Security detention - a new out-of-date deprivation of liberty penalty

Petter Löberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are considering the government's proposal to introduce a new penalty in Swedish law: security detention. We Social Democrats will vote yes to the bill.

The proposal means, in short, that a person who is convicted of very serious crime and who is judged to have a high risk of recidivism in similar crime shall be able to be held deprived of liberty even after a prison sentence would have ended if it had been imposed in the usual way. It is thus an indeterminate sentence.

This is something partially new. We have tested solutions of this type before. It was not used very much, and it disappeared. But it is, therefore, about release taking place only when the risk of recidivism is no longer judged to be tangible. An assessment is made on a case-by-case basis.

This is directed at a very limited group – it concerns perhaps 40–50 people annually. But it concerns people who pose a tangible danger to other people's lives, health, and safety.

Madam Speaker! This is also one of the most intrusive proposals one can take a stand on. It is about the balance between two fundamental values. It is about people's right to live in safety but also about the individual's protection against the power of the state.

There are cases where people repeatedly commit very serious crimes, where release can mean a new chance but also involves a tangible risk of recidivism and danger to others. We have seen a number of high-profile cases. I do not like to give examples and do not intend to do so, because I fundamentally do not believe that legislation should be based on individual high-profile cases that may have been large in the media and the like. We sometimes need to squint, discern patterns, and see if there is a structural flaw. In this case, we have concluded that we lack a tool in the toolbox that might provide the opportunity to target a certain type of extremely problematic individuals.

To be honest, some of these cases might be met by forensic psychiatry instead. Forensic psychiatry also has an order that resembles what we are looking at here. Now we are in criminal law, while forensic psychiatry is a different legislation. But there, people sit for an indefinite period, depending on the fact that they simply shall not be released if it is inappropriate due to their illness. In forensic psychiatry, these people may have done things that perhaps are not perceived as particularly serious. They do not have to be any serious crimes, but one still makes the assessment that they should not be out. It is a different seminar, but I believe we need to review the interface between traditional criminal justice and forensic psychiatry. The pendulum has swung a bit too far in one direction.

We see it as a reasonable balance that we introduce a tool for the most dangerous repeat offenders. But it also requires that we have certain legal safeguards in place. This is not a general solution for many people. It is not a replacement for functioning criminal justice care. I will return to that a bit in a moment. It is a system that must be built on assessments made in a serious manner and that each individual case is examined carefully, in this case by the court.

These risk assessments need to be followed up, and we need to see what the outcome of the legislation becomes. It is new ground we are treading, and then we must be extra careful with the follow-up of this law – reins and bridle for the legislators, one might say.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats believe that this proposal combines a strong protection for society with a strong rule of law. The principles are that it is a penalty that shall be used very restrictively.

The content of the execution – I will go into that a little bit – is crucial for how the outcome will be. Locking people up without a time limit also involves a great responsibility. If we do not resolve the situation in the prisons, we push the problem forward until the day that inexorably comes when the person is to be released outside the walls. Long-term and persistent efforts are required.

In light of the serious problems that the correctional services face today with overcrowding, with capacity at the breaking point, and with the fact that in many cases the staff no longer dare to work alone among the inmates, we see that it can become difficult to maintain educational efforts, program activities, and even daily operations when we here in this chamber make decisions on legislative changes and increased penalties without the entire justice chain hanging together. The justice chain must hang together, and right now the correctional services are under enormous strain. To throw these people into that environment without having rectified the correctional services' situation would be irresponsible. That is something we need to keep in mind in this context.

Madam Speaker! It is easy to be categorical in crime policy. It is harder to be clear and responsible at the same time, but it is a balance we must try to maintain. Sometimes we reconsider. We read government bills, reflect, look at the referrals and look at what the Council on Legislation says, and then we sometimes have to change our minds. In this case, we have changed our minds during the process. Sometimes we are ready, given the challenges or that we have the legislative product in place and can take a stand, to test things that we have not considered previously. We must all do that. A society must be safe for everyone, period. But we must remind ourselves to never let go of the rule-of-law basic principles that exist in our society, not even when it is windy and there are great challenges.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Better civil protection is needed against individuals who have committed serious crimes against others and who have a high risk of recidivism in such crimes, but for whom forensic psychiatric care or life imprisonment is not applicable. It is urgent that the justice system is equipped as soon as possible with tools that can protect society from these individuals. On that point, we and the government are in complete agreement.

In the absence of another existing proposal on the table, we therefore consider that the government's bill should be adopted, despite the deficiencies in legal certainty, proportionality, equal treatment, and expediency that we also highlight in our follow-up motion.

To some extent alleviate these deficiencies, the Riksdag should, at the same time as adopting the law, remove the exceptions from the requirement to obtain a specific risk assessment before the penalty is determined to be security detention. We want a risk assessment to always be conducted, simply because an exception from this requirement risks leading to an inconsistent judicial practice where the threshold is applied differently.

