Stricter rules for young offenders

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats will vote for this new proposal to test and evaluate, over five years, a reduction of the age of criminal responsibility to 14 years for the most serious crimes. It is the same proposal that we Social Democrats put forward when the government previously wanted to lower the age all the way down to 13 years.

The question of the age of criminal responsibility has engaged, and it is not at all strange. It is a multi-layered and genuinely difficult question that must be treated with seriousness and reflection. I will set out the Social Democrats' considerations, which have led to our position.

Mr. Speaker! I do not think anyone wants 14-year-olds to be in prison. Nevertheless, we are now facing it. Fundamentally, it is about the growing gang crime. In recent years, the gangs have changed their methods, and they are now increasingly using children to carry out murders and bombings. Since 2022, the number of children under 15 years old who are involved in murder cases has increased by over 700 percent.

This is a relatively new and rather unique phenomenon and a horrible development, where Sweden stands out in comparison with other countries. It is a crisis situation for our country.

The government has, during its mandate period, failed to reverse the development regarding new recruitment. Instead, it is going completely in the wrong direction. The gangs' new recruitment is the government's blind spot. Instead of emergency measures and extra supplementary budgets, the Sverigedemokraterna and the government have, on the contrary, forced through cuts in activities that would have been needed to catch these children.

Here, we Social Democrats have a completely different ambition. We fully agree on taking a hard line against the gangs, but we also want to do just as much to break the new recruitment. Therefore, we make different economic priorities than the government. We also have a long series of proposals for reforms that would make a difference. It is about more teachers, a stronger child and adolescent psychiatry, better tools for social services, and more accessible leisure activities with safe adults. It is about outreach measures for at-risk families, U-turn programs for the 7–8-year-olds who have already started running errands for the gangs, and identifying those teenagers that the police and social services are worried could commit acts of violence next. For every extra krona that is to be invested in the justice system – and it shall be – a krona must therefore also be invested in the preventive and early interventions, for which there is evidence and which we know are significant.

At the same time, we cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that society's reaction to these despicable crimes must become clearer than it is today. Our society cannot accept the violence-glorifying gang culture that has taken hold, and we must take the phenomenon of murder-for-hire most seriously.

The children who commit the acts of violence are, of course, exploited by the gangs, but many also actively seek out these criminal assignments. They do it for the money, for the status, and actually also because they know that the punishments will be mild – if there is any sanction at all. And not infrequently, it is children who recruit children. Even in this regard, reforms must therefore be implemented, but it must be done extra carefully precisely because it concerns children.

Mr. Speaker! Children do not belong in prison. That is what makes this issue so difficult. Nevertheless, I want to remind that we already have children in Swedish prisons today. One is, after all, a child until they are 18 years old. The legislation and the facilities, however, have not been adapted for children and young people. But they will be now, and that is good.

Even though the courts have for some time now actually sentenced young people to quite long prison sentences, the main practice over the last few decades has still been that the youngest offenders, that is those between 15 and 18 years old, have been sentenced to closed juvenile care in Sis-homes for a maximum of four years – together with children who are placed there due to other social problems.

Persons younger than 15 years who commit the most serious crimes already today undergo a so-called evidentiary hearing in court with a prosecutor and a defense counsel but, that is, without being sentenced to a penalty. Often, they are instead placed on an emergency basis in institutional homes together with 15-year-olds who have been sentenced to be there. The difference is that the 14-year-olds are there for an indefinite period and that it is the social services and the administrative court that decide and the municipality that pays – costs which, moreover, have skyrocketed in recent years in step with the problems. The time therefore often becomes short. And what happens thereafter is up to the individual municipality, which stands there with increasingly worse conditions to meet this reality.

This is not sustainable. We must handle this issue with the seriousness it deserves. An arrangement was needed where these children are cared for both more resolutely and more equally, both for their sake and for society's.

The question of children in prison, in other words, contains two political trade-offs – partly which authority should bear the responsibility for the convicted, and partly at what age one can be subject to a criminal sanction.

Let me begin with the question of youth detention centers, which the Riksdag actually decided on already this spring. We Social Democrats voted then for the government's proposal. We believe, in fact, that it is right that those youths who are convicted of serious crimes should be placed in new, adapted youth detention centers under the management of Kriminalvården instead of being deprived of liberty in Sis-homes.

The previous order has in fact not worked at all, especially not when crime has changed and become increasingly more serious among ever younger people. The recidivism rate is sky-high. Approximately 90 percent of young gang criminals re-offend, despite great efforts to improve. I met a police officer before the summer who described the Sis-homes as universities for gang criminality. Many of the gang conflicts that have plagued our country can be traced back to contacts established at the Sis-homes. We must be honest about this. Sis has failed. An additional side effect is that care and support have been pushed out for the other children that the authority is responsible for.

It cannot be overemphasized that children should not be imprisoned together with adults and that the Swedish Prison and Probation Authority's recidivism prevention work and methods must be adapted and supplemented to meet the special needs and rights of children and young people. In the Prison and Probation Authority's new youth departments, the children will primarily attend school. But they will also receive care, therapy, rehabilitation, and adaptation to a life beyond crime. The difference compared to Sis is not the care, as it sometimes sounds in the debate, but that at the Prison and Probation Authority there will be clearer requirements that the children must participate in school and other activities, and also requirements regarding what education the employees must have.

Another decisive difference is that the Prison and Probation Service has a control, security, and intelligence apparatus that is lacking at Sis, in order to screen out contacts with criminals and prevent new ones. In addition, there are conditions to intervene in cases of violence and tumult in a completely different way than one is allowed and has the possibility to do at Sis. A third difference is the clothing. Instead of their own clothes, the youths will be issued the Prison and Probation Service's neutral clothing.

Mr. Speaker! We now come to the second, even more complicated, question of age. After many and long discussions regarding the developments in our country, we Social Democrats landed a few years ago on that we are prepared to temporarily test and then evaluate a reduction of the age of criminal responsibility for serious crimes such as contract murder from today's 15 years to 14 years.

In practice, this means that even 14-year-olds would then receive their care in the Prison and Probation Authority's youth departments, that is, if the crime and the circumstances are so serious that imprisonment is the sentence handed down. It can also involve other sentences, such as youth supervision.

Our position is completely in line with the expert investigation that has examined the issue. The investigator was tasked to consider and, if appropriate, submit proposals for a lowering of the age of criminal responsibility. What the investigator came to propose was that the general age of criminal responsibility should remain 15 years but be temporarily lowered to 14 years only for the most serious crimes.

When the government presented its proposal last spring, they chose to ignore the expert investigation's recommendation. Entirely based on gut feeling, they instead proposed a reduction all the way down to 13 years.

We Social Democrats said a clear and firm no to that. We do not believe that 13-year-olds should be covered by criminal law. In our follow-up motion, we proposed instead, in accordance with the investigation, that the age of criminal responsibility should be temporarily set to 14 years for the most serious crimes and thereafter be evaluated in depth.

The government's proposal regarding 13 years lacked support here in the chamber of the Riksdag. Therefore, the government wisely chose to withdraw the bill – even if it was at the eleventh hour. The debate and the vote that were to be held here in June were therefore cancelled, and the government announced that a new proposal in line with the investigation's would be forthcoming.

Quite rightly, we stand here now. The proposal that the Riksdag is now to take a position on means, just as the expert investigation proposed and as we Social Democrats proposed in our motion, that the age of criminal responsibility for crimes under five years is lowered from 15 years to 14 years for those crimes that have a minimum sentence of at least four years of imprisonment.

The investigation's arguments for 14 years instead of 13 are several. One of them is that it is a major change compared to today and that the uncertainties regarding the effects argue for proceeding cautiously. Another argument is that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its general recommendations, argues that countries should not go below 14 years.

We Social Democrats consider these arguments to be wise, relevant and reasonable. Add to that that 13-year-olds often still attend middle school, and we believe that this is simply going too far.

We Social Democrats believe that legislation must be well-founded, and the inquiry's proposal is well-founded. That was not the case with the government's proposal 13 years ago. It is therefore good that the government, under pressure, has backed away from that proposal and returned with the new one.

