, Jan Ericson and Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (both M) as well as Paulina Brandberg and Martin Melin (both L) agreed.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! I understand that Gunnar Strömmer is stressed about the thought of losing the election in a few weeks. I assume that is why he paints a picture of the government intending to abolish all bulk discounts and that the Social Democrats are against abolishing all bulk discounts – or against abolishing bulk discounts altogether.

The problem is that none of this is correct. The truth is that we both want to redo today's bulk discount.

We Social Democrats want to abolish the quantity discounts for violence and sexual crimes, and we are clear that we intend to start with the sexual crimes. The Tidö government, on the other hand, has placed a proposal before the Riksdag where they have baked the quantity discounts into a larger reform, which is not even supposed to enter into force for several years.

My simple questions to the Minister for Justice are the following: Why does he let the best become the enemy of the possible? Why does the Minister for Justice choose to abolish the volume discounts slowly and sluggishly instead of specifically and quickly?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! It would be interesting to get an effective date for Teresa Carvalho's reforms. Is it October next year we are talking about? Or is it in February 2027? What is your plan for the effective date?

I note that we have, with joint efforts, succeeded in pushing through the first part of the penal reform in the Riksdag, which people certainly did not believe in either. It concerns stricter sentencing scales for 50 crimes and double sentences for gang criminals. In the case of repeated aggravated rapes, a person shall be able to be sentenced to life imprisonment.

We have also done much else in the criminal law area. Now we are pushing the course forward, and we are a guarantor that the proposal will enter into force during the next parliamentary term. What remains is not the entire investigation work, the entire legislative work, or reaching an agreement in your own time. It has almost been a farce when you have loaded up on the rhetoric every day. It is often said that empty barrels make the most noise, and it has made an incredible amount of noise over the last few days with pompous election campaign rhetoric.

When we talk about farsa, it has been rather farcical to try to listen to all four parties – I say three, I assume that C will eventually come back in an appropriate way. What is your plan, and what is your effective date?

We are now at the point where we have started a major planning process in the Prison and Probation Service. They are underway with the planning to manage the capacity expansion required to handle the collective outcome of all our criminal justice reforms. We four parties here in the chamber say that we will get this in place during the next mandate period.

We do not need to start over with negotiations, either with other parties or with ourselves. We know what we want to achieve, and we have a plan for it. When will Teresa Carvalhos reform come into force?

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not think I need to explain to the Minister for Justice that it is the government's responsibility to submit propositions to the Riksdag that can enter into force and that it is the Riksdag's role to make decisions.

It is deeply inappropriate for the government to deprive the Riksdag of the opportunity to make that decision, as it should. It is an order that contradicts the practice for how we enact laws in Sweden. The Committee on the Constitution, among others, has stated this several times. It is clear that it is the Riksdag that should make that type of decision, but the government takes back the decision and says that they intend to make that decision at some point in the future when a future government considers it appropriate. That is not how we enact laws in Sweden – at least not in a responsible way.

It is naturally why this is completely unique, and it is precisely for that reason that it deserves criticism.

Gunnar Strömmer asks what my and the Social Democrats' plan and will are. I must thank the Minister for Justice for the opportunity to repeat that the Social Democrats want to abolish quantity discounts, especially for violence and sexual offenses. We go to the election with the aim of starting with the sexual offenses. We do this to quickly achieve a change from the current order, which I perceive that everyone in the chamber today has expressed.

The difference is that we want to do this immediately in the next mandate period, while the government has placed a bill on the Riksdag's table that is not to enter into force for several years. Gunnar Strömmer has just acknowledged this.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! It was not much of a shocking admission on my part. It is simply to be read aloud in the bill. We say that they shall be in force at the time the government decides, and we say that our assessment is that it can occur during the second half of the next parliamentary term.

When I asked about the entry into force of the Social Democrats' reform, it was of course not because I have misunderstood that it is the government that submits propositions, but it is because you have hinted over the past few days that you would get something in place very quickly. That is why I asked about your entry into force. I do not believe it because you are obviously going to start over. Furthermore, you are going to negotiate with parties that first want to conduct unconditional investigations into the whole.