To solve the fundamental problem regarding these individuals in the future in a more legally secure, proportionate and accurate way, however, a different solution than just security detention was needed. The Riksdag should therefore, at the same time as we make a decision on this law, issue a notice to the government on this, in accordance with reservation 1, which I move for approval of.

The Center Party's proposal concerns a specific form of compulsory care: security care in prison. This shall be able to commence after a regular prison sentence has been served. This means that the perpetrator shall be sentenced to prison in the usual manner, and thereafter, the Prison and Probation Service, together with the National Board of Forensic Medicine, can investigate before release whether the risk of recidivism in serious crime against a person is so high that the inmate should not be released for security reasons and therefore becomes subject to security care.

Security care shall be decided by a court upon application by Kriminalvården, which of course remains as the executing authority. In this way, the most dangerous criminals will remain in rehabilitation and prison, something that cannot be guaranteed with today's proposal from the government.

When the judgment is to be pronounced, it is difficult to determine exactly who will have a high risk of recidivism. This implies a risk that courts will not sentence to the relevant punishment in advance. Then they become cautious in their assessments and risk missing individuals. With our proposal, the risk of recidivism is always assessed before release. It becomes more accurate, and we will not miss any individuals.

In the same way as in compulsory care with a special discharge review, the question of the continuation of security care shall be reviewed regularly by the court.

Madam Speaker! In summary, the Riksdag should both adopt the government's bill, with the amendment that the exception from the requirement to obtain a risk assessment is removed, and partly issue a declaration to introduce a new special form of compulsory care, security care in prison, which shall replace the security detention we are now making a decision on.

We also think that the government should evaluate and time-limit the law before it is made permanent.

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are debating the Committee on Justice's report Security Detention – a new indeterminate custodial sentence. When I was first elected to the Swedish Parliament in 2014, quite a lot within criminal policy was very underdeveloped and dysfunctional, at least from a conservative perspective.

I came from regional politics, which is responsible for forensic psychiatry. I saw quite quickly a deficiency in criminal law, namely that there was simply a lack of an opportunity for certain particularly dangerous criminals to combine a fixed-term sentence with a possibility of extended time in the institution if there is a high risk of recidivism.

In forensic psychiatry, there is something called special discharge review, which means that one remains incarcerated as long as they are considered to be ill. I wanted to see the same thing under the auspices of the Prison and Probation Service for criminals with a high risk of recidivism. That was my motive for writing one of my first motions on detention sentences during the 2014–2018 parliamentary term.

Madam Speaker! I pointed out, as I said, the proposal on detention sentences which subsequently became part of the Tidö Agreement. There was also a thorough investigation, which is presented here today. In the bill and the proposal, there is mention of security detention.

It is part of the history that this question has been debated over the years. In 2018, I debated the question here in the chamber, particularly against Centerpartiet and Miljöpartiet. Annika Hirvonen from Miljöpartiet said that she turned cold when she heard my arguments about locking up dangerous repeat offenders for an indefinite period and stated that it had been clear that SD did not stand up for basic principles in a rule of law.

Johan Hedin of the Center Party gave a presentation on Nazi parties in Europe and pointed out authoritarian forces that challenged the rule of law and argued that this was what the Sweden Democrats were after.

There are some examples of how it has sounded in the debate. The Sweden Democrats put forward proposals, and the other parties shout about racism and the downfall of democracy. Political development then stands completely still, and when the problems that the Sweden Democrats have addressed finally become too difficult to ignore, all parties give the Sweden Democrats the right.

The problem with this order, Madam Speaker, is that innocent people are dying while the political left continues to play political theater. The lack of a possibility to keep dangerous criminals in custody has, over the years, caused dangerous criminals, often as part of the left's lauded conditional release, to be released and, as expected, murdered, raped, and destroyed the lives of innocent people completely unnecessarily.

The question I ask myself is why the Social Democrats, the Centre Party, the Green Party, and the Left Party could not have a substantive debate ten years ago and could not take note of the Sweden Democrats' crime policy even then. Why was it more important for your parties to signal opposition to the Sweden Democrats with rambling about the downfall of democracy than to do what was required to protect society from dangerous pedophiles, murderers, and rapists?

You will, of course, have to live with how you chose to prioritize when you held power. I can only feel an immense gratitude to the Swedish people who finally ousted Sweden's most destructive governments – under the Social Democrats – and finally gave the Sweden Democrats the chance to have influence.

Now we are making a fundamental change to the crime policy. We protect ordinary people from dangerous criminals and prioritize crime victims and their relatives over the interests of the criminals – and when we do that, Madam Speaker, all parties' previous opposition turns into unanimous support on issue after issue. Isn't that absolutely fantastic?