We at the same time have great respect for the concerns raised in connection with the proposal to even consider this reduction. Above all, there are two arguments that we have particularly considered and weighed in.

One of the concerns is the risk of reinforcing and consolidating a criminal identity in the children. We must be very careful about that, and that is why we Social Democrats, as well as the government and the expert commission, believe that the general age of criminal responsibility should remain at 15 years. Many young people commit a crime at some point, but very few become lifestyle criminals. We must not do anything that makes it easier for them to get stuck in a criminal mindset.

When it comes, however, to 14-year-olds who commit contract killings or life-threatening bombings, the dark reality is unfortunately that many of them already have a criminal identity. Therefore, we consider it reasonable to make this distinction between less serious crimes, such as shoplifting, and serious violent crimes.

The second concern is the risk that the proposal will push crime even further down in age, but unfortunately, we can state that it has already happened. We already have 13–14-year-olds committing the most serious crimes, and we already have children as young as 7–8-year-olds who are recruited on schoolyards and sports fields to carry out assignments for these heinous criminals.

Reality is already so dark, unfortunately, and therefore we believe that the arguments for testing the investigation's proposals carry more weight.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to conclude by saying that we Social Democrats do not imagine that this is the great solution to the problem of criminal gangs recruiting children and young people to commit acts of violence. It is, however, a piece of the puzzle when it comes to how society should meet those young people who nevertheless commit these horrific acts of violence.

Until just a few years ago, we did not have to think much about 13–14-year-olds committing contract killings, but unfortunately, we must do so to a very high degree today. Therefore, the Social Democrats say yes to temporarily testing a reduction of the age of criminal responsibility for the most serious crimes to 14 years, in accordance with the expert investigation's well-founded proposal. The investigation provided well-founded reasons for exactly the age of 14, and the government could not present convincing reasons for 13 years. Therefore, we said no to that but yes to 14 years.

Now the government has returned with a new proposal that corresponds with the expert investigation and the Social Democrats' proposal from last spring. Therefore, we can stand behind it, and therefore we will vote yes today.

(Applause)

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! Vänsterpartiet moves for approval of reservation 1, which means a rejection of the government's proposal in the parts concerning a lowering of the age of criminal responsibility to 14 years. We also, of course, support the two other reservations that we have stood behind.

Children and young people who have committed crimes must face consequences for their actions. Yes, society must react and show its disapproval. The question, however, is how, and how this can be done effectively.

Already today, children aged 15–17 can be sentenced to imprisonment if there are special reasons, for example if the crime is very serious, such as in cases of murder and other grave offenses. I and Vänsterpartiet believe that closed youth care should remain as a penalty for young people aged 15–18 and that Statens institutionsstyrelse should continue to be responsible for it. Their experiences are valuable, and especially their school activities are very important.

We want to strengthen and improve closed youth care, invest in developing the activities at the special youth homes, and significantly improve the reintegration of young people released into society. There have been very serious deficiencies there. I therefore consider it a more constructive proposal to extend the maximum time in closed youth care and to combine it with parole, just as we have from prisons today, which Kriminalvården would then come in and take responsibility for, in cooperation with Sis.

There is scientific evidence that interventions in freedom make a greater difference, and the Swedish voluntary care system is counted among the world's most developed. The interventions carried out within voluntary care can be designed to be more content-rich and individually adapted. This would suit perfectly for those young people who leave institutional care.

The children referred to in this bill are often more victims than perpetrators. The system can rightly be perceived as unreasonable when children who have not reached sufficient maturity are convicted of crimes that one or more adults have tricked, drugged, or forced the child to commit. Where is the Tidö government's victim perspective then? To punish these children is to place the responsibility on children whom society has failed to protect.

Research also shows that children who have committed crimes are generally in a context characterized by a lack of care, trauma and social problems in the family, as well as mental ill-health. It is also very common that they have experienced violence or been subjected to violence against their own bodies in various forms. Such circumstances require that the children be met as individuals with needs for support and protection rather than as legal subjects within the repressive criminal law.

Society has also for a long time withdrawn from economically vulnerable parts of society. This has meant fewer adults in many young people's lives, and it has often meant that activities that could have prevented crime have been run on a shoestring budget. We see the result when young teenagers are arrested for having murdered other teenagers on the orders of unscrupulous criminals. This creates a fear and an insecurity that echoes through the entire society. It must be taken seriously.

The government, however, has a one-sided focus on tougher measures. This has particularly concerned the issue of deportations of teenagers, which clearly shows how problematic it can become when the government pushes through legislation without caring about a strong public opinion. We now risk a similar situation within crime policy.

Also here, there have been very strong expressions of opinion, and the mistrust towards the government's policy is and has been strong. Now, it is also the case within professions, particularly among the legal profession. It is a profession that is actually dominated by people who vote conservatively, but now mixed outcries occur through actions similar to metoo and which are referred to as jutoo, where "ju" refers to the law. Almost 2,000 lawyers have already warned of a dismantling of the rule of law and that the government increasingly ignores serious criticism from the Council on Legislation.

As a lawyer with more than 55 years of professional experience, I am one of those who have reacted to and been horrified by the Tidö Government's ruthlessness in its eagerness to introduce so-called reforms. The proposal for legislation on lowering the age of criminal responsibility was the most flawed and substandard I have ever read. Now I must unfortunately add an even worse example, namely the major criminal law reform which is also to be debated today.

Back to the age of criminal responsibility: Here there is devastating criticism from many instances – heavy ones – in the form of authorities, researchers and actors within civil society, without the government allowing itself to be influenced. Seven of the investigation's nine experts opposed the proposal to lower the age of criminal responsibility when discussing a reduction from 15 to 14 years, that is, the limit we now have on the table. Therefore, it is not possible to designate that investigation as an expert investigation. The status was definitely not raised either by the fact that only 3 of the 95 referral bodies supported the proposal.

Despite the massive criticism, the government proceeded with a proposal to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 13 years. However, it was withdrawn for fear of being voted down here in the chamber, and we now have a current proposal of 14 years.

What we see is a relativization of expert bodies and the Council on Legislation's opinions that can be questioned, but it is also a trend among right-wing regimes in other countries. It is a shame that Sweden has contributed to this and that we see such a strong trend of nonchalance towards expertise and something that I would unfortunately like to describe as a contempt for knowledge. It is a terrible phenomenon.

The National Board of Health and Welfare has consistently asserted that the development towards an increased number of serious violent crimes is primarily a societal failure and thus society's responsibility. It should not affect the individual child.

The Prison and Probation Service has also long claimed that they do not have the resources to care for such young children. Changes have occurred so that the Prison and Probation Service has developed, but they are truly beginners in this area.

Research also shows that children who have committed these crimes are generally in contexts of lack of care, trauma, and mental ill-health. In addition to this are reports that the children have often experienced violence, which I want to return to. It requires that the children are met as individuals in need of support and protection. The criminal gangs are ruthless towards the children, and society should not be either.

To manage and care for these children, a strong level of control is inevitably required, and there are ways forward that are based on research and proven experiences. We want to strengthen and improve closed youth care and develop the youth homes. Last but not least, we want to improve the reintegration of young released prisoners into society, which is currently very deficient. Sharper control can be achieved with GPS monitoring, personal supervisors, and aftercare for those who have been released.

Children and young people who are exploited in criminal networks also need to be given access to trauma treatment, and it needs to become easier to obtain emergency LVU detentions of vulnerable children and young people.

Ideally, we should of course prevent young people from committing crimes at all and ensure that they do not come anywhere near criminality. Here, the crime prevention work is incredibly important, but it is unfortunately neglected by the government.

Many collaborative projects are underway, some with very impressive results. I want to mention one example, namely SAO-jobs. It is a study-motivating work orientation where one collaborates with both the business sector and the public sector. There, young people can supplement their schooling by working two hours a week, and get paid for it, provided they also manage their schoolwork. This has been successful where it has been tested, and the pilot project is spreading across the country. It is excellent.

I raise this as an example of how the business sector and the public sector, in addition to correctional services and social services, can contribute very constructively. The different parts of society must, naturally, cooperate.

