Deprivation of liberty sentences for children and young people

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are debating the government's bill on custodial sentences for children and young people.

Handling children and young people who commit very serious crimes is something that society has failed at so far, for several reasons. One has failed not least because nine out of ten who have been sentenced to closed juvenile care for serious crimes have relapsed into crime, but also because the justice for those affected by serious crimes has been sidelined due to the priorities of previous more or less empathy-less governments.

Children under 15 years of age have not received any criminal consequences, despite very serious crimes, and youths between 15 and 18 years of age have until now been able to receive a few years of stay in closed youth care for crimes as serious as murder. For the Sweden Democrats, this has long been a societal injustice where we have meant that the policy needs a major overhaul.

Mr. Speaker! There will continue to be divided opinions on whether we should have gone further in certain respects. I absolutely do not want to rule that out for the future, but when it comes to the move from the State Institutions Board, Sis, to youth prisons and regarding serious crimes, it is a move that is as substantial as it is necessary.

Now we will ensure that young people who commit serious crimes no longer go free because of a relatively low age or, for that matter, are available to criminal gangs within closed youth care. Instead, they will be well cared for by the Prison and Probation Service in special youth prisons.

Unlike some parties on the left, I believe that young people who have both the will and the ability to use explosives or firearms to blow up houses or carry out contract killings should neither be allowed to go free due to a relatively low age nor escape from leisure-like Sis-homes. These young people must be isolated from society to protect both society and the young people themselves. This, we argue, must be done together with the best expertise we have in Sweden regarding serious crime, and that is what we find today under the auspices of Kriminalvården.

Some say that it is wrong to lock up children in prison. I think that is a formulation that requires nuance.

First and foremost, we already lock up children today when they commit serious crimes or are dangerous to others and themselves. One difference now is that we see that more and more young people are committing increasingly more serious crimes and that criminal gangs are often involved. We can also see that the detention that is already occurring today within the State Institutions Board is not working, against the background of recurring escapes, contact with gangs, and recidivism. In that case, one must either choose to do something or accept the development.

The phrase of locking up children in prison also needs to be nuanced for the event that someone imagines that children will be locked up with adult prisoners and that we will then throw the key into the lake. That is also not the reality of the change that the government is now proposing.

The Prison and Probation Service has been given a mandate to prepare for the new responsibility of caring for young criminals in light of the challenges this entails regarding school, employment, breaking isolation, and so on, that is, to specifically adapt the operations to the young people's age. The Prison and Probation Service has done this and says it is well prepared to take on the task.

Mr. Speaker! Since there are parties on the left wing that are opposed to the government's and the Sverigedemokraternas' [SD] approach regarding seriously criminal teenagers, I think one must finally ask the question of whether one considers it better for the Prison and Probation Service, with its competence, to take care of these young criminals, or if one advocates for today's model, where the criminal gangs, with their competence, take care of all those younger who are involved in all more serious crime. This, Mr. Speaker, is the relevant question we must ask ourselves when our differences in politics become clear in a debate such as this.

I move for the rejection of the motions and for the approval of the government's proposition.

(Applause)

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

Heléne Björklund (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Justice's report 30 on custodial sentences for children and young people. I want to begin by moving for approval of our reservation number 3.

This is a difficult subject to debate, because it concerns children and young people who have committed very serious crimes. They are young people who have destroyed others' lives but who also risk destroying their own future. It concerns young people whom society must stop but also bring back. Therefore, we must ensure that the young people we are now discussing come out better, not as more criminals.

Mr. Speaker! Today's debate is about which authority shall be responsible for the execution of sentences when children and young people are sentenced to a custodial penalty. According to the proposal, young people shall no longer be sentenced to closed juvenile care within Sis. Instead, they shall be sentenced to imprisonment, and Kriminalvården shall be responsible for the execution.

For us Social Democrats, it has not been obvious that this is where we should land in the debate, but it has not worked well enough with Sis. Then we are prepared to try something else.

I know that many employees within Sis do a good job with a very difficult target group – a truly tough job – but the system has not managed the task well enough. We have seen escapes, we have seen security deficiencies, and we have seen young people who, during their sentence, have influenced others to continue committing criminal acts. Above all, we have seen far too many recidivisms.

A review conducted of all persons sentenced to closed juvenile care during the years 2015–2022 shows that seven out of ten relapsed into crime, and for young people with gang connections, it was as many as 90 percent who relapsed into crime. The investigation concerned 439 youths, mainly young men. It is therefore clear for our party that we must conduct a reassessment.

It is about young people who have committed very serious crimes: serious violent crimes, aggravated robberies, aggravated weapons offenses, aggravated drug offenses and, in some cases, murder and attempted murder. It is a small but very heavy group.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats therefore propose a special release review for young people who have committed particularly serious crimes, and it is here that we have our reservation. When the risk of recidivism is high and the consequences for other people are very great, it is not enough that release occurs without a sufficiently thorough review.

We mean that there must be a possibility to stop and make a collective assessment. What does the risk of recidivism look like? How has the young person developed? How has the treatment worked? Are there conditions to return to a good life? Do the school and the housing work, and are there good adults outside of the correctional services?

Mr. Speaker! We truly believe in the Prison and Probation Service and that it is better equipped for the target group – that is what we have concluded. We have great confidence in the Prison and Probation Service as an authority. We in the Social Democratic group have visited prisons to learn more about how they work with preparing the youth departments.

We believe that the Prison and Probation Service is an agency that can fulfill its mission, works in a structured manner, and has experience in security, enforcement, control, and recidivism prevention work. The Prison and Probation Service's own vision is "better out." It is a really good vision, and it is exactly what we need. These young people should not just be locked up – they should come out better.

We also believe that this can mean something good for Sis. When the most crime-involved young people are moved from Sis homes to the Prison and Probation Service, the Sis homes and the staff there can focus to a greater extent on their core mission: care, treatment, and change for the most vulnerable children and young people in society. There are children here with severe problems. It concerns children with substance abuse, mental ill-health, neuropsychiatric difficulties, destructive life patterns, and great vulnerability, but they do not necessarily have to be burdened with heavy crime.

It is not enough to just change the agency and move the youths from Sis to Kriminalvården and think that everything will be resolved. For us Social Democrats, one issue is absolutely crucial, namely the school issue. These children have often already failed in school, or perhaps rather: Society and the school have failed the youths. School is one of the most important protective factors, and it must be the very backbone of the new departments.

Mr. Speaker! I refuse to give up faith in the children. I do not believe that one is born a criminal, and I do not think that a child should be lost at the age of 13, 14, or 15. We must build a society that reduces the recruitment base so that the next generation does not end up there. We must build an entire society. It is not enough to lock up the children who have committed serious crimes. We must also prevent new children from being drawn in. Sweden cannot afford to lose more children.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal, with the exception of our reservation 3.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! There is a high pace of reform within the justice policy. From today and until August, 20 propositions within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Justice will be processed in the Chamber. It has probably never happened before that a committee processes so many propositions in such a short time.

Some think it is going too fast, but that is not my perception. The products that will be processed have generally undergone years of preparation before they reach the Riksdag. When it comes to the issue we are debating today, the Riksdag already in 2019 issued a notice to the then Social Democratic government to come back with proposals on the issue.

Mr. Speaker! Serious crime is penetrating further and further down into the age groups. We see that very young people, children under 15 years of age, are involved in murder plots, but also that older teenagers, despite their young age, have already come far in their criminal careers. It is clear that the system surrounding young people who commit serious crimes has not kept pace with societal development.

Minors who have committed such serious crimes that a custodial sentence is necessary are today sentenced to closed juvenile care at Sis special juvenile home. These are facilities that have a great and difficult mission and which, unfortunately, have been burdened with difficult problems over the years.

Closed juvenile custody was introduced in 1999, but since then, society has changed. The young people who commit crimes commit more and more dangerous crimes than before. It has become more common to use weapons and explosives and for the crimes to have links to criminal networks. Almost all who are sentenced to closed juvenile custody for crimes with links to criminal networks reoffend.

