(cont. from § 10) Violent crime and crime victims (cont. JuU12)

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! In September 2022, the Swedish people went to the polls to elect their representatives in this chamber. An escalating and brutalized crime of violence in the form of shootings, explosions, and robbery by humiliation, and years of failed migration policy meant that safety stood at the top of the agenda, and with all rights. The people chose a new, bourgeois government in the hope of change.

The development of gang crime and organized crime had been facilitated by access to a good recruitment base, good organizational opportunities, good profit opportunities, and weak control possibilities. Ever since taking office, the Christian Democrats, together with the other Tidö parties, have relentlessly worked to break that development.

The law enforcement authorities have received new and effective tools. Stay-away orders, expanded possibilities for the use of secret coercive measures, new rules on independent forfeiture, increased camera surveillance, increased information exchange, and stricter penalties are some examples.

Madam Speaker! Central to all of this is that we are now putting people's safety and the crime victim at the center.

We are strengthening efforts against crimes in close relationships. The rules on restraining orders have been updated with an increased focus on the perpetrator rather than on the victim. It is the perpetrator who should have their freedom of movement restricted, not the one who is subjected to violence, threats, and harassment. The police are now working methodically to map out violent and dangerous men, and as of today, they have identified over 600 men as potentially dangerous perpetrators.

Another important aspect is the crime victim's legitimate claim to redress and that the perpetrator shall receive their punishment and atone for their crime.

The previous speaker mentioned in passing that the punishment has no significance. I am of the opposite opinion, especially after having met crime victims whose relatives have been murdered, whose children have been murdered. In those cases, one can state that the relatives would gladly have seen us lock up the murderers for all time and gladly throw away the key, so I do not agree that the punishment has no significance for the crime victim's justice.

We are now providing increased support to crime victims. Crime injury compensation shall be paid out directly from the Crime Victim Authority after the judgment has gained legal force, as Charlotte Nordström mentioned here. Today, the crime victim must primarily turn to the perpetrator to receive compensation, but now we are, as stated, changing that.

New legislation, increased funding for the justice system, and new working methodology have yielded results. We are now seeing a marked increase in the clearance rate for serious violent crimes in gang environments, from around 20 percent to over 70 percent.

The other day, I noted that the Police Authority has released the reporting for fatal shootings in 2025. All crimes except one have been cleared up, but that one is also on its way to being cleared up. It is indeed pleasing, even though the shootings are still a major problem. We must not underestimate that issue, because we are not finished with that work yet.

The good results are also reflected in the increased occupancy at our correctional facilities. In detention centers and prisons, there is a struggle with overcrowding. New constructions are planned for more detention and prison places. While awaiting completion, we can, if the proposal gains approval in the chamber, rent 600 places at the prison in Tartu, Estonia. It is a prison that I myself have visited, and I can state that the premises are well in line with Swedish counterparts and that the staff is well-trained.

Madam Speaker! After good cooperation with Europol and other countries, several criminals in the absolute top tier have been arrested in places where they lived in the illusion that they were inaccessible to the Swedish justice system.

In a few days, we will also have new legislation in place aimed at the so-called non-completed forms of crime—attempt, preparation, and branding—primarily for the purpose of preventing completed crimes. Recruitment of young people online will become punishable, and we will also otherwise receive legislation that is better adapted to the criminal developments we are seeing.

Madam Speaker! Around 400,000 of 1.4 million reported crimes can today be linked to gang crime and/or organized crime. At the same time, we see a decrease in so-called everyday crimes in the form of theft, property damage, and assault. The number of reported thefts has decreased significantly – last year by 22 percent, which corresponds to 55,000 fewer theft crimes.

In that part, there is probably a close connection to new legislation on border policing, which has resulted in 370 entrants being deported with a re-entry ban. All are criminals with connections primarily to theft crimes. The police estimate that each criminal individual commits approximately 40 crimes while staying in the country, so it is easy to calculate that approximately 14,000 crimes have been prevented simply by us deporting people at the border.

Madam Speaker! A continued large and worrying problem is that many children are recruited or volunteer to liquidate people who are completely unknown to them or to carry out bombings. New young people constantly flow in, and there is a socialization into a criminal norm that money is not enough for status – to be someone in the criminal world, one must kill.