The government has recently discovered that more needs to be invested in preventive measures and has, for example, tasked Brå with investigating how cultural projects could contribute to preventing violence-promoting activities among youth, including violent extremism. The Gender Equality Authority has been tasked to review social media and what they can mean for vulnerability to violence and the perpetration of violence, including the manosphere.

I want to return to the perspective of the crime victim. There are an enormous number of examples where professionals meeting young people say that they are seriously exposed to violence in their own family. It can be about them having witnessed violence or about them themselves having been exposed to violence. There has been data for a long time. We know that every 10th child in our country has experienced violence at home and that every 20th child does so often. We must take these figures seriously and focus very strongly on preventing men's violence against women and children in order to limit something that constitutes a breeding ground for people learning to use violence as a means of power already at a young age and within the family.

Research clearly shows that children under 15 years of age lack the cognitive and emotional maturity required for them to understand the consequences of their actions. The limit was set in 1864, which may seem like a very long time ago. However, it happened for a reason, and that reason remains. The Penal Code, which was the predecessor to the Penal Code (Brottsbalken), marked this limit. Much has happened since then, but children are still children. At the same time, society has become increasingly complex, and perhaps it is more justified to ask whether the limit should be raised rather than lowered.

We have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child and adopted it as Swedish law. The Committee on the Rights of the Child has clearly stated that a lowering of a country's existing age of criminal responsibility contravenes the Convention. It is worth considering with full seriousness.

We can also see that these reforms affect the genders differently. Girls are more vulnerable and occur more often as victims even before they enter the criminal gangs.

Someone has said: Without vulnerable children, no recruitment.

In 2025, Frances Crook was awarded the world's largest prize in criminology, the Stockholm Prize in Criminology, for her work to reduce the number of children in prison in the United Kingdom. This number has decreased from 3,500 to 500. She stated in her speech and in interviews that Sweden's government has done almost everything wrong. They have invested in prisons instead of in preventive social interventions.

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are debating the Committee on Justice's report on stricter rules for young offenders.

The government's bill constitutes an important part of the abolition of the Social Democrats' and the Left's previous crime policy. One can call what we are doing now a proper shift in perspective in crime policy. We believe that responsibility for one's own actions must matter and that society's right to protection from dangerous individuals must be prioritized. Justice for crime victims is at least equally important, and there, the length of the sentence has an actual significance.

The Sweden Democrats have called for this shift in perspective for a very long time. Many of the changes that we will make decisions on today can be read about in motions that the Sweden Democrats have fought for for 15 years in the Swedish Riksdag. Given how early the Sweden Democrats warned of a development with increasing serious crime, one can say that it is somewhat the Sweden Democrats' trademark to be out in good time to meet and prevent an approaching catastrophe.

Mr. Speaker! If we had changed the crime policy 15–20 years ago, we would likely not have had to experience the wave of violence that escalated to insane levels during the Socialdemokraternas years in government. As a result of the Socialdemokraternas passive years in government, with escalating gang conflicts, we could finally witness that 52 children under 15 were involved in murders and murder plots during 2025. This development could have been prevented with a responsible government that did not spend eight years with its head in the sand.

The Sweden Democrats and the government are now doing the job that actually should have been done a long time ago. The content of this bill means that we are lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 14 years for the most serious crimes. It can be said that the age limit of 14 years was a compromise – the Sweden Democrats were prepared to go further.

Socialdemokrater and sentencing discounts have long been synonyms in crime policy. In connection with another report, the Socialdemokrater will today vote no to removing bulk discounts on serious crimes. A no is a no, and that must be respected. It is also not really so strange – the Socialdemokrater have, I swear, voted no to removing bulk discounts and sentencing discounts since SD entered the Riksdag in 2010. For quite many years, the Socialdemokrater have held firm in their opposition to removing bulk discounts and sentencing discounts, and that is why it is not so strange that they vote no to removing the bulk discounts for serious crimes.

Through this report, Mr. Speaker, we finally remove the Social Democrats' discount for adult criminals who until now have been able to receive a discount because of their age when they were between 18 and 21 years old. We will essentially double the sentences for criminals who are under 18 years old. We also open up for criminals under 18 years old to be able to be sentenced to the longest fixed-term sentence, which is 18 years of imprisonment. The sanction of youth supervision will be tightened, and the regulations regarding misconduct of the sanctions youth care and youth service will be tightened.

For us Sverigedemokrater, the incarceration of young offenders is primarily about community protection, retribution, and a moral statement. However, it cannot be ignored that incarceration also entails a liberation from a destructive criminal environment for young people who commit crimes.

As I see it, Mr. Speaker, there are only two things to choose between: Either society takes hold of young people who are involved in serious crime, or serious crime takes hold of young people who do not understand any better or who have their own drive to commit a mass of crimes.

What the Social Democrats and the Left have so obviously failed with, we are changing now.

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats' best coalition partners, the Left Party, the Green Party, and the Centre Party, move for the rejection of the lowering of the age of criminal responsibility in the report. The Green Party and the Left Party also vote against the abolition of sentencing discounts for adults and oppose increased penalties for those under 18 years of age.

This report, like many others from the Committee on Justice, points out a difference that truly exists in Swedish crime policy. One policy led to raging gang wars where one or more fatal shootings per week were a reality in our country. The other policy, the government's and the Sverigedemokraternas policy, has put a stop to that development and has as its ambition to continue to prioritize community protection and the perspective of crime victims over the rights and perspectives of criminals.

Mr. Speaker! A vote for the Social Democrats, the Green Party, or the Left Party constitutes an obvious risk of a return to the social chaos that our country has unfortunately had to experience. I hope that the Swedish people do not long to go back there. Sweden can do better, and we Swedes deserve more. Let us together choose a safe and united Sweden.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal and against the left wing's various reservations.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party, as is well known, says no to a lowering of the age of criminal responsibility. Here we are even more nostalgic than the Sweden Democrats and rely heavily on the fact that already in the 1860s it was judged that 15 years is an appropriate age when one can take responsibility for one's actions in a criminal law sense.

There are, however, children under 15 years of age who commit serious crimes, and according to our view, a conviction should then be sought, which is important for clarity and redress, and the child shall be taken into care according to LVU due to their own behavior.

Let me take an example of a 14-year-old who commits a crime with a penalty value of ten years – it could be individually ten years or five years with double penalty due to gang criminality. With our system, one can be detained through LVU until they are 21 years old. Nowadays, we have good laws that ensure one can be locked up the entire time and not have access to technology. With the new system, 14-year-olds receive a sentence reduction of 80 percent, which means that two years of the sentence remain. The detention period can be nine months, and then one sits for nine months in a correctional facility before being released on parole at 15 ½ years, max 16 years. Then one is out on the street and free. In our case, as I said, one can be locked up until they are 21 years old.

How do the Sweden Democrats view this difference from a crime victim perspective and the possibility of giving young people under 15 years of age a real opportunity for care?

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The short answer is that Sweden has for a long time tested a system and received a rather clear result from this system, namely that young people who have committed serious crimes have been very available for serious organized crime. They have been able to walk straight out from Sis institutions to carry out murders and other assignments at the request of the criminal gangs.

There are several reasons why we are doing this. One is that we see that those who are involved in serious organized crime often have a criminal identity and that the correctional services is the institution that has the best competence to handle persons with a criminal identity or who are involved in serious organized crime. It is also reasonable that one is responsible for one's actions regardless of whether one is young or old. Therefore, a warning is not sufficient, but one must also be held criminally liable. It is one of the reasons why the government chooses to lower the age of criminal responsibility from 15 years to 14 years. If the Sverigedemokraterna had been allowed to decide, the age would have been lowered to as low as 13 years.

As is known, there is a sentence reduction due to age, and we are of course prepared to discuss what is most appropriate. But in a so-called prison sentence for a person under 15 years, other institutions will also be involved in this person's future. One will not be left in a cold and dark cell during the time spent in the institution, but much will be done so that one will have the conditions to come out as a better person.