Mr. Speaker! The state youth homes shall care for young people, both girls and boys, with vastly different difficulties and problems. It can involve self-harming behaviors, substance abuse or other social difficulties, but it also concerns, to an ever increasing extent, involvement in crime.

The country's social services place young people in youth homes according to LVU or according to the Act on Closed Youth Care as a penalty for the serious crimes for which they have been convicted. From 2021 to 2025, the average number of youth placed according to the Act on Closed Youth Care increased from 59 to 246. At the same time, the number of young people whom the social services placed in Sis homes decreased slightly. This means that the convicted youths, who in 2021 constituted around 10 percent of the youths in the special youth homes, today constitute more than a third. Sis's mandate has simply changed fundamentally.

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating how we should handle those young people who are sentenced for such serious crimes that custodial sentences are necessary. That this works well is crucial for protecting the surrounding society from serious crime, protecting young people from committing further serious crimes, and not least giving these young people the best possible conditions to be reintegrated into open society after serving their sentence without being drawn into crime again.

Mr. Speaker! To state the obvious, we would most preferably catch these children and young people before the gangs do. The Government has introduced a more preventive Social Services Act and is investing nearly 10 billion kronor in the transformation of social services. We have legislated the municipalities' responsibility to work on crime prevention, and we are removing secrecy barriers so that school, social services, and the police can cooperate better. We are closing today's gap between voluntary interventions and compulsory care by giving social services access to more tools when parents do not cooperate. We are also reviewing the entire state youth care so that all children placed in the special youth homes will receive good care.

Mr. Speaker! We need to stop the recruitment of children and young people. Today, pure murder missions targeted at children are being spread on social media such as TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat. This means that young people can very quickly go from not being on the police's radar at all to shooting or exploding, and in the worst case, murdering.

The government has, through a fast-track, pushed forward new legislation that forces online platforms to remove gangs' recruitment material within one hour of publication, in the same way that already occurs with terror propaganda. If the platforms do not act, significant fines of up to 5 million kronor await.

Sweden is first in the EU with such a law, but when it comes to gangs' recruitment online, Sweden was possibly among the first to be affected by the phenomenon. It is a phenomenon that has spread to more countries, and more will follow Sweden on this issue.

The Government plans to submit a proposition to the Riksdag on May 28, and if we in the Riksdag can reach an agreement, a decision can be made as early as before Midsummer.

It is also completely central, Mr. Speaker, to reach the older criminals who rule, order, and recruit. A decisive change came into place on October 1, when the police were given the opportunity to use secret coercive measures and preventive coercive measures even against children under 15 years of age, not least in order to reach the orderers in the children's mobile phones and in this way prevent and preclude children from being drawn into serious crimes.

The government, the prosecutor, and the police are also working intensively to have criminals hiding abroad arrested and prosecuted. As recently as last week, Justice Minister Gunnar Strömmer was in Tunisia to open new doors to cooperation.

Mr. Speaker! Even though crime prevention and preventive work are being developed both at the municipal level and by the law enforcement authorities, we see that far too many children commit serious crimes. When that is the case, there must also be a reaction. It is about providing redress for crime victims, protecting society from serious crime, and providing the right conditions for a life without criminality.

Today we have to take a position on the government's proposition that today's arrangement with closed youth care at the State Institutions Board shall be phased out and replaced with imprisonment and that the Prison and Probation Service shall be responsible for the execution. The prison sentences shall be executed in special children's and youth departments at a number of institutions in the country.

The Moderates pushed this issue already during the previous parliamentary term and forced the then Social Democratic government to appoint an inquiry into replacing the sanction of closed youth care with youth prison. In August 2023, the government received the inquiry, which proposed exactly that the sanction of closed youth care should be phased out and replaced with prison.

Why do we do this then? We mean that it creates better conditions for a life without crime after completed incarceration. The realignment of criminal policy that the government is carrying out, in combination with crime becoming more serious, leads to longer prison sentences. In that case, it is even more important to have both high quality in schooling and treatment, and that the children receive the right support during the transition between institution and freedom to reduce the risk of recidivism. The Prison and Probation Service can also, within the framework of parole and its nationwide probation activities, provide a completely different level of support for readjustment to a life in freedom. It better satisfies the need for societal protection. The Prison and Probation Service has a completely different experience of, and a toolbox for, working with persons who commit serious crimes. It is not least about protecting both inmates and staff from threats and violence.

Furthermore, this reform can contribute to a more reasonable distribution of work between state youth care and correctional services. Sis can in the future focus on its important mission of providing care to children and young people who are taken into care by social services. More children in risk zones can in that way receive the right help and the right preventive measures.

In the special children's and youth departments within the Prison and Probation Service, children will receive care and education adapted to the children's maturity and needs to help them break the criminal lifestyle. Among other things, the proposals mean that children shall be placed separate from adults, that the Prison and Probation Service shall provide education, and that the principle of the best interests of the child shall permeate every intervention undertaken.

The Prison and Probation Service has been tasked with preparing the establishment of youth prisons for children and young people since the spring of last year and a specific assignment regarding school activities. Through structured activities with a focus on education, an important foundation is created for the work of preventing recidivism.

Mr. Speaker! We are not phasing out closed youth care and replacing it with imprisonment, and transferring the responsibility for execution from the State Institution Board to the Prison and Probation Service, primarily to punish children, but to protect society, strengthen the redress of crime victims, and create better conditions for these children and young people to break away from a destructive criminal existence.

With that, I move for approval of the proposal in the report and approval of the government bill.

(Applause)

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

Heléne Björklund (S)

Mr. Speaker! Mikael Damsgaard from the Moderaterna represents the government side here today, so I would like to ask him some questions in that regard.

As I said in my speech, we have moved from being quite critical of this to landing on the same decision as the government. We think it is good that Kriminalvården takes over the responsibility. But we initially had some requirements for us to land here. One was that children should never be mixed with adults. The other was about schooling being the absolute most decisive factor for these children and young people to fare better.

Now you are moving forward with this reform, and the legislation is to enter into force on July 1 this year. From then on, the youth departments shall also be operational. But you have not secured the schooling. You do not even have legislation in place for the schooling that is to be provided at the youth departments – that is expected to be ready only in 2028.

Therefore, I want to ask the government side: How are we going to secure schooling for these 13-year-olds? How many hours of instruction shall they receive? What will it look like regarding the principal's responsibility? What level of teacher competence shall there be? Shall there be special educators who can work with the important NPF diagnoses? And so on and so forth.

This is a really important issue for these young people to be better off, so why is the legislation regarding the school not in place?

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is absolutely true that schooling is completely central to succeeding with the task of preventing recidivism. There is an obligation of employment for the young people in the bill that is on the table, and in that, it is precisely the school and education that is the central component.

Regarding the different parts of this reform, the government has driven the implementation of the reform at a high pace. We have chosen to proceed with the establishment of youth prisons even though all components may not be completely finished. Why are we doing it? Well, because societal development and the situation we have make it necessary to proceed with this reform now.

The investigation suggested that we should wait an additional 18 months. I do not know if that is what the Social Democrats want. For us, it is important that we can launch this reform on July 1 to create safe and secure conditions for the youths who commit serious crimes.

Regarding the establishment of the youth departments, as well as the school activities, that is also something that will occur gradually. It is not the case that those who are currently within the activities of the State Institutions Board will be moved over to Kriminalvården, but rather it is those who commit crimes after July 1, 2026, who will be sentenced to prison and thus gradually enter the sphere of Kriminalvården.

But we also see that it is popular to work within the schools. Every position has more than a hundred applicants, so we see that there are good opportunities to conduct good school activities within the Prison and Probation Service.

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

Heléne Björklund (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the member for the answer!

Yes, it is true that it states both in the investigation and in the bill that there is an employment obligation. But it also states that the employment obligation for these children may not consist of work. Then some rehabilitation remains, but above all school, and it is the school that will not be in place until 2028 at the earliest. That is not sufficient.

We have said that we are ready to fast-track this issue, and we have also done so. We have shortened the debate time. That is good; we are in agreement on the content. But you have chosen not to follow the investigator's proposal when it comes to the age. You have gone further. The investigator proposed 14 years as the reduction. You are proceeding with 13. We say no to that. If someone needs schooling, it is well a 13-year-old – a really good and high-quality school.