I believe that we spontaneously recoil at the thought that children are capable of committing murder, but now we are here. From this having been a completely unknown phenomenon, the number of perpetrators over 15 years suspected of murder or attempted murder has increased dramatically. We can, of course, be horrified by what is happening. But now we stand here, and it must be stopped.

It is in that context that a lowered age of criminal responsibility should be seen. Where crime prevention measures do not work, deprivation of liberty measures are required. That we all agree on. I am well aware of the massive criticism that has been put forward from the Council on Legislation and heavy referral bodies, but alternative proposals are conspicuously absent.

What do we do then with 13–14-year-olds who murder? Here in the Riksdag and the government, we have a responsibility. Therefore, the government is now proposing time-limited legislation with a lowering of the age of criminal responsibility to 13 years for the most serious crimes. It is, as mentioned, time-limited legislation, and the idea is to task the Swedish Prison and Probation Service with providing treatment and rehabilitation. We do not know how it will turn out, but this is an attempt to remedy an acute problem.

Madam Speaker! Good norms and values have been completely abandoned in favor of a gangster culture where there is no right or wrong, other than the right to appoint oneself as executioner.

We Christian Democrats and the government are now carrying out the largest reorganization of crime policy in modern times, and we are working intensively to step by step reverse the development that we have seen. We shall win that fight.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating violent crime and crime victims. I would first like to say that my thoughts go to those who have been affected by serious violence and to those who have lost a relative as a result of the violence. It is completely unacceptable. I would therefore like to begin by saying that the Center Party stands behind the increased and greater focus on crime victims and those exposed to crime. We also stand behind the major resource reinforcements that have been made to the justice system.

Centerpartiet's crime policy is based on putting crime victims in focus, on the principles of the rule of law, on effective evidence-based legislation and on the entire justice chain throughout the country – from police, prosecutor and court to correctional services.

The serious organized crime with shootings and explosions receives great attention – and it should. There we see improvements: a reduction in certain crimes and an increased clearance rate. That is good and very welcome, but we simultaneously see that the volume crimes, i.e., the majority of all crimes, continue to be neglected and are not prioritized as they should. These are, for example, burglaries, thefts, unlawful threats, fraud, property damage, and assault. These are crimes that for many crime victims are tremendous experiences that cause one to often lose faith in both the justice system, society, and one's fellow human beings.

The quantity crimes occur throughout our country and online. They are crimes against individuals, against associations, and against companies – crimes that, despite large resource additions and a new, better police organization, are not increasing in clearance. An ever smaller proportion is being solved. This has been reported previously, and it has been reported today. This requires an increased, stable, and long-term police presence throughout the country, and there is more to be done from the government's side.

We have a government that claims to protect the countryside but which at the same time has authorities that close police reception desks and reduce police presence in many municipalities. They withdraw, and then the government blames the authorities. Let us have a government that can govern the country and that can govern its authorities in accordance with its intentions.

Madam Speaker! I have spoken about those who have been subjected to gross fatal violence, and I have spoken about the persons and companies who are subjected to mass crimes. I also want to highlight the women and children who have been subjected to violence in their relationships and in their homes, those who have fled from a violent partner and those who are threatened by honor-related violence. This is a particularly vulnerable group of crime victims. In many cases, they are forced to have some kind of relationship with the perpetrator – the perpetrator – for the rest of their lives. This differs from many other crimes.

I want to particularly highlight the group among these crime victims who need protected personal data as protection from their perpetrators. In Sweden, there are today thousands of people living with protected identities and protected personal data. This also includes people who have witness protection and individuals who have left a criminal environment. For these people, it is literally a matter of life and death that their identity and place of residence remain protected.

Despite this, there is today a lack of a national preparedness for occasions when personal data are disclosed. In the large leaks of recent years – Sportadmin, Ivos masking failure, and Miljödata – information about persons with protected identities has become public. Today, there are no clear routines or any central function that can monitor which individuals have been affected when personal data have been disclosed. There is no actor who acts quickly to warn or protect the most vulnerable. Instead, the individual is expected to contact, for example, their sports club or authority themselves to receive support. It is both naive and many times dangerous.