We believe that the prison service has the best conditions to create the locking-in effect that we believe is best for those people who, at other institutions, are so accessible to the gangs.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is precisely the availability for recruitment we are talking about, and in my example, the young person is once again available to be recruited by the gangs at the age of 15 ½. I have the greatest respect for the correctional services' activities and competence, and we are for the removal of closed youth care and instead introducing youth prison from the age of 15. But now we are talking about the reduction to 14 years, and then we get children who, from 15 ½ or 16 years, are once again available after having committed a crime with a penalty value of ten years. This does not correspond with the talk about the crime victim perspective and the possibility of rehabilitation.

We mean that one does not have the possibility to take criminal responsibility at the age of 14. For example, one does not have the right to drive a car, and the limit for rape of a child is set at 15 years because one can then take responsibility for one's actions.

My question remains: Do the Sweden Democrats and the government think it is reasonable that young people who have committed crimes are available for gangs to recruit at the age of 15 ½?

In the election campaign, the Tidö parties say that things can be discussed. But let me remind you that what the government has put on the table of the Riksdag and which we are now debating is that these young people will be released very early.

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I can only repeat what I said in my first speech. We have had a system in Sweden that has had clear effects. In my speech, I said that 52 children under the age of 15 have been involved in murder plots and murder assignments. That is, therefore, quite many under 15 who have been involved in serious crime. One can then ask why the correctional services should not have the responsibility for these persons with a serious criminal identity. We simply disagree on this point.

Unlike the Center Party and the left wing, we believe that one should be responsible for one's actions, that it is right to lower the age of criminal responsibility, and that prison is the right place for murderers. If one does not think so, one can, of course, argue against it.

Now the government has put a proposal on the table that has a fairly broad majority in the chamber behind it, which bodes well for the proposal also holding up over time. Then we get to evaluate how this turns out, and there is such a mechanism in this legislative product.

I am convinced that this change will provide significantly better conditions to take care of young criminals who have a serious criminal identity. The Left Party's main proposal gave a picture of what the alternative could look like, and I do not believe that is desirable for anyone.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! The deadly shootings and explosions have hit Sweden hard in recent years. We are now seeing a welcome decline, but the danger is not over. We know that organized crime and, above all, the drug trafficking that drives the violence is far from defeated.

There is much left to do regarding crime in the labor market, black labor, trafficking, and human trafficking. We see drug and weapons trafficking that is not decreasing, welfare crime that threatens the social contract, and large-scale crime that affects both individuals and entrepreneurs in our country. The Centre Party has therefore said yes to all resource reinforcements and most of the proposals within the legal area when we have found that the measures have been effective, legally secure, and evidence-based.

Even though crimes committed by children have generally decreased, we have a number of children, both under and over 15 years old, who commit serious crimes. For the one who is severely injured or whose relative is murdered, it absolutely does not matter how old the perpetrator is or whether they are older or younger than 15 years. The crime is equally horrific and hits just as hard.

We have seen children who are 12, 13 or 14 years old shooting, murdering, bombing and delivering explosives to an extent we have never seen before. It is a failure for our country. During this parliamentary term, the Centerpartiet has therefore voted yes to the evidentiary standard for children younger than 15 years who commit serious crimes. This means that the preliminary investigation and trial are carried out as usual to clarify and determine what has happened, in order to provide clarity for those affected.

We in Centerpartiet have also stood behind the proposal to be able to use preventive measures for children under 15 years of age. We have also stated that we are positive towards an extension of this – all in order to be able to prevent and investigate crimes and give crime victims clarity, but also to be able to find and punish those who recruit children to commit crimes.

We have said yes to the removal of advertisements for online recruitment. We have said yes to the so-called youth prisons for children between 15 and 17 years old. We have said yes to removing closed youth care. We have said yes to relaxations in secrecy.

We also say yes to the current bill – that the youth reduction is abolished entirely for young adults and that it is reduced for children between 15 and 17 years old, as well as that the sanction of youth supervision and the regulations regarding mismanagement of the sanctions of youth care and youth service are tightened.

We have said yes to this and others because we consider them to be effective, evidence-based, and legally sound tools to combat these serious crimes and restore safety.

We do, however, say no to the maximum sentence for children under 18 being raised from 14 to 18 years, as well as to the abolition of the sanction of youth care, i.e., not closed youth care but just youth care. We believe it is good that there are alternatives to find what is most appropriate for the young person.

We also consider the registration of a conviction in the criminal record to be misguided. If one is not of legal age, one should not end up in the criminal record. But it needs to be registered, and it should therefore be investigated where this should occur in the most appropriate way, both for the judicial and law enforcement authorities and for the child.

Now I come to perhaps the most important point: We say no to the proposal on lowering the age of criminal responsibility. Centerpartiet is against a reduction to 14 years, just as we were previously against a reduction to 13 years.

Just last night, I was asked by a journalist if it wasn't okay now that the government has changed its mind to 14 years and been forced to back down from 13 years. Now I come to what we think: There is a difference between 13 years, 14 years, and 15 years. I have said at some point that we sometimes talk about it as if it were the same difference as between 43, 44, and 45 years, but it is not. The general development between 13, 14, and 15 years is large.

The proposal to lower the age of criminal responsibility has met unparalleled opposition from academia, authorities, and civil society organizations. They say no to 14 years. They said no to 13 years. I know that the proposal today is 14 years, but we all know that the Tidö government wants 13 years. They judged, however, that they did not have a majority in the Riksdag, and therefore it is now 14 years that lies on the Riksdag's table.

Among those who have reacted negatively to the proposal are the police, the prosecutors, the courts, the Prison and Probation Service, and the National Board of Forensic Medicine. Many referral bodies have reacted to the proposal both for its consequences and for its lack of legal certainty.

The police say that they believe the gangs will recruit even younger children. Last winter, 26 experienced and seasoned prosecutors with long experience wrote and protested. They highlighted all the problems that exist with the proposal based on their work and profession. These are, therefore, people whose job is to prosecute and convict people, not people who we daily say are soft on crime.

Mr. Speaker! Instead of lowering the age of criminal responsibility, we need to change perspectives in Sweden. We need, first and foremost, to combat the serious crime that causes children and young people to enter, be lured into, or be forced into horrific acts. In the same way that criminal gangs recruit children – we often say they have Sweden's best HR departments – we need, from the good side and the law-abiding society, to recruit the children into a reality where there are prospects for the future, safe adults, and a society that can be trusted.

Centerpartiet notes, of course, that there are strong reasons for children to gradually and step-by-step take greater responsibility during their upbringing, but we know that, for example, the age limit for rape of a child is 15 years and that it is illegal to have sex before the age of 15. It is the same children and the same level of development that we are assessing. We have, for example, 18 years for driving a car and voting.

This is based on the fact that children do not have an adult's sense of consequences and experience. That is the reason why it is not primarily punishment that deters 13 or 14-year-old children from committing crimes. They do not have that sense of consequences. This was realized in the 1860s, and it still applies. It was realized then as it is now that children under 15 cannot understand and control their actions in a culpable way from the perspective of criminal law.

As said, we have children under 15 who commit serious crimes, and we have a government that says something must be done. Then the Center Party says: Do something effective, something that not all experts say no to!

Centerpartiet believes that we must do this through a school where one can devote themselves to providing children and young people with an education, through a social service that is close to the families already under the maternal care and child health centers, and through a functioning psychiatry for both children and adults. It is also about a close cooperation between all those who meet the children: the police, health and medical care, social services, preschool, and school.

It is about a childhood free from violence. We know what a strong connection there is between having been subjected to or experiencing violence and ending up in gangs. Protecting children from violence is one of society's core tasks. We also know that a functioning schooling and support for diagnoses are enormous protective factors. Every decent society must strive to give all children the right conditions and a bright future, not a prison cell.

Centerpartiet has therefore proposed trauma screening for all children, an emergency number for children and relatives at risk of being recruited, a contact person who coordinates all measures, as well as even stricter penalties for those who involve children in crime.

We cannot punish the children when it is adult society that has failed. Therefore, we adults and we in society must take the children's side and ensure that they receive support and help for a life without crime and give them the conditions to become responsible citizens who, in turn, contribute to the common good to the best of their ability.

Being tough on crime is making necessary decisions, but being smart on crime is doing what works. The government's proposal to lower the age of criminal responsibility, which is supported by Sverigedemokraterna, is neither. Let us instead unite around a policy based on knowledge, which is both tough and smart and which gives our children a future instead of a prison cell.