Now the member says that there are several hundred applicants for these positions. But those positions have not been advertised yet, because the school does not exist yet. There is no legislation for that.

What exists within the Prison and Probation Service so far, as far as I know, is adult education and school for those who are of legal age. That is good, and it is better than nothing. School is important even for adults. But we think it is a great failure that the government has not prioritized school for these children and young people as heavily as it has prioritized locking them up.

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! The question of the age of criminal responsibility is not something we are debating in this matter, but I can state that the Social Democrats in their follow-up motion vote no, that is, a rejection completely and utterly of a lowered age of criminal responsibility. It is naturally unfortunate, but that is another matter.

Of course there will be school activities. It will have started school activities before 2028. The Prison and Probation Service will conduct school activities, and the Prison and Probation Service has advertised positions. The Prison and Probation Service has over a hundred applicants for each position within these children's and youth departments. There will be school activities on site.

Then perhaps it is the case that the regulation is not fully in place, and it would have been desirable if the Social Democrats had started this work earlier. We have a notice already from 2019 that this work should be initiated and that the Prison and Probation Service should take over this responsibility from the State Institutions Board.

No, everything is not finished, but that is also because the work started too late. Had the Social Democrats been proactive and taken the problem more seriously already during the last parliamentary term, we would have come further. Then we might have had everything – all regulation – in place. That would have been good. But it is not an option for us Moderates to now, as the Social Democrats possibly want, say that we should wait to make this change because the school activities are not in place.

(Applause)

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by moving for approval of the Left Party's reservation 1, which entails the rejection of this proposal.

There are many reasons for this. When it comes to punishment and sanctions, we have a special regulation that follows from age and which rests on very good grounds. I and my party particularly want to emphasize the importance that the special status children have must not be diluted. We see, however, a need for new youth sanctions and are not opposed to such being introduced, which can complement those already existing. One prerequisite, however, is that the sanctions that are introduced are legally secure, adapted for children and young people, and have a clearly treatment-oriented content.

Research shows that there is no empirical or experience-based support that tougher penalties for young people would have an effect. On the contrary, institutional environments can reinforce the criminal identity that a youth has unfortunately sometimes begun to build and deepen his mental ill-health and marginalization. I mean therefore that the government's proposal risks becoming counterproductive.

It is true that one plans for special departments in the larger prisons, where the young people shall be, but what risks strengthening the criminal identity is the proximity and that one identifies with being in a high-security facility, where one is often placed.

The research also shows, which was just mentioned, that schooling is extremely important, as are secure adult relationships, support in everyday life, and early interventions in risk environments. These things are significant for reducing the risk of children ending up in crime. Regarding this, it is classic for Vänsterpartiet to want to emphasize the importance of preventive measures aimed generally and sometimes individually at children in the risk zone and, of course, also by trying to reach recruiters, who are indeed a hostage for society as a whole.

It can also be seen that in the preparation of this matter, there is decisive criticism that the government is disregarding. This concerns both the referral bodies and the Council on Legislation's criticism. A number of referral bodies reject the proposal – including the Children's Ombudsman's expert.

Furthermore, the Council on Legislation criticizes the government for failing to meet the requirement for preparation and also shows that the referral deviates to a large extent from the commission's proposals and that no further preparation has taken place. The Council on Legislation therefore considers the preparation to be deficient and rejects the proposals and that they should be laid to ground for further preparatory measures.

We must also see the current proposal in light of the proposal to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 13 years for serious crimes, something that we will also soon discuss here in the chamber. If the majority of the Riksdag chooses to lower the age of criminal responsibility, very young children will be sentenced to prison. This contradicts the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been Swedish law since 2020 and according to which deprivation of liberty of children shall be the last resort and used for as short a time as possible.

I naturally consider that children who have committed serious crimes should be taken into custody and receive treatment, but I advocate that closed youth care shall remain as a sanction and that Sis shall continue to be responsible for the execution of the care. This concerns, for the time being, those between 15 and 18 years of age.

I want, at least, to emphasize the importance of school. I believe that we in all parties are of one mind regarding how central schooling is for stimulating young people and giving them a platform to be able to move forward after a punishment. We mean that Sis has experience in this and that one should build upon these.

It is possible to strengthen and improve the closed youth care and invest even more in developing the operations and improving how the young people are integrated into society upon release.

I also want to interject that escapes have been common within Sis, but this has practically ceased. There are other remarks to be made regarding Sis, and Sis definitely needs further development, but we believe it would be meaningful to invest the resources in this instead of starting from scratch within Kriminalvården, which lacks all experience with these age groups.

I believe we also agree that it is important to improve how young people can be integrated into society in connection with release, and it is very important that we have conditional release regardless of who will be responsible for the care effort before that.

When it comes to conditional release, we in Vänsterpartiet believe that it would be meaningful to invest in a collaboration between Kriminalvården and Sis, and that this could be fruitful by complementing each other's expertise.

In summary, it is the Left Party's position that we should reject the government's proposal. We simultaneously want to issue a motion to the government to take the initiative to extend closed youth custody from four years to six years and to introduce conditional release in closed youth custody.

I would also like to add, and perhaps get many to react to, which institutions it is that one prioritizes trainers for. It is Högsbo, Kumla, Rosersberg, Sagsjön, Skenäs, Täby, Ystad and Österåker.

This is about placing children in wards that can be called youth prisons. We believe that punishing children in this way means placing the responsibility on children whom society has failed to protect. The children are often more victims than perpetrators, and we can reflect on the Tidregering's victim perspective in this context. Is one solely a perpetrator when one might be deceived, threatened, and pressured to commit the crimes one is caught for? It can feel unreasonable, and among others, Socialstyrelsen points out the lack of logic in how we react to these children.

It has, of course, been mentioned from the rostrum that the correctional services would be ready to receive these children. The representatives of the correctional services themselves say that they are not – at least not yet. There, the school in particular comes in as a missing puzzle piece in how it could work to have children in our prisons.

I move for the proposal to introduce this under the auspices of the Prison and Probation Service to be rejected.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! When one listens to Gudrun Nordborg's and the Vänsterpartiet's position, it sounds as if we are to continue more or less as usual. One speaks passionately for us to continue with closed youth care.

Today, however, we are talking about young people between 15 and 17 years old, and we see that even today there is a possibility to sentence 16–17-year-olds to prison for serious crimes. My short question is therefore actually: Does Gudrun Nordborg, based on the reasoning presented from the rostrum, mean that not even those youths who are already de facto sentenced, with support from today's legislation, should be able to be sentenced to prison?

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Torsten Elofsson! I believe it appeared from my speech that I prioritize closed youth care over imprisonment and that it should be used more than prison sentences.

As it has been now, that some teenagers have been able to be sentenced to prison and placed in tough institutions, goes directly against how we envision rehabilitation. Rehabilitation should not involve contacts with serious criminals in all age groups, and it is meaningful to separate the young from those who have gone further in the criminal character.

I also consider it meaningful to look at how other healthcare institutions handle groups of young people and to not, as Sis previously – note well: previously – has done, mix criminals with persons who have had need of other types of interventions that do not concern criminality. It could be about mental illness or an otherwise antisocial lifestyle, or that the person is at risk of it. There is, therefore, much we could rectify within Sis to make it an excellent form of treatment for young people.

It is also so – and everyone knows it – that we already have an enormous overcrowding within the criminal justice system. Resources are tight both when it comes to recruiting staff and when it comes to providing treatment interventions. There are some signs there that might seem encouraging, namely that several professions are expressing interest in working with precisely these young people, but there is still much that is lacking.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the answer. I understand it as that closed youth care is something that Vänsterpartiet continues to advocate for, despite it having shown that it does not work.

We can also observe that there are expressions such as "brösta en fyra och bli en hundragubbe," which means that the person who is recruited can take on a murder assignment, go out and shoot someone, and receive four years in closed juvenile detention. It is one of the reasons why it has been possible to recruit young people in the 16–17 age range to commit these crimes. From what I understand, Gudrun Nordborg, however, thinks that there should be more of the medicine that has not worked.