Nothing will come of the reforms. If anything comes of them, it is the reform that you are fighting for, a reform that excludes many crime victims whom we believe it is important to include. There, the elderly who are defrauded are not included. There, children and parents are not included, in relation to the gang criminals who recruit the children into the gangs. There, the victims of the explosions and shootings by the gangs are not included. There, the victims of the shop thefts are not included. There, the victims of the international theft gangs are not included.

This is a porous plan – I say plan to be a bit generous – which is also, in terms of content, almost offensive. We have also heard that you want to devote yourselves to criminal law with precision. Yes, there is a decent precision. With great precision, you cut out many crime victims whom we have thought it was important to include in the reform.

Let me say that the question of volume discounts is central. It is a fundamental chord in the bourgeois criminal justice policy. Ulrika Liljeberg, come on now! That is why we are passionate about the issue and have fought for the issue for several decades. But besides that your reform is far too narrow when it comes to the crime victims and the volume discounts omit all the other essential parts, for example that the 80-year-old pedophile in Örebro received a reduced sentence because he is old.

It is unfortunate that we have not been able to reach an agreement at the end when everyone has exerted themselves over four years and signaled that they consider the issue to be so important.

(Applause)

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

Jan Ericson (M)

Madam Speaker! Given that all parties in any case speak about the importance of combating crime and increasing safety, it feels a bit strange to stand here today and argue for a well-considered and investigated bill, while it is clear that the opposition will vote no to large parts of the government's proposal. It is actually not only strange but also sad. The Swedish people deserve a broad consensus around a continued fight against crime in Sweden.

The eight years that the Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet ruled the country were lost years for crime policy. It was mostly about talk and very little about workshop. Admittedly, the then Minister of Justice Morgan Johansson stated in 2017 that they were on their way to winning over the criminal gangs, but it became exactly the opposite.

Serious gang crime accelerated, and shootings, murders, explosions, and bombings reached record levels that we had never previously seen in Sweden. The few measures that were nevertheless taken within crime policy under the S government were almost exclusively those that the opposition in the Riksdag forced through via announcements. But the left side was against most of what we Moderates proposed.

Before the 2022 election campaign, the fight against serious crime was one of the Moderates' most important election promises. And the work began immediately and has continued right up until today, when we are to vote on the final parts of the new policy for this parliamentary term. We already see clear results. In my 20 years in the Riksdag, I have never experienced such a focused, broad, and well-thought-out crime policy. And it works!

The police are working effectively with preventive activities and have received new tools, for example, stay-away orders, security zones, and increased opportunities for wiretapping of criminal gangs. At the same time, the border police are working to find people who are being exploited or are engaging in criminal activities in Sweden. The regular police seize property suspected of coming from crime. And the customs service has received increased powers to stop transports with suspected stolen goods. The Enforcement Authority can simultaneously perform remote seizure of property.

We have strengthened the correctional services and are building new prisons while simultaneously purchasing prison places abroad. We have also strengthened the preventive work and the efforts for young people who are in the risk zone or have ended up in crime. And the international cooperation has become increasingly better.

It has been interesting to read news reports about the criminal gangs' internal communication. They say plainly in their secret chats: We are finished in Sweden. It has simply become too difficult to be criminal here. One gang member complains in a chat: First they took our money, then they took our weapons and now they are taking our leaders.

The bombings and explosions have decreased significantly, as have the shootings and, above all, the murders. More and more Swedish violent gang criminals are being arrested, both in Sweden and in other countries. Sweden has expanded international cooperation, and a number of arrests of criminal leaders hiding abroad have helped to curb activities in Sweden. More and more violent criminals are being prosecuted and sentenced, prison sentences are becoming longer, and a record number of violent criminals are being deported.