That we now receive security storage on site is a clear Sweden Democrat political success. And think, when Sweden Democrat policy that was previously considered to threaten democracy is well presented here in Sweden's Riksdag, it is so attractive that all parties vote for it and want it to be introduced as quickly as possible. It is, of course, an acknowledgment of the Sweden Democrats' intention and our political ability. This we can, of course, be thankful for, even if it will never be expressed explicitly.

Madam Speaker! No political reform is perfect, but I want to let this reform take effect before I am ready to start tweaking it or evaluating it. I am, however, unlike many other parties, open to dialogue if any party wants to discuss how we can make the policy more accurate moving forward.

With that said, I would like to move for the rejection of the reservations and for the approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! In line with the government, the Green Party sees a gap in today's legislation. In some cases, there is a need for societal protection against persons who have a high risk of recidivism in serious crime but are not considered seriously mentally disturbed in the sense of the law or where life imprisonment is not applicable. There are situations where the society's need for protection is very strong.

At the same time, we, like a large number of referral bodies and the Council on Legislation, see that an indeterminate sentence constitutes a systemic shift where societal protection is given precedence in a way that is difficult to reconcile with central criminal law principles. The Council on Legislation questions, among other things, whether the proposal can live up to principles of proportionality and equal treatment and whether courts can make sufficiently reliable recidivism forecasts.

Even referral bodies such as Civil Rights Defenders, Brå, Domstolsverket, Justitiekanslern, Åklagarmyndigheten as well as several universities, courts of appeal and district courts highlight several risks with the proposal, for example the difficulty of assessing the risk of recidivism in serious crimes. It is argued that the proposal is therefore not sufficiently accurate and may thus lead to arbitrariness, reduced predictability and a broader use than intended. We also note that it is relatively few bodies that unequivocally support the government's proposal in its entirety.

Against that background, the position of the Green Party is that society must be able to protect people from the worst repeat offenders, but that it must occur in a way that upholds criminal law principles of legal certainty, predictability, proportionality, and equality. This is particularly important because the proposal implies a fundamental shift where deprivation of liberty can in practice be justified preventively, based on assessments of future risk, rather than solely based on the penal value of the offense.

Madam Speaker! A central rule of law objection against security detention is that it risks resulting in people being deprived of their liberty for an indefinite period for preventive purposes for crimes that have not yet been committed and which perhaps would never have been committed. Referral bodies and the Council on Legislation point out, as they say, that recidivism forecasts are uncertain, especially at the individual level, and that errors can lead to deprivations of liberty that do not correspond to the crime's punitive value. Even the investigation itself assesses that the new penalty could result in persons being deprived of their liberty without them actually having relapsed.

Against that background, we assess that the most legally secure delimitation is that security detention can be sentenced when a person who has previously been convicted of a certain type of serious crime relapses into the same type of serious crime. Already today, the courts and the Prison and Probation Service make assessments of the risk of recidivism, and there is therefore an established experience and competence among the judges.

We in Miljöpartiet also propose some other changes to the government's proposal.

We want to see a concentration of trials regarding extension to a few courts with the possibility of building specific expertise.

We also want to see a mandatory recidivism risk assessment from the National Board of Forensic Medicine in every case, this is to ensure that the basis for the decision is robust and consistent between courts.

We want to see a clearer catalogue of crimes where the new penalty may apply, in order to ensure predictability.

We also want to see an investigation that reviews the design of the framework period and the extension of this.

We also mean that such an extensive reform, which implies a shift in Swedish criminal law, should be time-limited and evaluated – this because security detention thus means that we move from an order where the length of deprivation of liberty is primarily determined by the committed act and its punitive value to an order where forecasts of future risk, which are difficult to make, are given greater significance for how long a person can be held deprived of liberty.

Madam Speaker! Security detention also risks shifting the focus from the measures that have been proven to reduce recidivism, such as functional correctional services, treatment interventions, substance abuse care, and support upon release, to an order where the deprivation of liberty itself is expected to solve the problem. We in Miljöpartiet share the goal – I repeat this so that it is clear – that society should be protected against serious repeat offenders, but for good reasons, we feel an uncertainty regarding whether the proposed penalty will actually reduce recidivism or if it instead risks becoming a costly and legally uncertain solution that pushes out more accurate interventions.

We also want to be clear that the security detention sentence must be seen in a context where other punishments and consequences for committed crimes also continue to exist. We want to, for example, remind of our committee's initiative, which was about making a broad review of the criteria for forensic psychiatric care. Perhaps more people should be sentenced to forensic psychiatric care with special discharge review?

Miljöpartiet is also not unfamiliar with the idea that more people who commit serious crimes could be sentenced to life imprisonment than what occurs today. We also stood behind the proposal to limit the possibility of parole when there is a risk of recidivism. The investigation itself states that it is difficult to assess the need for the new penalty, partly because recidivism is more common among persons who have served shorter sentences than longer ones. Furthermore, the possibility of parole has, as stated, been limited.