It becomes quite vague when one talks about Sis being expanded and improved in some way. It is still about some form of deprivation of liberty, as I understand it. One can also note that prison is a value-laden word, but then one forgets the word correctional services. It is indeed the Swedish Prison and Probation Service (Kriminalvården) that has the responsibility for this, and if there is anyone in our society who has experience in handling seriously criminal individuals who have committed serious violent crimes, it is the Swedish Prison and Probation Service. That can be stated. Sis has not been able to meet that task, and there are major deficiencies there.

Is it only the label placed on the deprivation of liberty that is of significance? It is not the case that Kriminalvården lacks the competence to handle this; I would like to assert that one has better competence than Sis precisely when it comes to that question.

As said: Shall we extend closed youth care for the seriously criminal, or how is it to work in the Left Party's world?

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Torsten Elofsson for giving me the opportunity to supplement my answer.

It is therefore not the word itself that is important, but it is about what content respective activities can deliver to these young people – and to us in society. It is about that we must put an end to youth crime.

Many times, youth crime is lured by grossly criminal elements in society that we have also failed to deal with. It is, among other things, about the fact that those who recruit need to be caught, which is currently happening, and I think that prison is an excellent method for dealing with them.

Then it is about recidivism prevention activities. Kriminalvården has a part of that, but it has had to be cut down further. Now they are going to receive a new, very vulnerable group, and I do not think that is wise. Instead, Sis could further develop its work – among other things with an extended period within their territory, so to speak, but also because they are better equipped to carry out what everyone realizes is extremely important, that is, the recidivism prevention work. It is not least about school. It must involve a series of social interventions that Kriminalvården has not managed to deliver for any of its groups.

That is why I think it is tragic to tear down what has started to work much better and lay it on someone who is new to the arena when it concerns the young and who may have to start from zero. We risk failures again.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! I shall read directly from the report. It states: "There is in Sweden a long tradition of treating young offenders differently in the criminal justice system, especially young people in the age group 15–17 years, both in sentencing and in the choice of penalty. One reason for this arrangement is that young people typically are not considered to have reached such maturity and capacity for responsibility that they should be treated as adults. They are also considered particularly sensitive to the consequences that criminal justice interventions can lead to."

This comes from the same majority that has placed a proposal on the Riksdag's table to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 13 years and who also want to include children as young as 10 years old in the criminal record after a conviction.

A large amount of legislation regarding children and crime is being placed on the Riksdag's table. This concerns partly general legislation with increased penalties that also affect children, and partly specific legislation for children. We are now debating the report Deprivation of liberty sentences for children and young people. There are also reports such as Better opportunities to investigate crimes by young offenders and some other procedural law issues and matters concerning stricter rules for young offenders.

We in the Center Party support the committee's proposal in today's report, but given all the parallel processes, I want to mention that we support this legislation for children from 15 years and upwards – not for 13-year-olds or 14-year-olds. The Center Party says no to lowering the age of criminal responsibility.

However, it does not mean that the Center Party does not see the crime victims. For them, it does not matter whether the perpetrator is 13 or 33 years old. Clarity and justice do not have to be seen as the opposite of measures that take children out of crime instead of further into it. It is important that we can think both of these thoughts simultaneously.

Mr. Speaker! The legislative changes we now have on the table mean that children and young people shall be sentenced to imprisonment instead of closed juvenile care when a custodial sentence cannot be avoided. The Prison and Probation Service will be responsible for the execution, and closed juvenile care is removed from the sentencing system. We stand behind this and believe it is the right decision. At the same time, it is correct that juvenile care, juvenile service, and juvenile supervision remain.

Centerpartiet has great confidence in the Prison and Probation Service and its activities. It is stipulated that children who are sentenced to prison shall, as a rule, be placed in special children's and youth departments that shall be specifically adapted based on children's needs and rights. This is very important.

By making the penalty imprisonment, children and young people will also be covered by the system of parole. Upon the transition from detention to freedom, they will be placed under supervision and be in contact with social services. We see this as a great advantage.

We simultaneously view with great seriousness the shortage of space within the criminal justice system and the enormous expansion. This affects both the safety of the employees and those detained. We see major deficiencies in the government's management of the authority specifically regarding the necessary expansion and new construction.

Mr. Speaker! We are also very concerned that the government is being careless with the children's schooling. It is easy to say that one should educate oneself, and it is easy to run fast-tracks with legislation. However, one has not ensured that the school succeeds in its compensatory mission while the repressive legislation is in place. Here, the government fails.

There is an ongoing debate about rapid legislation that does not measure up. In almost all cases, the legislative proposals receive sharp criticism from both referral bodies and the Council on Legislation. I therefore want to be clear: From the Center Party's side, we have no problem with the speed, but we have a problem with the inadequacy of the legislation. It forces us to say yes to necessary but substandard legislation. Let us not put ourselves in that situation!

As we have heard here: When legislation moves quickly, it is the government's merit, and when it moves slowly, it is the previous government's fault. I don't quite understand that. I usually think that politicians should be like biathletes – those who are good are both fast and accurate. More people might need to have that goal in mind.

Instead of taking even more repressive measures, we in Sweden need to change perspectives to tackle the serious crime that forces children and young people into these actions. It is not about harsher punishments or about locking up children who are in grade 6 or 7. We must remember that the children who are now 13 years old were 9 years old when the government took office. We must remember that there are ways to break this.

Interventions need to come earlier, which the new Social Services Act, which we supported and which several have highlighted, provides the possibility for. It has now been in place for nearly a year. Here, both fast tracks and faster work were needed. In the same way that criminal gangs recruit children, we need to recruit children from the good and law-abiding side. We need to recruit them to a reality where there are future prospects, safe adults, and a society to trust.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The debate is going a bit faster than I thought it would. A colleague told me yesterday that it would be good if it took a bit longer so that she could finish her participation in a panel discussion. We will see if this speech triggers any replies – I will do my best.

Miljöpartiet is of the opinion that society must act against serious crime. This also applies when children commit very serious crimes. The reaction must be accurate and effective and lead to the child receiving a real chance for rehabilitation and reintegration – not to society cementing a criminal development.

The government's proposal to let the Prison and Probation Service take over the responsibility for children who have committed crimes is deeply concerning for a number of reasons. The opposition among the referral bodies is broad and powerful. The Institute for Human Rights, Save the Children, the Children's Ombudsman, Brå and the National Board of Health and Welfare are just some of the actors who have clearly pointed out that it is a very bad idea to establish youth prisons, or rather youth departments in adult prisons.

When the government has now also signaled that they intend to lower the age of criminal responsibility, which means that children as young as 13 years old can be imprisoned, authorities and professions that will encounter the children in practice have also questioned the proposal. The Prison and Probation Service has written that they assess that they lack the resources and competence to handle children at this age. The Swedish Police Authority warns that reforms in this direction could lead to even younger children being drawn into crime. Both the Swedish Prosecution Authority and the Bar Association highlight the risk of implementation problems and legal uncertainty.

Today's debate is about letting the Prison and Probation Service take over the responsibility for children who have committed crimes. The establishment of youth prisons and the lowering of the age of criminal responsibility go together; they cannot be handled as two completely separate issues. Among other things, it can be pointed out that the investigation itself wrote that there may be good reasons to retain the penalty of closed youth care for the youngest age category if the age of criminal responsibility is lowered.

The Green Party's starting point is clear: Children are children. Children and young people who commit crimes shall be held accountable, but it must happen in a way that is compatible with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and that is based on knowledge of children's development, children's needs, and what actually reduces the risk of them committing new crimes.

Imprisoning children is a radical departure from a long Swedish legal tradition of treating children and young people differently in criminal law matters. The principle is based on the experience that criminal justice interventions against young people must be adapted to the young people's lack of maturity and impulse control and ability to assess the consequences of their actions.

Mr. Speaker! I have now briefly explained the basic reasons for our rejection. I would like to go into some specific areas and, finally, also say something about what the Green Party would like to see instead.