The government, with its collective policy, has shown that it is possible to break down the heavy gang crime and make it difficult and uncomfortable to conduct such activities in Sweden. And now the criminal gangs are starting to give up. We achieved in four years what Morgan Johansson did not manage in eight years.

Madam Speaker! That is not enough. When the grossly criminal gangs are squeezed or driven out of the country, it also has other positive effects. One important thing is, of course, that ordinary people run a reduced risk of getting in the way of settlements between the gangs. But even other crime has decreased dramatically.

The number of reported burglaries in homes and vacation homes has decreased by as much as 60 percent compared to 2017. Also, thefts of vehicles and from vehicles, as well as thefts linked to boats, have decreased significantly. During January–July 2026, boat-related thefts decreased by 47 percent compared to the same period in 2022. For thefts linked to vehicles, the reports so far this year have decreased by 64 percent compared to the same period in 2022.

The Police Authority views the development as a clear trend break. This is linked to a more offensive work against international crime actors. The Crime Prevention Council mentions the same thing in its analyses. This involves, among other things, stricter border controls, inspection of vehicles suspected of containing stolen goods on their way out of the country, and an increased focus on combating international theft gangs.

Madam Speaker! That is not enough either. Under the S-MP government 2018–2019, there was a record in robberies in Sweden. At most up to 8,000 robberies were reported to the police per year. In 2025, the number was just over 3,000, which is a dramatic decrease. Since 2022, i.e., during this parliamentary term, the number of robberies has decreased by 37 percent. The decrease has been particularly clear among children. There, the decrease was 30 percent just during last year.

The police also speak here of a clear trend. The Crime Prevention Council's safety survey, where people are asked if they have been affected by different types of crime, confirms that picture. Significantly fewer people state that they have been affected by different types of personal robberies.

There may be several reasons why robberies have decreased. Brå specifically points out that the number of surveillance cameras in vulnerable locations may have played a role. We also know that increased resources to the police have increased visibility in vulnerable areas. Harsher penalties and faster prosecution of criminals may also certainly have played a role. If a robber is apprehended, they do not commit any more robberies as long as they are in a detention center or prison.

Recently, these crimes have also been affected by the fact that we have dealt with the serious organized crime. When the criminal gangs lose strength, the number of members in the gangs decreases and the robberies of individuals become fewer, simply because the number of criminals has decreased. The robberies of individuals are also often debut crimes for young people who are drawn into criminality. If one succeeds in keeping more young people away from criminal gangs, the robberies of individuals also decrease.

Brå also points out another interesting explanation: that these robberies are most often committed by young men and that the demographics have simply changed. Fewer young men result in fewer robberies. Sweden has, after the years with very many asylum-seeking young men, had a large surplus in these age groups. We know at the same time that certain groups of young foreign-born individuals are heavily overrepresented in certain types of crime. Stricter migration policy could therefore also have been significant for the reduced number of personal robberies.

Brå also shows that people with a foreign background generally report greater vulnerability to robbery than people with a Swedish background. The crime victims are also overrepresented among those foreign-born. When robberies decrease, it means that fewer people with a foreign background are affected by crime. That diligent immigrants feel reduced anxiety about being subjected to crime is a very important measure for a functioning integration, not to mention the human side.

Madam Speaker! Today's government has shown that it is possible to produce functioning policies to tackle crime and that it yields good results. Now we present the final pieces of the puzzle in this area for this mandate period. I will not go into the various proposals. That has already been done a number of times in this debate.

The problem, however, is that the opposition speaks warmly about the importance of a powerful crime policy but still chooses to say no to important proposals with very strained arguments, which collapse as soon as you poke at them the slightest bit. The biggest inaccuracy from S is the claim that the proposal to abolish volume discounts cannot enter into force until 2040. It is pure fabrication.

Let me take a pedagogical example: Assume that a perpetrator with today's bulk discount is sentenced to five years in prison. Without the discount, the sentence would instead be eight years. Then the burden on the correctional services will be exactly the same as today during the first five years. Only after five years would an extra place be needed for the final three years of imprisonment.