The government is now putting forward a large number of legislative proposals, at a high pace but not simultaneously, and it is difficult to see the big picture. Already submitted proposals and upcoming proposals overlap with each other. The proposal we are debating here today also means that we are introducing a completely new type of punishment that is not just a sanction but is also linked to uncertain recidivism forecasts and thus challenges fundamental criminal law principles.

When the state introduces such an intrusive penalty, at least a time limit and an evaluation should be introduced to ensure that the reform works as intended and does not produce unacceptable side effects before the regulation has been made permanent.

We have several reservations that I stand behind, but I move for approval only to reservation 3.

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking Member Westerlund for the speech. It is positive that even the Green Party supports the proposal on security storage in the major features. I think the points raised by the Green Party are relevant, but I do not share all the conclusions.

I would like to highlight a part of the reservation that Miljöpartiet moves for approval. Miljöpartiet points out there that the possibility of extending the framework period can lead to a very long-term deprivation of liberty and that security detention in practice can become a life sentence. I would like to say: Yes, in some respects, that is exactly the point.

This sanction is for persons who commit very serious crimes and relapse into similar serious crime – and furthermore have a high risk of relapsing further and destroying people's lives. It concerns cases where the risk of serious crimes is high, and if that risk persists, society shall have the opportunity to protect others.

At every extension of the framework period, a new security assessment, a new risk assessment, and a new judicial review take place, in order to guarantee legal certainty. It is also clear there that public safety must carry significant weight and that it needs to be assessed as absolutely necessary to extend the framework period.

And given that this is to be used very restrictively, for persons who have already relapsed into serious crime and where it is judged to be a high risk – that is, not generally but for individual, obviously dangerous, individuals – my question to Member Westerlund is: Does Miljöpartiet mean that we should limit the possibility of extending the maximum sentence and thereby release persons who have proven that they can commit serious crimes several times just because the maximum sentence has already been extended once?

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question, but I am a bit unsure if we understand each other correctly.

We in Miljöpartiet fully agree that society needs to protect itself from certain people. It can therefore be the case that certain individuals will need to be locked up for their entire lives, because the protection of society weighs so heavily. What we find a bit unclear is exactly how the design of the extension of the framework period should look. We have therefore proposed that an investigation should be carried out on that. We are therefore not saying no to the framework period being extended several times, but we think it needs to be investigated exactly how it should proceed.

I also interpret the government's bill as meaning that this does not apply only to repeat offenders but also to persons who have committed several crimes but have not relapsed into crime. That is what we propose in our follow-up motion, that is to say that it should be in the case of exactly a relapse that preventive detention could come into question. I do not perceive it as being that is how the government's bill is designed, and therefore it is included in our proposal.

We have, therefore, really tried to read the proposal carefully, and we have come up with various additions that we feel would entail improvements that enable this new type of punishment as an alternative in Sweden. We are trying to protect society against the most dangerous individuals but still ensure the principles of legal certainty.

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Madam Speaker! Yes, fundamental principles of legal certainty are of the utmost importance even in this type of penalty and even when we talk about people who repeatedly commit serious crimes and relapse into new crimes.

What Member Westerlund expressed is entirely correct. This sanction is primarily intended for persons who relapse into serious crime, but according to the proposal on the table, it can also be applied to those who have repeatedly committed serious crimes even if they have not been convicted between each crime. It is correctly understood. There we differ – that is how it can be.

My question, which I understood that I received an answer to, concerned what is stated in the Miljöpartiets reservation regarding that one should limit the possibility of extending the frame period more than once. It was this that I questioned. Since we are limiting when this sanction can be used and limiting the rules for it so that it targets the absolutely most dangerous repeat offenders, I mean that it would be directly unfortunate to limit the number of times the frame period can be extended. There are already limitations in the first stage as to when the sanction can be used.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for his clarifications.

We have written that an investigation could look at different ways to design the framework period. This was included as an example of something that could be done. It does not mean that an investigation would land on exactly this. We are open to it being extended several times, but how would it be designed in that case? That is how this is to be read.

I want to repeat what I said in my speech: There are also other consequences that can come into question. Life imprisonment for more crimes than what is currently the case is sometimes perhaps a better alternative to protect society. You have proposed that the possibilities for conditional release should be limited if it is judged that the risk of recidivism is very high, and we have agreed to that.

This is an example of how several of the government's various legislative proposals overlap, which you have also noted yourself. It will be very difficult to see exactly who will be sentenced to the new security detention penalty, who will be sentenced to life imprisonment, how the new possibility to restrict parole will be used, and so on.

All this combined is a reason why it would be good to have a time limit and an evaluation to ensure that we hit the mark when we introduce a new type of opportunity.