First, I want to address the lack of research or experience. Deprivation of liberty can in itself be a strong risk factor for continued crime. Up to 90 percent of the children and young people who are sentenced to closed juvenile care re-offend within a couple of years. Recidivism is often linked to continued or deepened contact with criminal networks.

The government considers this to be an argument for establishing youth prisons, but research shows on the contrary that the risk of recidivism can decrease with more open forms of serving a sentence and a functioning transition. Research has also shown that placing children in prison threatens their safety, well-being, and future prospects. This also implies an increased risk of recidivism and a decreased probability of successful reintegration into society.

The high risk of recidivism among young people sentenced to closed juvenile care is for us a clear reason why the closed juvenile care must be significantly strengthened. The care must lead to a life far away from crime, and the release must be controlled and secure.

Another problem is that this proposal is based on insufficient preparation. For us in Miljöpartiet, the preparation of legislative proposals, especially those that involve a drastic shift and a departure from previous practice, is very important.

In an interpellation debate with me recently, the Minister for Justice suggested that the Green Party's position shows that we stand for something he called slow politics. I thought that was a sweeping, strange, and condescending judgment, not least in a time when the debate articles about how the government is dismantling the rule of law are appearing in large numbers.

I will also mention something that has already been raised in the debate, namely children's right to schooling. Already when the investigation on youth imprisonment was presented, questions arose about how children's right to schooling according to the Education Act could be ensured for young people sentenced to prison. In December, an investigation was presented proposing changes to the Education Act so that children in prison can be offered remote and distance education in certain cases.

For Miljöpartiet, it is very worrying that children in detention, unlike other children, will not receive the schooling they are entitled to according to the Education Act. As previous speakers have also said, a functioning schooling is one of the strongest protective factors against continued crime, and this should therefore be prioritized very highly. It must be seen as very urgent that children who have committed crimes are given a safe and stable schooling with present teachers. Furthermore, we know that these children often have great difficulties in school. It is therefore not just any 14-year-olds, but with great probability it is 14-year-olds with extensive needs for support to manage school who will end up in the youth wards.

Mr. Speaker! Several referral bodies have also pointed out that the establishment of youth wards in prisons may conflict with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In order to safeguard children's rights, the government has proposed certain adaptations in the bill. For example, a portal paragraph is proposed in the Prison Act stating that all measures concerning detained children shall take the child's best interests into account and that the social welfare committee shall appoint a special caseworker for detained children.

For us, these adjustments appear as a poor attempt to dampen the massive criticism. If the government had been serious about securing the best interests of children, they would not have established these youth departments within the correctional services at all, or at least not staged them much earlier than the investigation and the Correctional Services judged as possible, taking children's rights into account.

In this context, it can also be mentioned that there is a particularly great concern regarding how girls' rights shall be respected within the correctional services. The group of imprisoned girls will be very small. Even though the proportion of girls within serious crime is increasing, they are still very few. The investigation notes this and concludes that girls under 18 years of age will, in many cases, serve their sentence together with adult women up to 21 years old – a design which also violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child is clear that children must not be placed in the same institutions as adults and that states with juvenile prisons should establish separate institutions for children, with staff who have appropriate training and work according to child-friendly guidelines and methods.

Mr. Speaker! The Green Party, therefore, does not stand behind the government's proposal but has, of course, its own. We, the Left Party, want to maintain the closed youth care and reform the interventions at Sis, and as the previous speaker mentioned, a reform process has been ongoing for a long time. Sis and also previous governments have been aware of the shortcomings, and Sis has differentiated its facilities. The number of escapes of children convicted of crimes has decreased significantly, and if I remember correctly, none have occurred for a number of years since Sis has taken various measures and differentiated its operations.

Furthermore, an investigation into Sis is ongoing, and I am very curious about what it will conclude. It therefore feels a bit hasty to make today's decision before we see what the alternative could be. I do not think anyone in here is satisfied with the current situation, and we all think that something must be done. The question is only what should be done and what will have the desired effect.

Miljöpartiet also naturally wants to see early preventive measures, strengthened measures in social services, and a secure transition. We also propose an extension of the maximum period of care for residential youth care, which today is four years. In combination with a strengthened care chain and better transition, such a change would make it possible to give young people more time for rehabilitation and the opportunity to leave crime.

Furthermore, we want to review whether LSU should be covered by conditional release. Such a measure, if properly designed, can create a clear, structured and supportive transition from imprisonment to freedom, deter young offenders from reoffending and provide them with support and the opportunity to be integrated into society after serving their sentence.

Miljöpartiet thus wants to see a society that both protects people from serious crime and gives children a real chance to break away from criminality. The government's bill risks doing the opposite: locking up children in an environment that creates stigma, hinders schooling, weakens rehabilitation and, in the long run, increases recidivism and pushes recruitment down in age. Instead, more of what works is needed, such as early interventions, a social service with resources, a school that has the capacity to see every child, a child and adolescent psychiatry that can accept and deprivation of liberty measures that actually rehabilitate. If the government wants to try something new, it should try large-scale investments in preventive work and not put children in prison.

I vote in favor of reservation 2.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Ulrika Westerlund requested replies, so I will provide them.

There was a lot of focus on children's rights in the speech, but let me remind Ulrika Westerlund that today's debate is not about 13–14-year-olds but about 15–17-year-olds.

Ulrika Westerlund has a perpetrator perspective and speaks about how the perpetrator must receive rehabilitation and so on, which I can agree with in itself.

But a few years ago I was in Farsta, where a 15-year-old had gone out into the square with an automatic weapon and shot two or three people to death. It was completely innocent people who got in the way. In another case, a 15-year-old forced his way into a villa one evening. First he shot the father on the ground floor, and he passed away. Then he rushed up the stairs where the mother stood with her little baby. She tried to escape but was shot in the back.

In Ulrika Westerlund's world, are these children – as Ulrika Westerlund chooses to call them – victims themselves? When Ulrika Westerlund speaks, one gets the impression that it is a pity for these children. I can understand that they have ended up on the wrong side of life, but someone who is 15, 16 or 17 years old must also take responsibility for their actions. They hardly lack insight into the fact that they are committing serious crimes. The guy who shot in the villa saw it as a step up in his criminal career.

What should we do with these people from the perspective of the Miljöpartiet?

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Torsten Elofsson for the question.

Let me clarify that according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, everyone under 18 is a child. But I fully agree that we often do not think of 16-year-olds as children because we use the words teenagers or youth. But from a rights perspective, 18 years is the limit for when one ceases to be a child. This can have a somewhat strange effect, because if one is 17 years and 8 months and does something, versus 18 years and 1 month and does something, the reactions and consequences from society become very different. But I think it must be so because we have decided that one becomes an adult on their 18th birthday, and then society strikes with other types of measures than those one does against children.

I do not know if Torsten Elofsson thinks that I am not upset by the type of events he describes. Of course, this is appalling and unacceptable, and society's response must be that this type of crime must have consequences even for children, also for 13-year-olds. But I have noticed that when I, for example, post something on social media about the fact that Miljöpartiet does not think 13-year-olds should be in prison, I often get the reaction "so you think they should be out running around on the street." No, I obviously do not think that, and I do not think anyone here thinks that. It must have a consequence.

But the very best thing, of course, would have been if these crimes had never happened, and therefore we shall, with all conceivable efforts, prevent them from happening again. In that case, the focus on what actually works in terms of crime prevention is interesting, hence our focus. It is not primarily about showing sympathy to the perpetrators, but about showing sympathy for everyone's safety.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

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

I am very well aware that the Convention on the Rights of the Child states that one is a child until the age of 18. I want to point out that today we are not debating 13 and 14-year-olds, but we are debating 15-year-olds–17-year-olds. There are already today possibilities to sentence these to prison for the very most serious crimes. It can be done.

I wonder if Miljöpartiet and Ulrika Westerlund oppose the current assessments and the consequences that 16 and 17-year-olds can face for the most serious crimes. Should we go back to placing them in closed youth care instead? What is the reasoning there? I am a bit curious to hear it.

Then I can agree that crime prevention measures are obviously very important. But crime prevention measures do not help when the crime has nevertheless been committed. In that case, it is more about how we rectify it.