I stand behind the Center Party's reservations and rejection of the bill in the parts concerning lowered age of criminal responsibility, increased maximum penalty, the abolition of youth care, and registration in the criminal record, but I move for approval only to reservation number 5.

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

Charlotte Nordström (M)

Mr. Speaker! The political debate must stem from reality. Not from paragraphs, not from committee reports, but from what actually happens in Swedish cities, in residential areas, and on our streets.

Last year, 52 children under the age of 15 were involved in legal proceedings regarding murder or murder plots – 52 children! Not robbery, not assault, but murder. Of these 52 children, almost one-third were not yet 14 years old. This is not just statistics. It is a brutal receipt of a development that Sweden can no longer turn a blind eye to. These are children who should have been sitting in a classroom, having leisure interests and dreams for the future, not transporting weapons or carrying out murder missions.

What we are debating here today is not an ideological question. It is a question of responsibility, and responsibility requires action.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has long upheld the principle that very young children should not bear criminal responsibility. There are good reasons for that principle. But criminal law must also be able to meet a changing reality. Children whose childhoods are cut short by criminal networks and 12- and 13-year-olds who carry weapons are not a picture we are painting. It is the reality.

The Police Authority assesses that around 17,500 people are active in criminal networks. The number of children with links to gang crime has become increasingly numerous and increasingly younger. Against that background, it is time to put our foot down. We have a duty to protect society but also to protect the children who are being drawn ever deeper into crime. The situation is acute.

The government is now presenting one of the most far-reaching reform packages for young offenders in decades. The youth reduction is completely abolished for young adults. A 19-year-old who shoots someone is not a child who has made a mistake. That person is an adult and shall be sentenced accordingly. The youth reduction is reduced for offenders under 18 years of age, and the difference in penalty between a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old who commit the same serious crime is reduced.

The maximum penalty is increased to imprisonment for up to 18 years for those who have committed a crime under the age of 18, so that the courts are given a better opportunity to impose sentences that actually reflect the gravity of the crime.

Youth supervision is tightened, house arrest is extended, and mismanagement by youth welfare and youth services shall be met with faster and clearer reactions.

So we have the age of criminal responsibility, the issue that has dominated the debate. The government proposes that it be lowered to 14 years, however, not for all crimes but for the most serious: murder, attempted murder, aggravated rape, aggravated weapons offenses, human trafficking. It is not about juvenile delinquency, shoplifting, or vandalism. It is a differentiated, targeted, and proportionate measure. This acute measure is time-limited to five years with careful follow-up by the Crime Prevention Council. I would have gladly seen a reduction to 13 years to catch more of these children and break the pattern before it becomes too late. But for the reform to be in place as soon as possible, we act responsibly and pragmatically and set the level at 14 years.

Mr. Speaker! I hear the argument from the opposition that the Council on Legislation and children's rights organizations have had objections. These are legitimate voices in a democratic society. But the question remains: What should society do when a 14-year-old shoots and kills and the justice system cannot even demand criminal liability? What do we say to the victim's relatives? How do we simultaneously give the children who committed the crime a real opportunity to break with criminality?

A crime does not become less serious because the perpetrator is young. The person who has been shot or raped or has lost a child in a murder also has the right to expect that the rule of law reacts.

Nine out of ten children sentenced to closed juvenile care with links to gangs have relapsed into serious crime. It is not care. It is a system failure, and a system failure requires a new system. The Sis-homes were built for another time and other problems. They have had to handle youths who have committed the most serious crimes without the operations originally being designed for that task. When the most dangerous and most serious cases are instead handled by the correctional services, one can focus on what one is actually equipped for: preventive work with children in the risk zone and with psychosocial problems or substance abuse, not children who have murdered.

When children are deprived of their liberty, they must not be placed together with adult criminals. They shall be kept separate and receive a specially adapted activity with education, treatment, and rehabilitation. Children shall be treated as children, even when society must intervene very forcefully.

Is prison right for a child aged 14? No, of course not – not primarily. In normal cases, juvenile care, juvenile service, and juvenile supervision should be sentenced. But in the most serious cases, such as when a child has committed a murder, society must be able to respond with a custodial sentence, and then in forms that provide better conditions to break the criminal development. It is about special children and youth departments with small groups, high staff density, and certified teachers on site.

With the child's best interests in focus, conditions are created for rehabilitative measures and simply better opportunities than today to care for these children. No one wants 15- and 16-year-olds to be in prison either. The word hurts and goes straight into the heart. But reality hurts more. Not to act is irresponsible.

Mr. Speaker! I often hear the argument that the reform violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child. But the Convention on the Rights of the Child requires that we consider the best interests of the child. Letting a child continue to live with weapons, threats, and murder assignments is not in the child's best interest. It is a betrayal. The Convention on the Rights of the Child does not say that children may never be deprived of their liberty. It says that it should occur as a last resort. And if murder and the most serious crime cannot justify the last resort, when then can it be used?

There are actually children on both sides of the legislation: the child who commits the crime but also the child who is the victim. The young person who was shot. The young person who was robbed. The child who lost a sibling. These children also have rights. They also deserve a justice system that takes them seriously.

We are tightening the penalties, but we are also investing historically in prevention. From the summer of 2025, it will no longer be voluntary to work on prevention but a requirement. We have removed the confidentiality barriers that for decades have hindered cooperation between social services, schools, and the police. We have invested 2.8 billion kronor in the largest reorganization of preventive work in 40 years.

We must move away from the word "or". It is not about preventing or punishing, not about rehabilitation or community protection. We must achieve both to protect society, give crime victims redress and, yes, save the children and give them a real chance to break away from the gangs.

A prison priest expressed something that has stayed in my thoughts: It is only behind bars and locks that the realization of what one has caused actually sets in. The head of the Prison and Probation Service who will lead the children's unit said: They are still children, easily influenced in one way or another. We will succeed in influencing them correctly.

There is hope, dear colleagues. In three years, the deadly gang violence has been halved. The Moderate-led government has shown that change is possible. None of us here want to see a 14-year-old child in prison. But we cannot let that desire stand in the way of acting against the reality we actually find ourselves in.

We must manage to prevent young people from falling into crime with more early, clear interventions and additionally meet those youths who have already shot, blown up, or murdered with credible and clear consequences. One does not exclude the other, and a strong society manages both.

Mr. Speaker! Children should carry dreams and hopes for the future, not weapons. I move that the Riksdag reject the motions and approve the committee's proposal to approve the government bills.

(Applause)

In this speech, Fredrik Kärrholm (M) agreed.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Dear colleagues! For Miljöpartiet, it is obvious that society should act powerfully against serious crime. This also applies when children commit very serious crimes. For us, it is equally obvious that the reaction must be accurate and effective and lead to the child being given a chance for rehabilitation and reintegration. We believe that the government's proposal in this bill goes in the opposite direction and will also involve a clear shift not only in the view of young offenders but also from preventive, social, and caring interventions to increased repression against children and young people.

We have, together with referral bodies and experts, consistently said no to lowering the age of criminal responsibility. But the government has thought it knew better. At the last moment, they were forced to back down from their own policy earlier this summer. It was welcome, but at the same time, it is regrettable how the government continues to handle this serious issue of putting children in prison so carelessly.

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child urged Sweden in 2023 to maintain the age of criminal responsibility at 15 years. It is an urging that cannot be misunderstood. Nevertheless, the Tidö Government appointed an inquiry in the same year that was to consider, if appropriate, submitting proposals to lower the age of criminal responsibility. Few law enforcement proposals have met as massive resistance as today's proposal to lower the age of criminal responsibility for serious crimes, even if it is temporary.

We consider it to be at least remarkable that the government first proceeded with the proposal to lower to 13 years, then withdrew it and subsequently proposed a reduction to 14 years despite the sharp criticism from both children's rights organizations and the judiciary as well as trade unions, the Academy, authorities and the Council on Legislation.

Overall, the picture is clear, we believe. The proposal lacks support in research, risks counteracting its own purpose, and involves a serious departure from the principle that children should be treated as children in the justice system.