I would like to mention again the proposed review of forensic psychiatric care with special discharge review. The number of people sentenced to that specific penalty has decreased. Are we correct there, or is there reason to review this? It is something that Miljöpartiet would like to see in the same context as this discussion.

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Madam Speaker! The vast majority of people who serve a sentence in the correctional services never commit another serious crime. It is important to say that. It is also something to be proud of in a justice system that intends to both punish crime and give people a new chance to build up their lives.

We also know, however, that there is a small group of people for whom reality looks different. These are people who repeatedly commit very serious crimes, for example, rape, serious violent crimes, or abuse against children, and who, after long prison sentences, relapse into exactly the same type of criminality. In that situation, society must ask the question: Who should bear the risk? Is it the one who has already shown that he can exceed human boundaries against another human being, or is it the next potential crime victim? With security detention, we give a clear answer to that question.

Madam Speaker! For a long time, Swedish law has had a problem in these situations. We have the possibility of life imprisonment for the most serious crimes, and we have forensic psychiatric care when the perpetrator suffers from a serious mental disorder. Between these two sentences, however, there are situations where the crimes are very serious – it could be cases of rape, brutal violent crimes, or serious abuse against children – and where the risk of recidivism is very high but where the conditions are lacking to sentence the person to life imprisonment or forensic psychiatric care. It is precisely that loophole in the legislation that we are now closing.

The new sanction, security detention, shall be able to be used in a very clearly delimited type of case. It concerns persons who have committed serious crimes involving attacks against other persons' life, health, liberty or peace. There must also be a tangible risk of recidivism in serious crime.

In order for the penalty to be imposed, it is required that the crime is so serious that it corresponds to at least four years of imprisonment. It is also required that there is previous criminality of a similar nature or that the person is convicted of repeated very serious crimes at the same time. It is furthermore required that the court, after a thorough risk assessment has been conducted, which the Swedish National Board of Forensic Medicine is responsible for, assesses that there is a high risk that the person will re-offend in serious crime against other people.

This is not, therefore, a new standard procedure – it is important to point out, and we must be aware of this. This is a special tool to be used in those cases where society's need for protection is at its greatest.

Madam Speaker! When a court sentences someone to security detention, two timeframes shall be established.

The first is the minimum term. It shall correspond to the prison sentence that would have been imposed if the court had decided on a fixed-term prison sentence and can be a maximum of 18 years.

The second is the term of imprisonment, which shall be an additional four to six years, depending on the severity of the crime. When the term of imprisonment approaches its end, the court shall review the issue again. If the risk of new serious crimes is still assessed to be high, the term of imprisonment can be extended, up to three years at a time and as many times as necessary to ensure that dangerous individuals are locked up. This means that dangerous people are kept locked up as long as needed to protect other people from being subjected to new serious crimes. Each such extension requires a new review in court. This is therefore not a system that systematically keeps people locked up without control, but it is done as long as the risk is high.

Madam Speaker! My usual area of expertise is in the correctional services, and I will therefore be extra careful with examples. I can, however, say that in the correctional services I meet many people who are truly trying to change their lives – people who want to leave crime behind and who want something else. That is the norm; that is how it usually looks.

Sometimes, however, one meets people who set off alarm bells. To be completely honest, one worries about such people and thinks: You will soon be back. The question is only how many people's lives will be destroyed before then.

In several cases, I have unfortunately been right. It is in precisely those situations that society must have better tools, not to take revenge but to take responsibility for protecting other people from being subjected to new serious crimes.

Madam Speaker! It is also important to say that this reform is not in opposition to rehabilitation. It is sometimes presented in that way, but it is directly incorrect. The Prison and Probation Service's work with treatment, rehabilitation, and recidivism prevention measures is absolutely crucial both when this sentence is imposed and with other sentences. Where the risks are greatest, the measures must also be greatest.

For those sentenced to a security sentence, the measures can include programs against violence and sexual offenses. They shall also include work with substance abuse, social factors, and reintegration. The goal is always the same: that people should be able to leave crime behind.

In situations where the risk of new serious crimes is still high, despite intensive measures, and where the person has already previously relapsed into serious crime, we must however be able to say: We cannot take that risk again.

Madam Speaker! Those who repeatedly commit very serious crimes against other people – rape, brutal violent crimes, or abuse against children – and where the risk of new crimes is still high, should not be able to be released simply because the legislation lacks the right tools. Society must be able to protect the next potential crime victim, and that is precisely why we are introducing this.

It is also worth noting that support for this reform today is broad in the Swedish Riksdag. That has not always been the case. Just a few years ago, proposals like this were very controversial. When the Moderaterna began pushing the issue, the then Social Democratic Minister of Justice was very clear that no such penalty would be introduced in Sweden.

Today, there is a significantly broader understanding that the legislation must be able to handle situations where the risk of recidivism is high and the crimes are very serious. This says something about how the criminal justice policy in Sweden has changed, and that change has to a large extent been driven both by how reality has developed and by the government's paradigm shift.