Is there any difference regarding the Green Party's view on murderers who are 16 or 17 years old? Does the Green Party consider that they should still not be sentenced to prison but instead be placed in youth care and in the Sis homes?

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, again, for the questions!

I know that the age of criminal responsibility that applies now is 15 years. That is what Miljöpartiet would continue to wish to see. The situation we find ourselves in makes it a bit strange to ignore that. 13 years as the age of criminal responsibility risks becoming a reality already this summer, in about a month. Then this will also apply to even younger children.

That is why I mean that it is impossible to completely decouple those discussions from one another. That is the reason why I mention it. The investigation that investigated the issue of juvenile prisons mentioned this specifically. If it is the case that the age limit is lowered, they have not actually looked at it in their investigation. One could say that that question has not been addressed either, but now we find ourselves here anyway.

Of course, crime prevention measures do not help against crimes already committed. It is about trying to prevent persons who de facto have already committed a crime from committing new crimes. It is also about how we prevent recruitment, where even more young people enter a criminal lifestyle and career, so that we can prevent future crimes. That is the focus of the activity.

I have not found any proposal from us regarding reforming the existing system so that 16- and 17-year-olds can be sentenced to prison in exceptional cases. We have not pushed for that. On the other hand, I am truly in favor of us reviewing all of this properly.

I am really curious about what the investigation that is to investigate Sis will come to. I would like to see Sis complete its reform work which they have already been working on for several years. It has been relatively successful, but they need more resources.

We would all need to focus more on how we take care of people who come out after serving a sentence, regardless of whether it is from Kriminalvården or from Sis. It is in the aftercare that it fails to an incredibly large extent. It is nothing that Kriminalvården will be able to solve just because we move people there.

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! We took the member's request seriously, so that we do not end the debate too early. That would be unfortunate. I intend first to make a couple of comments regarding Ulrika Westerlund's contribution.

When it comes to the special treatment of young people, it can be stated that there continues to be a clear special treatment of young people in a criminal law sense. This applies to the length of the sentences.

We have sentencing discounts – even though they will be revised in a future legislative matter – which mean that young people, the very youngest, receive significantly shorter sentences than those who are of legal age. In that way, a special treatment of young people occurs.

Regarding the juvenile prisons, there are special departments that are completely separated from adults. It is not an activity that takes place together. There is a higher staff density and special consideration for children's specific circumstances.

What actually prompted my remark was that Ulrika Westerlund requested more open interventions instead of closed interventions. We know that those who today are sentenced to closed youth care, or sentenced to prison in the future, are individuals who have committed very serious crimes. It takes very serious crimes to be sentenced to a custodial sentence as a minor.

My question to Ulrika Westerlund is whether Miljöpartiet considers that more of the young people who commit very serious crimes should be subject to open interventions instead of closed interventions.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Mikael Damsgaard, for the questions and comments!

This is an area where different interests stand against each other. By that, I do not mean the perpetrator's interests, with a focus on the young person's well-being, which we are discussing here today. I am trying to keep the focus on society's interests in different matters. Here, there are different types of interests, which is what the entire criminal justice system is aimed at.

A person who has committed a crime must also receive a punishment. If they do not, we undermine all people's trust in society. For me, that is somewhat why we have much of the criminal justice system.

If you commit a crime that is criminal according to a law that we have enacted in Sweden, it must have a consequence. If it does not have any consequence, one does not understand what is to apply in society, and then the social contract is disturbed. It must, therefore, have a consequence.

Since then, it is quite easy to take action on it. There shall be locking up, and there shall be locking up for a long time. That shows a firm grip. It is perceived as that measures are taken where one truly takes the perspective of the crime victims seriously.

The problem is that it is not what research shows is most effective for preventing recidivism. In this case, it is a matter of weighing different interventions against one another.

It is not realistic to believe that a child, a youth, who has committed a serious crime, for example killed another person, should not be locked up. I believe that those persons will always need to be locked up for a certain period of time.

The question is what we should combine the incarceration with in order to protect society. People must experience that we take crime seriously and that we do our utmost to prevent it from happening again. It is a matter of simultaneously combining it with open forms of punishment and release at the end of a sentence. It may, for example, take place over a fairly long period in order to, as far as possible, try to prevent the person from coming out and committing serious crimes again. That is what we really want to avoid.

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! Here, the form opens up such opportunities through the introduction of conditional release, supervision, and by connecting the tools and resources of the community care system. Community care also exists throughout the country in a completely different way than the State Institutions Board does today.

For those who are sentenced to imprisonment as young people, we create, at the end of the sentence, if there are no special reasons to postpone the parole, conditions for release and supervision and thus also good conditions for a transition from closed life to open life.

We know that the Prison and Probation Service is extremely skilled. They have long experience, not least within probation services, of conducting this activity. When I have visited probation services, I have been very impressed by the work they carry out. There are treatment programs that are very well-tested and well-designed.

And with the reform to transfer the responsibility from the State Institution Board, which today does not fully fulfill its mandate, to the Prison and Probation Service, which has experience and resources, we create better conditions for these young people, who have committed very serious crimes, to receive both a sentence and the conditions to return to a life without crime.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker and Mikael Damsgaard! Now we are beginning to approach the core of what the debate is actually about, and that is very good. Because it is absolutely not like this in the public debate, where there is great confusion about what the discussion is actually about.

We in Miljöpartiet fully support what Mikael Damsgaard mentions now: more investments in and reinforcement of conditional release, surveillance of and perhaps ankle bracelets on some individuals after they have been released to enable open interventions, but under surveillance, and so on. It is very good, and that is something we also want to invest more in. As I said, we also want to review the possibility of conditional release in combination with LSU.

The difference is that we mean that the responsibility should remain with Sis. They should receive these resources and opportunities, because what Sis has and Kriminalvården does not have is precisely the experience of youth. Here, it will be a discussion about which experience we weigh highest and which we believe will have the greatest impact on the outcome.

We in Miljöpartiet have landed on the position that we believe it is the experience of caring for young people that should have carried the most weight, not least when it comes to this matter with the school. The correctional services are skilled at caring for adult persons and working with their lives after their time as inmates in prison, while Sis has great experience with young people. What Sis has not always been given is sufficient resources or sufficient tools.

The investigation is still ongoing, and one may wonder what it will propose. Miljöpartiet wanted to make those investments and enable what is now being highlighted by, among others, Mikael Damsgaard and give this to Sis, because we believe that the experience of caring for children specifically is extremely central for it to result in a good outcome.

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! There is some criticism from the opposition regarding the establishment of youth prisons.

Criticism has been directed here several times regarding school and education. Shortcomings in this are mentioned and that there is no possibility of obtaining school and education on site. If one reads the bill, one sees that there are different dates than what the Social Democrats accounted for. It is therefore on March 1, 2027, that all legislative changes that will make this work well will be in place, and it is less than ten months until then.

What practical problems does Miljöpartiet see in reality with this timeframe? It is, after all, less than ten months, and it is about someone committing a serious crime that is to be investigated and processed in court, and after that, the sentence is to be executed. What practical problems does Miljöpartiet see with us having everything in place within ten months when it comes to offering school and other education?

The Green Party member also says that one cannot completely decouple this from the lowered age of criminal responsibility. I think it is an interesting debate to have. The Sweden Democrats have no problem with lowering the age of criminal responsibility and establishing youth prisons. That means that with our policy, it is possible to, for example, hold 14-year-olds who commit aggravated rape, let's say gang rape, criminally liable and subject them to youth prison.

Since the Green Party is against lowering the age of criminal responsibility and against establishing youth prisons, I wonder what the consequence is in the Green Party's world when, for example, 14-year-olds commit serious crimes such as aggravated rape or gang rape.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker and Adam Marttinen! Now we are almost back to how it usually sounds in the comment sections on Facebook. I thought I spoke very much about these things in my speech.

I want to first mention the school. What concerns us is the investigation that the government has commissioned and which has submitted its report. It concerns amending the Education Act so that children in prison could be offered remote and distance education.

So, it is not really about the time and whether this will be able to be in place in ten months, because it certainly will be able to be. But the Prison and Probation Service has obviously seen the challenge of being able to offer on-site school education with a teacher in the room for all detained children. That is what worries us, and not the time.