Already in the investigation on the age of criminal responsibility, the risks associated with lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 14 were revealed. Eight of the investigation's eleven expert experts submitted special statements or reservations regarding the investigation's proposals.

The experts emphasize collectively that a lowered or differentiated age of criminal responsibility lacks research support and likely does not lead to reduced crime. On the contrary, they warn that criminal justice interventions against children risk harming children's development, increasing the risk of recidivism, and pushing the recruitment into criminal networks even lower in age.

Several also question the investigation's claim that the current order threatens the legitimacy of the justice system. Instead, it is argued that social protection can already be achieved through LVU and that resources should be directed towards early preventive and rehabilitative interventions.

The referral criticism against a reduction to 14 years is also extensive. Among other things, Brå, the Children's Ombudsman, and the National Board of Health and Welfare point out that there is a lack of support in research that lowering the age of criminal responsibility would reduce crime. Even in the investigation itself, it is stated that there is a lack of evidence for crime-preventing effects.

Brå, the Swedish Courts Administration, and the Swedish Police Authority also highlight significant risks with a differentiated age of criminal responsibility. An arrangement where different rules apply depending on the nature of the crime risks creating both implementation problems and legitimacy problems. For example, difficult boundary lines can arise when the same young person is suspected of several crimes, where some are covered by the proposed regulation and others are not. Such a system risks becoming difficult for the justice system to manage and difficult for the public to understand. In the long run, it could damage trust in the justice system, especially among children and young people.

Several referral bodies also highlight the concrete risks for children. These risks do not look different depending on whether the child is 13 or 14 years old. According to Bris and other children's rights organizations, custodial sentences can have serious negative consequences for a child's development. It also appears from the investigation itself that such sentences can reinforce criminal behavior and affect the child's family negatively. This applies particularly to children who are already in vulnerable life situations and thus risk being drawn even deeper into crime.

The trade union ST and the National Board of Health and Welfare, among others, also point out that children's brains are not fully developed at such young ages. The ability for impulse control, consequential thinking, and risk assessment is still under development. This makes it unreasonable to treat children in their early teens as adults in a criminal law context. Such an equivalence risks becoming both unfair and counterproductive.

The criticism also concerns what view of children should characterize the rule of law. The Institute for Human Rights describes the proposal as a radical departure from Sweden's long-standing tradition, which as my name has previously referred to here in the committee, to base reforms concerning children on science, knowledge of children's development, and the best interests of the child. The Swedish legal system has historically been built on the fact that children's special needs require special solutions.

Even the authorities that are to handle the consequences of the government's proposal point out serious deficiencies. The Prison and Probation Service emphasizes that the authority lacks sufficient resources and the right competence to handle children in their early teens. The Swedish Police Authority, but also the Chancellor of Justice and the National Audit Office, highlight that the practical and organizational consequences are not sufficiently analyzed. The Swedish Police Authority also warns that criminal actors may come to recruit even younger children to avoid criminal liability. Such a development would, of course, mean that the limit for which children are exploited by criminal networks would be shifted even further down.

Mr. Speaker! The Convention on the Rights of the Child is Swedish law. Instead of ensuring the right to protection contained in the Convention and striving to ensure that the protection is maintained or strengthened, the government's proposal treats the Convention's provisions as obstacles to be bypassed. It is argued that a restriction and violation of a right is okay as long as it is not done with the Convention as the basis, but with the purpose of societal protection or the redress of crime victims. It is a completely incorrect way to handle international law obligations and human rights – obligations that furthermore apply as Swedish law, which the Institute for Human Rights has also pointed out in a widely read debate article.

Children and young people who commit crimes must, of course, face consequences as a result of their actions, but 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 and needs and what actually reduces the risk of them committing new crimes.

To imprison children is a radical departure from a long Swedish legal tradition of treating children and young people differently in criminal law. That principle is based on the experience that interventions against young people must be adapted to the young person's lack of maturity.

Lowering the age of criminal responsibility is one of the most far-reaching shifts in Swedish children's rights and criminal law. Nevertheless, this process has been characterized by accelerated processes, parallel investigations and assignments to authorities, and a lack of overview. Not least, the government has handled the connection between the question of establishing youth prisons and the question of lowering the age of criminal responsibility in an ill-considered, hasty manner and without the possibility of analyzing the consequences of the whole.

The investigation on youth prisons was based on a criminal age of 15 years, and no analyses were conducted based on a lower age. It is even stated in the investigation that if the criminal age is lowered, there may be good reasons to retain the sanction of closed youth care for that age category. Since such young children were not covered by the analyses conducted in the investigation, there may be a need for further analyses regarding custodial sanctions for children if the criminal age is lowered.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet supports the government's proposal to tighten the penalty for youth surveillance, tighten the regulations in case of misconduct in connection with youth care and youth service, and to lower the threshold for when the prosecutor shall initiate a prosecution according to the presumption rule for crimes with the minimum penalty of five years' imprisonment to four years. Those proposals differ from the proposition's more far-reaching repressive parts by giving society the opportunity to react more clearly without lowering the age of criminal responsibility or generally increasing the penalties for children.

Youth supervision is a non-custodial sanction introduced to fill the gap between youth care, youth service, and closed youth care. Miljöpartiet views such sanctions positively and that they can be used to a greater extent, provided that they are designed proportionately and with the child's best interests at the center.

When it comes to the burden of proof, Miljöpartiet considers a lowered presumption threshold to be a more accurate and proportionate measure than making younger children criminally liable. Rädda Barnen has also emphasized that a changed regulatory framework for the burden of proof is a better path than lowering the age of criminal responsibility. At the same time, the Prosecution Authority's objection that the current rules are new and have not yet been evaluated should be taken seriously and followed up closely.

Mr. Speaker! In order to prevent children from being recruited into gangs and induced to commit serious crimes, broad and long-term preventive work is absolutely crucial. We in Miljöpartiet want to provide significantly strengthened resources to healthcare, social services, psychiatry, and school. These are activities that every day meet children and their families and which have the greatest opportunity to promote a favorable development for every child and prevent a criminal development before the first crime occurs.

Furthermore, targeted preventive measures for children and young people in risk zones must be shared more widely. There are many examples of good projects that could be disseminated better. This is, however, a resource issue. Not all municipalities have such resources, and we therefore believe that the municipalities should receive more resources from the state.

We know that children under 15 years of age who are investigated for serious crimes often have an extensive profile of problems with multiple risk factors, such as a previously established psychiatric diagnosis, displayed high aggression, low impulse control, and extensive school absence. Many have also grown up in an area with socioeconomic challenges or live with a single parent or parents who lack sufficient parenting ability. Furthermore, nearly nine out of ten children are already known to social services before they commit the first crime.

It is completely obvious that almost all children who commit crimes early in life have exhibited risk behaviors for being recruited into crime and that school, social services, and sometimes the police are aware of this. There are therefore great opportunities to catch these children and their families through better agency cooperation and more support for the affected families even before the first crime is committed.

Miljöpartiet wants to keep the age of criminal responsibility at 15 years and continue to reform the interventions at Sis. In the debate, it sometimes sounds as if we are discussing juvenile prison for young people or no action at all. I therefore want to clarify again that it is not what we are talking about.

The reform work at Sis has been ongoing for many years. Many of the shortcomings that have been highlighted in the debate concern issues that no longer exist. In an interview in Dagens Nyheter this summer with the recently appointed gd:n for Sis, he emphasized that the measure to now introduce youth imprisonment was a bit late given that Sis has already developed in that direction.

The Sis-homes where children who have committed crimes are housed function in practice as prisons. Sis is the authority that has been specialized in precisely taking care of young people who have committed crimes.

I furthermore join the reasoning that the representative from the Center Party had in an exchange of views earlier regarding the importance of the period of care having to be sufficiently long. It is not better for a young child to end up in prison with a reduced sentence and not have sufficient time to develop in order to come out with the best conditions to not commit new crimes.

When children commit serious crimes, it is a failure of society, and this should not be dumped onto the children's shoulders.