With this, I want to illustrate that there is time to expand the criminal justice system, and that work is already underway. Even the extra costs will come in due course and will be financed in every budget moving forward. We make decisions on the law today. It will then be implemented gradually after the election during the next mandate period, just as the Minister for Justice has stated.

It is obvious that the Social Democrats have either read the documents very carelessly or that one is deliberately trying to deceive the voters. I do not know which is worse. Now one must try to wiggle out of this as best as possible. But it is not going particularly well.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has become safer under today's government. The gang criminals are being driven out of the country or ending up in prison. Shootings, explosions, bombings and murders have decreased sharply. The risk of being affected by burglaries, theft of car or boat or robberies has decreased significantly. It is all about a sharper policy against the criminals, so that ordinary people do not have to be exposed to crime. We have done a lot this mandate period, and a new Moderate-led government will continue this work.

The good development must not be jeopardized by new lax crime policy and migration policy. The fight against crime should be something all parties hold dear. But the four opposition parties are, as usual, more concerned about the criminals than about the crime victims.

If one wants to see a continued fight against crime, one cannot vote for the parties that have voted no to so much of the government's successful policy over the last four years.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the committee's report. Do not forget to vote for the Moderates or any of the other blue and yellow parties on September 13 for a continued effective crime policy.

(Applause)

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

Josef Fransson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Have you ever played poker? Most in this chamber must have tried it at least once. Poker, and in particular my own favorite Texas hold ’em, can offer both excitement and pleasant socializing. Not least, it is a way to practice risk-reward analysis. I shall return to this shortly.

Today we are debating a new criminal penalty system. The Social Democrats have repeatedly asserted that the reform could be in place as early as 2040 and cited this as the reason for voting against it. The Prison and Probation Service has, however, as one of the most important referral bodies, stated that it assesses that the agency's space and staffing needs, partly as a result of these proposals, can be addressed at the earliest in 2040. Naturally, we shall take this input into account. We must, however, keep in mind that the Prison and Probation Service is based on a scenario where everything else remains the same, and everything else is not the same.

Now back to poker, which I will use as an analogy.

When one plays poker, one usually has three choices: one can raise, call, or fold. At each decision, one takes into account things such as how large the pot is, what it costs to call, and the odds of improving one's hand when the final cards are to be dealt. One can read books about this to learn how to act most rationally, but if one plays a lot, one learns purely intuitively what is actually effective.

Let's say you are playing Texas hold 'em and have two spades in your hand. Two more spades come on the flop, and you now need one more spade to get a flush that will very likely be the winning hand. You get two more chances to get your flush, and now the mathematics begins.

Let us say that there are 100 kronor in the pot and that your opponent bets 20 kronor. The pot odds in relation to the winning odds now speak in your favor, and you call. If your opponent, however, puts 70 kronor into the pot, the picture changes, and it is then rational for you to fold your cards.

In the same way, criminals naturally act in their decisions, especially when they commit crimes to make money. Before they commit a theft, a robbery, or a VAT fraud, they will naturally take into account how large the potential criminal profit is, how great the risk of getting caught is and, not least, how severe the punishment they will receive if they are prosecuted.

It is familiar to many in this chamber that Sweden has a criminal economy that turns over around 350 billion. Not least the immigration has caused us to have mafias in Sweden, and they have been able to carve out gold through various forms of fraud and illegal activities. The absolutely most important factor, I argue, is that the risk is less than the profit, just as in my poker analogy. The profit odds are higher than the pot odds.

We have during this mandate period been able to strike hard against many types of crime, but the work of bringing down the actors behind the criminal economy is far from finished. Increased penalties are a central piece of the puzzle in this context.

What I believe we can achieve with greater probability, in terms of being prosecuted and harsher penalties, is that the lifestyle criminals in many cases will refrain from crime or perhaps even leave the country. It is not a law of nature that we should have such an extensive criminal sector.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 7.)

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