Centern encourages increased digitalization in society, but it also means that we must take responsibility for the most vulnerable when things go wrong. We therefore believe that a national crisis function must be established, with a mandate to immediately check at every major data breach whether information about persons with protected identities is among the leaked data. We need to coordinate crisis measures with social services, the police, and Skatteverket, offer protection measures and perhaps temporary relocation, as well as follow up and analyze the leaks.

The government should appoint an inquiry to create a national function that can monitor and manage whether personal data has been disclosed. Furthermore, the affected individuals need, in addition to the national function, a contact person whom they can contact in this extra vulnerable situation.

If anything, Madam Speaker, is to put the crime victims in focus and to prevent further crimes from being committed.

I vote in favor of reservation 14.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! Let me paint a scenario:

Imagine living in an apartment that is only on loan – an apartment where the furniture is not yours and the name on the door is not yours. You are not even allowed to tell the neighbors what your name is. Add to that the fact that at any time you might need to leave that apartment to move to another apartment, which is also not yours. These apartments are not located in areas that you have chosen. They might not even be located in a city where you feel at home. Also imagine that you have children who go to school and preschool.

And then it happens: The one who wants to kill you finds out where you live. He goes to the apartment in the middle of the night, and you wake up as he starts banging on the door – louder and louder, more intense and more intense. Finally, he starts to roar, and he roars louder and louder. He screams that you must open the door and that you must let him in. You call the police, but when they arrive, he is already gone.

Your child has woken up. Of course, your child is scared and wonders what is happening. You have to pack up what you can and go with the police. The child is wrapped in a blanket, and you have taken what you could find. It will be a night on a cot at the police station before social services and the women's shelter come and take over, and you get temporary protection at a protected residence. After a couple of weeks, you get to move to a new apartment in a new area, and the child gets to start at a new preschool.

Add to that the fact that you have a workplace with colleagues who wonder why there is sometimes a man standing outside the entrance shouting for you. He shouts that you should show yourself and that you should come out. The preschool might call and say that there is a man standing there who wants to pick up your child.

We can build on this with the fear and the anxiety that you feel every time you go to the grocery store, every time you go to the gym, and every time you are going to meet your friends. It is the feeling of never being safe and that you always need to be afraid. You have thoughts that constantly revolve: Has he found me again now? Will he find me? Is he watching me? Will he succeed in killing me?

This, Madam Speaker, is the reality for thousands of women. They have it this way every day, every week, every month, every year.

I know that we all in here are aware of this and want to do something about it. It actually pleases me that we are in agreement on this issue, regardless of party affiliation. But this is difficult, and it is a societal problem.

There is no template for what a man who is violent towards a woman looks like. What has been learned in recent years is that men who have killed a woman or in other ways have been violent towards her have not infrequently had contact with healthcare or psychiatry. That is why I think it is important that within healthcare and psychiatry, a system is developed for how one can cooperate with the police.

The police have had a pilot project where they conducted home visits to men who had shown violent tendencies. One of the most successful projects was operation Beta, which unfortunately has now been discontinued.

I believe that is where somewhere the police must start working. One must work preventatively by mapping out these violent men and then processing them, for example via home visits. It will not stop women from being hunted, persecuted, or even murdered, but it is something nonetheless – and we must do something.

I believe that we from the political side have done what we can to increase protection through laws. We have strengthened the earlier contact prohibition and hopefully made it safer by, in more cases, linking the contact prohibition with stay prohibitions and electronic surveillance. It also pleases me that the Tidö parties most recently today announced that they want to review how secret coercive measures – preventive ones – can be used to eavesdrop on men who show tendencies to be violent. In my world, that is an offensive policy, and that is what I want to see more of.

When it comes to combating violence against women, the measures must not have any price tag.

(Applause)

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! In Sweden, we have long established that it is the one who purchases sexual services who commits the crime. Nevertheless, in practice, it is not always how our justice system treats the people who are exploited in prostitution. According to Brå's follow-up on Purchase of sexual services, the one who has sold sexual acts is almost always regarded as a witness, not as a crime victim. Only about one in ten is granted victim status, and in those cases, it is usually because other crimes have been committed simultaneously. This is a profound systemic error.