Madam Speaker! Security detention will be used in a very limited number of cases. It concerns a small group of very dangerous repeat offenders. But in just those cases, the consequences can be devastating for the crime victims, for the families, and for society. Therefore, this reform is important. It makes our penal system more accurate, it strengthens community protection, and it ensures that dangerous repeat offenders no longer fall between the cracks in the legislation.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the bill.

(Applause)

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! A person who is feared to be dangerous to other people should reasonably be able to be kept away from other people, regardless of whether the dangerous person has committed a crime or not. That is how we think if it is a person who has a serious mental disorder. In that case, one can be detained by force solely because of that risk, but also if one has committed serious crimes. But when it concerns a person who does not have such a strong disorder, the prison sentence is such that one cannot consider the risk of recidivism in connection with release.

So, there is a gap in Swedish law, and it has been pointed out several times from different sides that the justice system does not protect against repeated serious crime.

What I hear and see in the examples from the rostrum and the investigations is that this reform is long-awaited by the women's movement. There are many women who do not get protection from the men who have previously subjected them to serious crimes. These men can then move on into new relationships and again inflict incredibly brutal violence on women without society being able to prevent it.

It is also about children who risk being subjected to sexual abuse, child pornography crimes, and other things that we want to defend against and where we see repeated serious crime.

I assert, therefore, that this is partly a feminist reform. But in other cases, it also protects against very gross violence, and what drove the reform was probably to curb organized crime and the serious violence that exists there. Similarities we can see are the risk to life and health when it concerns gross assault, attempted murder, and so on. Even when it concerns crimes such as arson, public endangerment by destruction, and robbery, perpetrators should be able to be sentenced for repeated attempts.

Revan needs to be covered by relevant legislation, and with the new penalty, one is trying to do just that. As mentioned, there are strong feminist arguments for this, but we must also be somewhat cautious when we invoke social protection. Some referral bodies have pointed out that this basis for criminal law has appeared before, in the 1920s. They argue that we should see the political context and that there is a risk that the application will be exaggerated and again open up for neutralizing so-called unwanted elements. Last time, among other things, forced sterilization and racial biology became an effect. We must therefore be cautious about how we use the terms, because I would like to assert that this with social protection can be a bit insidious.

As has been pointed out from the rostrum, it is obviously important that we maintain aspects of legal certainty and the principles of the rule of law. There are certain doubts in the reform. The Council on Legislation has highlighted some such, but also indicated that it does not want to hinder the reform and does not want to interfere in the legal policy discussion. It is an interesting indication from the Council on Legislation, and I believe it is connected to the claims that have come from several sides that even the Council on Legislation should be activist and take a stand in such matters. That is not what is done, and it is not being done here either. However, some points are made regarding how the legislative product should be improved, and in several cases, the government has taken these views into account and considered the comments.

So, it is about a small number of very serious cases. The investigation's forecast is 45 cases per year. I do not mean that we should be less cautious with these individuals, but we should still see the proportions of what we risk if we do not accept this proposal. There may be advantages with this system that are important to win.

I think it is a point with how the penalty has been constructed. The prison sentence that would have been received still constitutes the minimum time, and then the judiciary assesses the risk of recidivism and sets a frame period in proportion to this risk. This can be reassessed later. Consideration is also taken of the type of crime, and everyone understands from my and others' statements that it concerns very serious crimes.

How is the risk of recidivism then assessed and the timeframe set? The risk must be tangible, and it is assessed based on various criteria. However, it is not stated exactly how.

It is mentioned, among other things, that it is the act which is perhaps already current in court that indicates a danger and the amount of that type of act that has occurred previously or that is in the court process in the current trial.

One can assess what type of intent it was. Was it planned or not? It must not be about coincidences, but there must be real, serious gravity behind the crimes.

Another interesting thing that is mentioned is that one should try to see if there is possibly a psychiatric issue, i.e., a problem of a mental nature that does not reach the level where one could order forensic psychiatric care.

There is a problem here that is also pressing, namely: What does the forensic psychiatric care look like today? When is it possible to sentence someone to that penalty? Do we have too strict boundaries? Vänsterpartiet believes so. We have several times argued for and demanded that we should evaluate and perhaps reform the forensic psychiatric care.

Our thought is that care is better and more professional within these frameworks than what can occur within the correctional system. There, it is now more about storage, not least in light of the enormous overcrowding that threatens there already now. We also have other alternatives to move forward with in order to close this gap in somewhat different ways.

Reformers within forensic psychiatry, we believe of course. We also believe that we could use technology to protect and monitor those who are potentially dangerous in a better way than what occurs today, for example with a prevention shackle.

This is an additional proposal that we must continue to work with. That being said, I also want to say, of course, that Vänsterpartiet continues to strongly emphasize that we should work preventatively as much as we possibly can and that we should invest in serious rehabilitation.