I move for approval of reservation 1 and 4. I believe that Vänsterpartiet has already moved for approval of reservation 1, but I am adding reservation 4 myself.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Youth involvement and participation in crime has been a recurring theme for debate here in the chamber during the mandate period. Large and extensive legislative changes have been presented and implemented, all with the aim of primarily tackling lethal violent crime in the form of shootings and explosions, which in scope lack equal in comparable countries.

The law enforcement authorities, primarily the police, have received new and powerful tools. In combination with new and improved working methods, this has yielded good results in the form of a significant increase in crime clearance and successful operations that have uncovered and prevented hundreds of planned serious violent crimes. Extensive successful operations have also been carried out to apprehend instigators who have hidden in other countries.

We have recently seen a marked decrease in the number of fatal shootings and also fewer bombings. The situation is, however, still serious. It is also still palpable that there is a rivalry and power struggle in the criminal environments.

Mr. Speaker! Throughout this period, one of the major clouds of concern has been that the perpetrators of the violent crimes have become increasingly younger. Gang criminals have cynically and in various ways succeeded in recruiting and encouraging young people to liquidate designated victims on their behalf and on their orders.

Unfortunately, many times completely innocent people have been affected by this. They have had to give their lives because someone has mistaken a person. One displays an obvious indifference to other people's lives.

What has been most frightening is that young people have, more or less, seemingly stood in line to perform these missions. The police alerted some years ago that there were thousands who declared themselves willing to take on such missions. Often, elements of coercion have also occurred, which has meant that one has run the risk of meeting a bad end if one did not complete their mission.

An argument previously used to lure young people during recruitment was the low sentences for those under 18 years old. For a long time, the concept "to take a four to become a hundred-man" existed. It meant that if you were between 15 and 17 years old, the maximum sentence was four years of closed juvenile care. It was worth taking that risk to be accepted and win respect in the criminal environments. One also gained a certain status. Now we see that the recruitment focuses on even younger ones.

Mr. Speaker! Measures have been taken and more are underway to prevent the recruitment of young people, which mostly takes place digitally, but willing individuals are still drawn to these missions. During 2025, about fifty young people under the age of 15 were identified who are suspected of murder or attempted murder.

Since we currently have 15 years as the minimum age of criminal responsibility, adequate and effective measures are lacking for the group of children under 15 who commit these crimes. It is in that perspective that we should view the proposal currently before us.

I will willingly admit that I was initially skeptical about lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 14 years. I was also skeptical about 13 years. But I have reflected on these parts. I can understand that the proposal, regardless of whether it concerns 13- or 14-year-olds, has met with criticism from several sides. It is not without problems, and we are moving into uncharted territory.

The proposal itself is a clear signal that something has gone fundamentally wrong. I have recently participated in a number of seminars where the issue has been discussed and debated. Often, one ends up in a discussion about the causes, and there is a lot of talk about crime prevention measures and what one wants to do to prevent young people, or even children, from committing serious crimes. We have also heard this from the rostrum.

We are probably all in agreement that different forms of crime prevention measures can be good. But we in Sweden have for many years de facto invested a lot of effort and resources into such work without any palpably demonstrable effect. That is the bitter truth. If the crime prevention work had functioned, we would not have the situation that we are now debating here in the chamber.

Furthermore, crime prevention measures involve long-term work and preventing things from happening in the future. It does not help now when we perhaps have a 14-year-old with a smoking gun, a murder victim, and devastated relatives. We have an emergency situation where we must use every opportunity to tackle serious violence committed by children and young people, something that was unthinkable just a few years ago.

In parentheses, I can say that I have worked as a head of intelligence operations. We then investigated children under 15 years of age and their involvement in criminal activity. We could establish that the lack of measures meant that before turning 15, one had developed a criminal identity. One was a hardened criminal already by the time one turned 15 due to the lack of interventions. Take that with you!

In the discussions, we seem to largely agree that a young murderer should be deprived of liberty and receive treatment and structured school education. Several advocate, which we have also heard from the rostrum, for a continued investment in Sis, which, based on experience, has not succeeded particularly well with its mission. Interventions and treatment are implemented during the time at the institution, but at present, there is a lack of follow-up after release, whereby the responsibility falls on the municipalities and social services. We can therefore state that there are deficiencies, and 90 percent of those who have been at Sis homes re-offend – once again a total failure.

The proposal currently before us is that young people who have turned 14 can be sentenced to prison for the most serious crimes, but with a significant discount, and that the Swedish Prison and Probation Service (Kriminalvården) is given the responsibility for care, treatment, and rehabilitation. This is where the opposition is digging in its heels – they favor deprivation of liberty, but absolutely not prison. Despite the fact that Kriminalvården has made thorough preparations, ensured that the young people receive structured education, established special departments separated from adult inmates, and unlike Sis has a functioning community service and follow-up, as well as a lower recidivism rate and better prognosis than current youth care, some parties continue to say no. I am pleased that the Social Democrats (S) are saying yes to the proposal.

I concede, Mr. Speaker, that the word prison can feel uncomfortable, but in terms of form and content, the proposal is significantly better than the current youth care, which is not adapted for young people who commit this type of serious violent crime.

Is it then reasonable to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 14 years? As I have said, I have changed my mind and believe that even those as young as 13–14-year-olds are sufficiently mature to understand the seriousness of their actions. My assessment is also that Kriminalvården is the authority that, with its experience of serious crimes, has the best conditions to provide adequate care. There is also a signaling value and a crime-preventing or deterrent function in a reduction, which should not be underestimated.

I also see this from a crime victim's perspective. As a former police officer, I have several times had the heavy task of notifying relatives of murder victims. It is not difficult for me to see a scenario where the police contact relatives of a murdered 16-year-old and have arrested the perpetrator who has not yet turned 15 and for that reason will not be prosecuted or convicted for the crime. I believe that such things are a bit difficult to take in as a relative.

In line with the government, I also believe that the special sentence reduction for persons between 18 and 21 should be removed. As an 18-year-old, one is considered an adult in other contexts, and it is reasonable that the same applies when assessing the penalty for crimes. Likewise, it is reasonable that there are sentence increases for those between 15 and 17 years old.

With this said, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of the committee report and rejection of all motions.

(Applause)

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! What is it that is dangerous and bad about lowering the age of criminal responsibility from 15 to 14 years? That is the question one must be able to answer if one does not want the age of criminal responsibility to be lowered.

I often ask this question when I meet those who do not want to make changes to the age of criminal responsibility, but I rarely get any good answers. Most often it becomes something about them being children; they lack consequence-thinking. Their brains are not fully developed. They are not doing well; they need help and support instead. It is precisely this "instead" that I am interested in. What is it?

As persistent as I am, I often ask further about what measures they want to see against a 14-year-old who has shot a father of a family to death or blown the head off a 12-year-old. How do they want society to handle that 14-year-old? What is "instead"? Then the one I ask usually fidgets a bit and mumbles something about social services handling this, or Sis. Sis is a very common banner to fly – it is the solution.

Well, I say then, so you want us to continue as it has been and as it is today, which we know does not work. You understand that it is a Left Party member I am speaking to and with in this case. Therefore, the answers in the future usually become something about the fact that it concerns the low taxes for those who earn the most and that it is the class society that must go – that is the reason.

Then I usually zoom out, and I wonder how 8 percent of the population can have such a poor sense of reality. How can 8 percent think that Vänsterpartiet has a good crime policy? It is so obvious that the Left cannot have two thoughts in their head at the same time, in some cases not even one thought.

Mr. Speaker! Fortunately, we now have a government that realizes that we must do something about the development we have had in society, with all younger people committing increasingly more serious crimes. We must begin to take care of the 14-year-olds who are lured into crime and who commit serious crimes. Yes, they are also in many cases themselves victims of organized crime. But that does not excuse that one can kill without any reaction from society. Therefore, we now want to lower the age of criminal responsibility from 15 to 14 years.

In the best of worlds, the government's effective and actually very successful crime policy will yield results so that serious crime decreases even among the young. Therefore, we leave a door open to review in five years whether we should raise the age of criminal responsibility again or whether we should keep the lower age. But that we now want to see that 14-year-olds who commit serious crimes – note that it concerns serious crimes, not stealing a car, punching someone, or snatching something in a store – shall in the future be handled by the Prison and Probation Service means that we want these children to be given the best possible conditions to get their lives in order.