Children who have difficulties in school make up an incredibly large part of this group. When Sis visited us in the Committee on Justice, it was said that something along the lines of 95 percent have difficulties completing their schooling and need very much support.

It is precisely that group of young people who have a very difficult time absorbing instruction that is not conducted on-site by a teacher who is in the same room as they are. Quite often, it can even be a question of whether it is a challenge to get the young people to even show up to the instruction. It involves saying things like: Now it is school, and it is in this room. Here is the teacher, and here you are. We ensure that you really are there! That is what I am thinking of as the problem.

I have repeatedly said that there will, of course, be a question of consequences if a 14-year-old rapes or murders another person. This person will, of course, not be able to be out on the street, and society must react. What we are discussing here and now is which authority should be responsible for the care of the young person. I do not believe that there is anyone advocating that there should be no consequences and that it should somehow be free play after one has committed a crime. Nor do we do that.

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We can then conclude that the criticism that has occurred in the debate is of rather marginal importance when looking at the problems that we want to combat through the reform.

The legislative changes will be in place within ten months, so it will not be a practical problem to any significant extent. On the other hand, we will be able to offer young people who have a serious criminal identity a different existence in youth detention centers instead of them sitting in Sis homes and being available to gang criminals and being able to escape and commit new crimes. It is only positive that we can proceed with this as quickly as we are.

When it comes to consequences and when the Green Party does not want to lower the age of criminal responsibility, the question remains hanging in the air. I would like to have a very concrete example. What will be the consequence for the 14-year-old who commits group violence and is guilty of aggravated rape? What consequence is it that the Green Party offers? I would like to have it exemplified.

With the Sweden Democrats' policy, we will open up the possibility of criminal liability for such an act. The Green Party says no to that. We will also, through our policy, be able to offer youth prisons for those who commit that type of serious crime. The Green Party does not want that.

The question is: What type of consequence will there be for 14-year-olds who commit gang rape and are guilty of aggravated rape? Describe it for the voters! I believe many are interested in that.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker and Adam Marttinen! The practical problem with school education is therefore the design, not the time. That is the problem, and it remains. This has not been investigated; it is simply as it is.

A successful schooling is one of the absolutely most important things to avoid relapsing into crime. That is why this is so important.

Sis is the consequence that now exists for people who are young and commit serious crimes, and it is the one that Miljöpartiet wants to continue to develop. Now I have repeated this very many times, and I say it once more: If a youth commits a serious crime, we believe that the consequence must be that they are admitted. In the current situation, it is Sis that is responsible for the care of young criminals, and we believe that Sis should receive more resources and opportunities to develop its operations.

We are positive about the fact that Sis has differentiated its operations. There are no escapes from Sis at this time by persons who are there because they are convicted. Sis has worked on security and differentiated how the various facilities in Sis look. Different groups of inmates are separated to a much greater extent.

We believe that Sis should be given the opportunity to continue, and that is because we must take care of young people who have committed serious crimes. It is a basic requirement, which I believe we all agree on. Everyone must be able to feel safe and secure that a person who commits serious crimes will not be released onto the street again quickly.

The interesting thing about sentencing young people to prison instead is that the sentences become quite short, which was mentioned by previous speakers. It will not be the same length of sentence for a 14-year-old murderer as it would have been for a 28-year-old murderer. Then the question is: Will the Prison and Probation Service have time for its rehabilitative mission for these young people? That is, after all, what is the most important thing. It will be a consequence, but the focus must also be on ensuring that the rehabilitation becomes as good as possible for everyone's safety.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! There may be one or another who wonders why we are standing here today debating custodial sentences for children and young people. The simple answer is that in recent years we have witnessed an unprecedented escalation of violent crime in our country. Sweden has gone from being a safe and secure country to becoming a country with shootings and explosions that are unparalleled in Europe. We have also witnessed that the perpetrators have become increasingly younger.

Young people, mostly boys but also girls, volunteer or are recruited to act as executioners and perpetrators with weapons in hand for compensation, in hopes of a career in criminal gangs and organized crime. The police testify that young people, regardless of social background, more or less stand in line to carry out murders and bombings.

Often it is the criminals who are the targets, but we have several examples of completely innocent people having fallen victim. Sometimes it is enough to happen to be a relative of someone who is a criminal. Sometimes one simply mistakes the person but still carries out a completely cold-blooded execution.

Beside the shootings, explosive charges and hand grenades are used to intimidate or take revenge. Even here, innocent people have been killed or injured. The destruction has furthermore caused great economic damage for completely innocent people and obviously created great insecurity and fear in the affected residential areas.

This is the background to why we now stand here.

Mr. Speaker! Regardless of the perpetrators' age, they have shown through their actions that they are dangerous and pose a danger to everyone. From that perspective, their freedom of movement must be restricted. We cannot have dangerous armed young people roaming free on our streets.

In conversations I have had with staff at Sis youth home, it is testified that many of the young offenders and gang criminals lack a sense of consequence, often linked to drug abuse and mental disorders in the form of ADHD or similar. Treatment paired with education over a long period is required to reduce the risk of recidivism, so longer periods of deprivation of liberty can in those cases be of benefit.

We can also observe that the Sis-homes are not adapted to today's reality with young people who commit serious violent crimes and have strong connections to gang criminals. The recidivism rate after closed youth care, LSU, is as high as 90 percent, and there are – which has also been observed from the rostrum today – deficiencies in both the care and the subsequent control and follow-up.

During the latter part of the execution of the sentence, the convicted person shall be prepared for a life in freedom through concrete measures. The specific forms of release are not regulated in LSU, but an assessment of which measures are appropriate shall be made on a case-by-case basis. The penalty of closed youth care is today fully executed after release from the special youth home. Continued interventions can then instead be decided with the support of the Social Services Act or the Act on Care of Young People, LVU. We can state that in many cases this leads to a free fall and a return to crime. The recidivism rate is, as stated, very high.

Mr. Speaker! Let us state that the development towards ever younger perpetrators of violent crime is a catastrophic failure for which we in the adult world bear a great responsibility. We can also state that neither LSU nor LVU are adapted to withstand and handle the rapid and extensive change in crimes committed by children and young people.

From this, a demand for change has emerged. Everything that is most often asserted by the opposition – we have heard it from the rostrum here today, primarily from Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet – a need for crime-preventive measures and then preferably in the form of more resources for school and social services. It is a mantra that has been ground for decades and which, despite large investments, in no way has slowed the development we are now witnessing and have to manage.

Mr. Speaker! As I usually say: When the house is on fire, it is not primarily the time to talk about fire prevention measures. Then it is a matter of putting out the fire. It is the same thing here: When such things actually happen, we must apprehend and prosecute perpetrators of gross violence, even young ones. I believe we are completely in agreement on that; it is only a matter of the form of what is to be done.

The government is now presenting a proposal where LSU will eventually be phased out – the phasing out shall be complete by 2030. Instead, young people aged 15–17 shall serve their sentence under the auspices of Kriminalvården.

It is hardly surprising that protests are now coming from the expected source. In itself, one can reluctantly concede that some form of deprivation of liberty is required, but absolutely not within the Prison and Probation Service. In that case, the agency label suddenly becomes more important than the result.

My and the government's assessment is that there is greater scope for flexibility within the Prison and Probation Service's operations, because the person who begins the execution of a prison sentence when they are under 18 years of age will, if necessary, be able to transition to serving the sentence together with other adults after their 18th birthday. We also assess that the Prison and Probation Service has better opportunities than Sis to offer meaningful employment for this older target group.

Thus, the Prison and Probation Service has extensive experience in the treatment and care of detainees who have committed this type of serious violent crime, which Sis does not have. Young detainees will also be kept separate from older inmates and be given opportunities for studies and employment, which was also mentioned by the previous speaker here.