With that, I support the government's bill.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the government's bill with a proposal to introduce a new custodial sentence in Swedish law: security detention.

I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposed decision, which the debate also shows has broad support in the committee and in the chamber. I stand behind the proposition. This means that all reservations are rejected.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has during previous years had a very negative development regarding crime. Serious violent crimes, sexual crimes and organized crime increased. In many cases, they did so in a both more brutal and more systematic form.

Against that background, the government is now carrying out a comprehensive reorganization of crime policy. It is not a question of small adjustments at the margins. It is about a clear and necessary shift in perspective. We are moving the focus from the perpetrator to the crime victim, from the perpetrator's situation to society's need for protection.

It does not mean that the rule of law should be undermined, on the contrary. It means that we more clearly weigh in that the state's primary task is to protect law-abiding people from crime.

A central part of this reorganization concerns the sentences. There is a fundamental truth that is sometimes denied in the debate. One who is deprived of liberty cannot commit new crimes out in society. It is not an ideological standpoint; it is a fact.

Therefore, we must dare to conclude that many dangerous criminals should be locked up as long as they pose a danger to others. It is about safety for crime victims, both current and potential, and it is about safety for our society.

Madam Speaker! In 2024, the report *Ett ändamålsenligt samhällsskydd* was presented. It contained several important proposals regarding protection against serious crime. This investigation was started by the previous government shortly before the election, although we who are now in government have pushed the issue for many years.

The directives were not sufficient from the beginning. Crucial tools were missing. This concerned, among other things, the possibility of handling the most dangerous individuals in a way that fully takes into account their risk of recidivism.

The government therefore chose to act. Through supplementary directives, a sharper and more purposeful mandate was given. Since then, the reforms have been implemented step by step, including through tightenings of the regulatory framework for conditional release.

When it concerns serious crime, a longer period of the sentence must now be served before one is released on parole. If the risk of recidivism is high, the scope for parole has been significantly reduced.

Madam Speaker! This is not enough. As the debate shows here, there is a clear gap in the Swedish sentencing system. We have life imprisonment as a punishment. We also have the possibility to sentence to forensic psychiatric care.

In between, there is a group of perpetrators who do not fall within any of these systems despite being very dangerous. It can involve individuals who commit repeated violent and sexual crimes where the risk of recidivism is high. Today, they are sentenced to fixed-term punishments. This means that regardless of the risk level, they shall be released at a specific point in time. That is not reasonable. Society must have the opportunity to protect itself if the risk of new serious crimes is palpable. It is precisely this that security detention is about and aims for.

Madam Speaker! Security detention is a new penalty which means that a person can be deprived of their liberty as long as it is necessary to protect society. It is important to emphasize that it is not an arbitrary system. There are clear and strict criteria.

For the penalty to be able to be imposed, three things are primarily required. It must involve recidivism in or repeated serious crime, it must involve a certain type of crime, and there must be a high risk of recidivism.

Regarding the first criterion, that it must involve recidivism in or repeated serious crime, does it mean that the perpetrator has either previously been convicted of that type of serious crime and relapsed into such crime, or that the perpetrator is convicted of several crimes at one and the same time?

Regarding the second criterion, it is about it involving a certain type of crime of a certain severity. It shall mean attacks against another's life, health, liberty, and peace. It can, for example, involve repeated violent or sexual crimes but also human trafficking, robbery and in some cases arson and public endangerment.

In cases of repeated crime, that is to say that the person may previously have been unconvicted but at one and the same occasion is convicted for, for example, several rapes, it is a matter of it also being serious crimes. In that case, it is a matter of whether a prison sentence of six years or more would have been imposed. In the previous case, it was four years.

The third criterion means that the person has a high risk of reoffending. It will work in approximately the same way as it does today with forensic psychiatric care. The court shall obtain an opinion from Rättsmedicinalverket, which makes an assessment of the perpetrator's risk of reoffending. If these three conditions are met, the sentence can be determined to be security detention.

Madam Speaker! The person sentenced to security detention will first serve a minimum period corresponding to a prison sentence that would otherwise have been imposed. After that, the deprivation of liberty continues within a fixed framework. The decisive difference is that if the risk of recidivism persists, the penalty can be extended. It can be extended again as long as needed if it is necessary to protect society. It is this that makes the penalty indeterminate.

Decisions are made by the court and must always be based on current and accurate risk assessments. At the same time, it is important to say that this is not a penalty but hope or direction. When the risk of recidivism decreases, which there are indications and hopes for, there is a possibility for a controlled and gradual release. The convicted person can then, after a court review, be granted permission for a conditional release with careful supervision and clear regulations. The purpose is clear: to reduce the risk of new crimes and enable a safe return to society, but where society still maintains control.