The one who buys sex does not only harm society, but one harms a concrete human being. It is about women, often very young, who are sometimes brought here from other countries with promises that turn out to be lies. They are subjected to psychological and physical violence, threats, and economic exploitation – and after that, to a legal system that does not always see them as the crime victims they actually are.

Madam Speaker! What does it mean then to be denied victim status? It means that you do not get the right to damages and that you do not receive crime compensation. You do not get a victim's counsel to support you through interrogation and the trial. You stand alone before the authorities, alone in your vulnerability, and alone with the chance – which in practice is often lost – to leave the situation you find yourself in.

Giving persons who are exploited in prostitution the status of a victim is therefore not about semantics; it is about lives. It is about the possibility of protection, support measures, treatment, and counseling – everything that can give a woman the strength to break away from an exploitative situation. It is also about clarity towards courts and society that Sweden must take sex buying seriously. We must see the exploited person as a crime victim, not as an accomplice or a witness.

Madam Speaker! Many women in prostitution have come to Sweden from other countries. They live in several types of vulnerability: as women, as migrants and as victims of crime. For these women, it is absolutely crucial that they feel that society stands on their side. It is crucial that they dare to seek help, that they dare to participate in legal processes and that they dare to testify against those who subject them to crimes. Today, that is not always the case.

We therefore mean that the government should appoint an inquiry to review the possibility of granting persons who sell sexual acts victim status during the preliminary investigation and trial. It is a step that would strengthen legal certainty, enable more convictions and, above all, give these women the support they are entitled to as crime victims.

Madam Speaker! There are also a number of other issues that I would like to take the opportunity to raise in this debate.

Firstly: The national coordination against prostitution and human trafficking shows that human trafficking is increasing, that digital exploitation is spreading, and that exploitation within, among other things, the Thai massage industry continues. Nevertheless, the number of convictions is very low. In some years, none at all are convicted. Women have even been arrested and deported instead of being regarded as crime victims. It is unacceptable. We believe that the government should investigate the legislation on human trafficking and furthermore task Brå with mapping human trafficking of children in criminal networks.

Madam Speaker! Secondly: Children who have been subjected to abuse need equivalent support throughout the country. Children's houses are an incredibly important part of this, but the quality varies greatly. Therefore, we want to see a national certification to ensure that all children receive the same protection and the same opportunity for redress.

Thirdly: Crime victims should not have to navigate through a patchwork of rules and authorities. We want to gather all rights into a unified crime victim legislation – a simple and clear framework for support, protection, and compensation.

For the fourth: The new forfeiture legislation makes it possible to seize significantly more of the criminals' assets. That is good, but these funds should go back to the areas where the crimes were committed – to the civil society that works for safety every day.

Madam Speaker! For the fifth: The protection for women who have left violent relationships is not sufficient. Restraining orders often work poorly. We want to reverse the perspective: It is the perpetrator, not the woman, who should be geographically restricted. Furthermore, women and children with protected personal data need to be given a personal contact person who can support them in everyday life.

Finally: The Consent Act has been a historical success. It has led to significantly more prosecutions and a strengthened legal protection. But the crime of negligent rape is legally difficult to apply, and rapid training for judges and other legal actors is needed so that the legislation is used correctly and in a legally secure manner.

Madam Speaker! Common to all these issues is that they concern something very fundamental, namely society's duty to protect those who are subjected to crime. It is about women in prostitution who are still not regarded as crime victims. It is about children who are subjected to violence and abuse. It is about hbtqi persons, about persons subjected to hate crimes, about migrants and about women in sheltered housing. It is about people who need society's full support.

If Sweden is to be a country where justice prevails, where people's dignity is inviolable and where no one is left alone in their vulnerability, we must continue to strengthen the rights of crime victims – in the legislation, in the exercise of authority and in the practical support.

I naturally support all of the Green Party's reservations but choose to move for approval only to reservation 5.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be made on 26 March.)

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