With this said, it also applies that we must work unswervingly to protect our children and take the measures we can to prevent the extensive recruitment of young people that is now taking place. The Government is also not inactive in that regard. If everything goes as planned, the Police Authority will be given the opportunity to stop the advertising on the digital platforms. Furthermore, the recruitment is now punishable in itself, as it is considered as incitement or preparation for a crime. We can also see how more and more of the recruiters are being arrested in other countries. No one in this mess shall feel safe. The long arm of the law now reaches far beyond our borders, which is also welcomed.

Mr. Speaker! The continued crime prevention work is particularly important in relation to young offenders. We take this very seriously. Few things are as important as stopping young people from being dragged down into the darkness that criminal life entails. Only in this way can we prevent new crimes in the long term.

Our crime prevention work involves, among other things, an expanded social service that is given more tools with a new Social Services Act. We also have the cooperation structure Bob, children and young people in organized crime, which is intended to strengthen the work against children and young people ending up in serious crime.

Mr. Speaker! Seventh and last, however, are secure families, which are the primary defense against the values of the street. This requires a supportive family policy and a clear parental responsibility. We Christian Democrats are the guarantee that this perspective is included in the government's crime prevention work. It requires patient work, and we must do many things simultaneously for it to have a real effect.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! The speech I have just heard gave me reason to make a number of reflections.

Torsten Elofsson points out that it is about a series of failures until the young people commit serious crimes. On that, we are in total agreement. The question is how we should handle the failures. Which failures should we plug and put a stop to? I think it is about both how we work generally in society and how we intervene for individual persons when things have gone completely wrong.

I also want to comment that the complaints regarding Sis are based on old data. The escapes have practically ceased. We know that they are more successful with their interventions within the institutions today, not least when it comes to the school, which we have pointed out several times from the speaker's podium.

What I perceive that we might also be able to agree on is the release itself. Employees within Sis argue that they do their part within their institution, but when they try to establish a cooperation with the social services, it can break down completely. We from Vänsterpartiet want to keep Sis, but we want to reinforce it with a conditional release and take support from that part of Kriminalvården where there are a lot of important experiences.

How does Torsten Elofsson view such a combination?

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! As I mentioned in my speech, I can state that Sis was established in 1999 when the world was completely different. There has been a deterioration and a development of crime that is unparalleled. Those who were previously taken into closed youth care had, seen from today's perspective, committed crimes that were of significantly less serious character.

First and foremost, it can be said that the environment in the current Sis, closed youth care, and prison, seen from a deprivation of liberty perspective, does not differ much. There are barbed wires and fences and so on to prevent escapes. But there occurs an unfortunate mixture of persons who are detained with the support of LVU and persons who are imprisoned with the support of LSU.

We assess that the Prison and Probation Service is the authority that has the most competence and has the best possibility to take care of perpetrators of serious violence. That is what we are talking about. I find it difficult to see the difference in accountability for someone who has turned 18 and for someone who is 17. I cannot see any difference.

Just as Gudrun Nordborg says, it is flawed when it comes to the release of these individuals. In that case, Kriminalvården already has an extensive system. Then it is more about whether one considers it Kriminalvården or Sis that should handle this. Vänsterpartiet thinks it is Sis that should handle the release. But what is the real difference? If one already has an extensive system within Kriminalvården, why can one not have special storage spaces for young people who commit crimes?

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Torsten Elofsson for the answers, but I don't actually think I received an answer to what I asked about.

We are obviously in agreement that a better discharge and conditional release are needed, regardless of who is to be responsible for it. In that regard, I believe Kriminalvården has better possibilities, and they need to be connected to the treatment that takes place at Sis today. That treatment, during incarceration and up until release, is better adapted for children in the Sis model than in Kriminalvården, which has no experience at all with children – regardless of the children's age.

What I would also like to reflect on is the marking of the parents' importance. It is great, I want to assert. But we also see that part of the branding of using violence as a means of power occurs in the family. Every 20th child in Sweden experiences violence in the home, and every 10th child has done so often. Everywhere in the treatment chain or in the activities we are now touching upon, it is said that this constitutes a large part of the development of crime. We must also sharpen the legislation regarding crimes against children so that children are protected, and intervention from social services and care measures are needed so that the children escape being branded by violence.

Does Torsten Elofsson have any comments on this?

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I will begin with a more personal reflection. Looking in the rearview mirror, we should have had youth courts and youth prisons instead of Sis, which has not succeeded particularly well during the time the operation has been running. From that perspective, I think we are now getting an arrangement that we should have had from the very beginning.

Then there was the question of parenting. I have heard Gudrun Nordborg raise the question on a number of occasions, that is to say that children are shaped during their upbringing if there is violence in the home. So it may very well be the case in some situations, but in these cases one cannot solely blame such things, instead here it is about taking impressions of digitalization. The parents do not really have a handle on what the children are doing, and there I think one has failed.

There are family centers, and there is a new Social Services Act. The idea is that to the extent that that type of crime in close relationships – we may well call it that if it is violence in the home – occurs, it is about strengthening the interventions against the violence. There are the family centers and the new Social Services Act. There, other steering measures and tools can be used than what were available in the previous Social Services Act.

As I mentioned in my speech, many of the children have problems in the form of diagnoses and in other ways, and then one must work with the issues. But I think that one has been far too lax and has not handled them clearly enough and early enough. In that sense, we can agree.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! As the final speaker, I shall, as usual, summarize today's debate.

The debate today is actually about one thing, namely whether children who commit such serious crimes that they must be locked up should be placed at Sis or if Kriminalvården should be given the responsibility. That is what we are debating today, not whether children should be locked up, but how and where they should be locked up when they commit serious crimes.

Sometimes I get the impression that some in the debate, not in this house but perhaps outside, believe it is about whether children should be locked up in prison or not locked up at all. That is not the case. It is always relevant with incarceration, a kind of deprivation of liberty, when and if a 16-year-old, for example, commits murder.

The debate is also not about how we should prevent children from murdering, but the debate is about what we do when a child has murdered.

I believe that the vast majority agree that if a 16-year-old shoots the head off someone, he is dangerous. He is naturally extra dangerous if such a shooting occurs, for example, in a square where innocent people are also murdered in connection with this. I also believe that most agree that a dangerous person, regardless of whether he is 56 or 16 years old, should be kept locked up if he has committed such a serious crime as murder.

I shall try to avoid repeating what has been said here earlier. Many wise words have been spoken from both sides, I would still like to assert.

As a representative for Sweden's only school party, Liberalerna, I am extra pleased that a large part of this debate has been about what the school should look like and how it should function for the children who are to be placed within the care of Kriminalvården. This is something that I became involved in directly when we moved forward with Kriminalvården taking over the responsibility for these children.

I and the Minister for Education visited the Högsbo institution in the autumn. There, we met representatives for the institution and representatives for the school management – the principal – who will handle the school education. It was a fairly good meeting. I immediately gained a great deal of confidence in them. They answered all the concerns we had and the concerns that have been raised here in the debate today.

Will there be qualified teachers? Yes, there will be qualified teachers. Will there be teachers who are specially trained to handle these children, who need extra support and extra instruction? Yes, there will be teachers who are trained for that. Will there be distance learning? No, but it can occur in exceptional cases. At the institution, there is room for eight children, and if one of them for some reason is studying French, one can have that specific French instruction via distance learning, for example.

The Social Democrats said that there is no law or any regulations and that it will take two years before it is in place. That is not true. The Prison and Probation Service is ready to take charge of the school activities as early as this autumn.

On March 1, 2027, the new regulatory framework must be in place. It is about the fact that today we have a law, the Education Act, and we have compulsory education. What is to be done is to change the Education Act so that the teaching in detention can be adapted to the new Education Act. This involves, among other things, that the children will not be able to have orientation – it becomes difficult when they are locked up. They will, for example, not be able to do everything within woodwork. They want to write in certain such exceptions in the Education Act. I believe everyone understands this.

Many, most, of the children who end up in detention will also need very specific instruction. It could be about learning to read.

Furthermore, it has been said that during the time the children are at the institution, there will be more hours than they have at Sis today, at least 23 hours. There will also be an opportunity for extra teaching if the children want it. It is believed that they will want it; there is not much else to do.

When it comes to the school activities, I feel confident; they will function well when the children are placed with the Prison and Probation Service.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 18.)

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