Madam Speaker! The introduction of security detention is a crucial step in the work to strengthen safety in Sweden. It means that we take responsibility for protecting people in our country from the most dangerous individuals. It means that we put the safety of crime victims first. It is not a simple reform. It is a fundamentally important change, but it is necessary.

Madam Speaker! The task of politics is ultimately to safeguard people's freedom and security. That freedom is threatened when people do not dare to go home in the evening, when women do not feel safe, and when children grow up in areas where violence is present. Therefore, we must act.

With this bill, we take one of the important steps that need to be taken to lead Sweden in the right direction. Here we show that dangerous people shall be imprisoned so that everyone else can go free. It is a question of safety, it is a question of responsibility, and it is a question of justice.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the bill.

(Applause)

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating a new criminal sanction – security detention. It is a time-indeterminate deprivation of liberty.

There are many men who have committed repeated heinous crimes – Hagamannen, Nytorgsmannen and Södermannen, to name just a few. In some cases, the sentences have been high: 10, 12 or 14 years. However, they have been released after half or two-thirds of the time.

In some cases, the sentences have been low. Nytorgsmannen, for example, was convicted of 35 crimes against 19 women. It was 7 rapes, 8 sexual molestings plus aggravated breach of peace, child pornography crimes and drug crimes. He received five years and was released after three years.

I assume that no one in here has spoken to any of the 19 women whom he subjected to gross violations, but I promise you that none of them think he should have been released after three years. If you go out on the street and ask people, I do not think they would think he should have been released after three years either. I do not think he should have been released after three years.

These individuals would, with the new criminal penalty of security detention, probably have been kept locked up for a very long time. Security detention is about keeping dangerous people locked up. These are people who, through their cruelty and their repeated crimes and violations, have shown that they cannot live among us others; they are simply too dangerous. The state, we, and society are obligated to ensure that these men cannot harm people, and in that case, detention is the only alternative.

Madam Speaker! Civil protection is important. The victim's perspective is important. I have a feeling that politicians have not always thought so, but perhaps there has been a bit more focus on the perpetrator. How should he be handled? How should his time in prison be? How can he get help with his rehabilitation and reintegration? That is good, because we mostly want that a person who has committed a crime should not do it again.

But how is a crime victim cared for after she has been subjected to it? What has society done for her? In the past, it was quite little. A woman who had been raped was taken to a gynecological clinic where she was examined, and if she was lucky, a police patrol could then also drive her home. Otherwise, it was night bus or taxi that applied. Hardly any follow-up was done. No one met her at home and no one went the next day to ask how she was doing. She was completely left to her own devices.

Today it works better, partly because within various agencies people have begun to get a better victim's perspective. They see and understand what it is like to be a crime victim. But – and this is important – civil society has also stepped forward, and we must continue to support that. More protected housing and women's shelters were needed.

I now return to the subject of security detention. I hear what the Left Party says about the fact that one should be sentenced for the crime one has committed and not based on how dangerous one is and how great the risk of recidivism is.

I have thought a bit about what that means and where I land in the reasoning. I understand the reasoning, but I probably still do not agree. It must be that a court looks at the individual and asks: What kind of person is this? What kind of person is it that is now, for the third time, sitting here charged with rape and has been convicted of rape on two previous occasions? I think that somewhere one should take into account what this person has done and the risk of continued criminality.

Madam Speaker! Finally: The penalty of security detention is a severe penalty. Therefore, a lot is required of the courts before they impose it, and the proposal also includes that thorough risk assessments, so-called risk investigations, shall be carried out.

I personally feel secure with the new penalty, which is both necessary and, in my opinion, legally sound.

I therefore move for the bill to be approved.

(Applause)

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! I question the assertion just made from the rostrum by Martin Melin that Vänsterpartiet would not care about the risk of recidivism.

I think I just argued for exactly the opposite in the speaker's chair. What are you basing your claim on, Martin Melin?

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! I base it on a reservation you had regarding the bill where it stated that recidivism should not be the most important factor, but rather what crime the individual has committed here and now. Did I misunderstand the reservation in that case?

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! We have no reservation; we have a special statement.

There we are not arguing for ignoring the risk of recidivism, but rather for how it should be handled: Is this the best way, or should we also consider forensic psychiatric care? Should perhaps the boundaries between prison and forensic psychiatric care be investigated and reviewed in order to be able to function in a better way?

Then it is still possible that the detention sentence could be needed, but in that case perhaps in a lesser degree. We have absolutely not argued against that the risk of recidivism should be assessed.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! I will take the opportunity to have it recorded in the minutes that I hear what the Left Party is saying. I perceive it as that the Left Party and I share the view that the recidivism shall also be important and taken into account during a court hearing and a decision on a sentence. We are in agreement on this.

I want to have it recorded in the minutes that I am, therefore, revising what I said in my speech.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 12.)

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