No, I am not naive. I understand very well that a 14-year-old who has shot someone dead has a very steep uphill climb ahead of them. Unfortunately, it is the case that many of the young people who have murdered will not succeed. With the fatal shot, their lives are already over in many cases, unfortunately. It will not go well for them. That is the bitter truth. When it comes to those between 18 and 20 years old who murder, I dare to stick out my chin and assert that it is probably over in the vast majority of cases. That is how reality looks; that is how the statistics look.

We have seen how nine out of ten who are handled by Sis in connection with having committed crimes relapse into crime. This is, therefore, a group of children who are very difficult to work with. It requires very many interventions for it to turn out well.

But we politicians must never give up. We, if anything, must always be those who work to find solutions, even for those children who commit the worst acts. We want them to get a new chance in life and be able to get an orderly life. I am convinced that it is the Prison and Probation Service that has the greatest opportunities to succeed with this.

This is about children, as I said, and they should be handled as children and not as adults. That is why we have the special youth wards in the prisons, where properly trained staff will work and authorized teachers with special expertise will take care of the school activities. I believe that these children will receive more and better education inside the wards than they would have received if they had attended a school out in freedom – a school that they would probably have skipped from or where they would have sat at the back of the classroom and not participated in the teaching. Now it will be small groups and individualized schooling, which will suit these children much better.

Again: How one can be against this is incomprehensible to me.

Mr. Speaker! Finally: I have worked for over 30 years to ensure that people can sleep safely in their homes, without risking waking up to a hand grenade having exploded in the room next door, where a five-year-old was sleeping. I have worked so that the ordinary man who goes to the grocery store to shop does not get three shots from an automatic weapon in the chest, have his body torn apart and die. I have worked so that the woman who goes home late in the evening is not pulled into a car, driven to a remote location and there be gang-raped by several men.

I have worked for this for more than half of my life. I have ensured that dangerous people have been locked up and can no longer ruin the everyday lives of ordinary, honest people. I have worked so that streets and squares, workplaces, playgrounds and homes should be safe and secure.

Then I am actually provoked when I hear how naive and out of touch politicians do not appreciate the work I have done and do not appreciate the work that all of Sweden's police officers do every day. They distrust them. They have low confidence in them. They even hate them.

In addition to this, one wants to make it harder for Sweden's police to do a good job. One has zero interest in making our streets and squares safe. One has zero visions of how safety should increase. One has zero ideas on how shootings, explosions, and drug trafficking should be combated.

One sits on the sidelines while organized crime earns hundreds of billions from welfare crime. One looks the other way when dangerous individuals enter politics and authorities. One closes one's eyes to the shadow societies that emerge and become ever stronger, especially in areas where Vänsterpartiet has many voters.

I hear nothing about how one wants to combat the atrocities that occur in certain circles in the name of religion. Even there, it is said that the problem is segregation and economic inequality. It is completely out of touch with reality. It provokes me enormously.

I really hope that the Swedish people note this and that it is seen that parts of the opposition actually have no effective crime policy whatsoever. I am truly worried that if the left side wins the election, we will get back violence and insecurity at the levels we had before this government, with Justice Minister Gunnar Strömmer, succeeded in breaking the dangerous trends.

Voting no to effective and functioning crime policy is not the solution to today's problems.

(Applause)

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! I can, of course, not refrain from reacting to the outrageous accusations in Martin Melin's speech just now, which were primarily directed at the Left Party.

I want to point out that we have two thoughts in our heads at the same time. We want to take a stand against serious crime, including if children commit serious crimes, but we do not want to put children in prison. We want to act in other ways that we believe are more effective. That would be to invest in Sis but also to have a lot of preventive activity. For me, this is having two thoughts in the head at the same time.

We will not be able to manage the serious crime if we do not stop the new recruitment. That obviously requires police officers, who many times do a fantastic job. It is not a matter of anything else, and I have not expressed myself negatively towards police officers.

But the police must also receive support and be able to cooperate with many others, and measures can be taken that give the young people hope for a better life. They can perhaps be given leisure activities, other stimuli, or for example their own money through the new forms where they work a few hours for a company or the public sector. There they can feel that they are appreciated and valuable and can perhaps establish new adult contacts.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! I perceived no question but rather a defense. I respect that. But I also heard the word "police" mentioned.

Yes, I turned to the Left Party, and I have some direct questions for the member who represents the Left Party here today. The member has personally signed debate articles where it is stated that one distrusts the Swedish police, that the Swedish police cannot handle the laws they are given, and that the Swedish police will profile, racialize, and discriminate against individuals by reason of, for example, the law on visitation zones. There are representatives of the Left Party who have written that there is structural discrimination within the Swedish police. My concrete question is: What is the structural discrimination that exists?

Security zones were introduced three years ago. Since then, zero people have reported being racialized, profiled, or discriminated against. What did the member mean when she signed the debate article?

And above all, I wonder: Has the member distanced themselves from their party comrades who say that they hate the Swedish police?

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! My speech just now was more about marking that what Member Melin took up was not relevant in relation to me or to the Left Party. It was gross exaggerations.

Then it is about which structural problems we can see in society as a whole. There we see problems with misogyny and racialization, and I mean that these are problems that society bears in large. Police cannot escape that. Unfortunately, there are examples that this exists in all professional bodies and all groups in society. I cannot back away from that, because the research there is very unambiguous.

But one must also see what dominates and how the police are trying to work to counteract this in a good way. I know that important work is ongoing there, but there are still people who feel poorly treated – sometimes as women, sometimes as, for example, Afro-Swedes. This is work that must continue. But perhaps it was not these things that we were primarily going to discuss today.

I do not belong to those who hate police, and I have never encountered those who express themselves in that way.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! I have actually tried to find out whether the member – who is nevertheless the Left Party's representative in the Committee on Justice, which is one of the highest political bodies in Sweden and also handles the Police Authority and its work – has in any way explained himself and distanced himself from what the Left Party in Malmö chanted during the pride festival down there. I have not seen anything of the sort.

I would have appreciated it if the member had publicly expressed that she distances herself from this. I have received hundreds of emails and messages from disappointed police officers across the country. They were very disappointed by the Left Party's conduct. No one appreciated it, and I want the member to be aware of that.

What I have said from the rostrum about my opinion that Vänsterpartiet cannot hold two thoughts in their head at the same time, I stand behind 100 percent. I think that Vänsterpartiet has the worst crime policy that this society has witnessed in years.

I do not understand how one can be against the crime policy we have today when one sees how effectively it works. We see how the shootings are decreasing, the gross violence among adults – not among children – is decreasing, and the drug trade is being fought more and more effectively. How can one be against this?

For me, it is a mystery. It only shows how incredibly bad the left's crime policy is. It is the worst.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by agreeing with everything that Martin Melin said.

Mr. Speaker! On a Saturday night in October last year, six people were involved in a shooting outside a pub in central Gävle. Miraculously, everyone survived. A suspect could be apprehended. He was 13 years old at the time.

A short time later, I met with the police in Gävle. They expressed enormous frustration. There had been many warning signs, not only at the police but also at social services and in other places. Many knew about the risks. Still, they failed to stop this violence.

In the summer, the prosecutor in this case initiated a so-called evidentiary hearing against the now 14-year-old boy, i.e., a legal process to determine whether he has committed this crime.

This incident illustrates the background to what we are discussing here today, the need to overhaul our entire system for children and young people who commit crimes.

We do not know what will happen with this boy, and I do not want to anticipate the legal review. But what we know is that he, due to his age, is today referred to the system that failed to stop his criminality from the very beginning.

There is a very great need to overhaul this system. It is a reality that today's system neither succeeds in protecting citizens from life-threatening violence, nor gives crime victims redress, nor breaks the destructive patterns that exist around these children.

Reality speaks for itself. I find it striking when I listen to some of the contributions from the left in today's debate that one doesn't, so to speak, start from reality as it looks. Reality has changed. Research is mentioned. There is no research related to the situation that Sweden has experienced in recent years regarding the gross violence and these children. We are, therefore, in a new situation.

The reality we are facing is that nine out of ten children sentenced to closed juvenile care at Sis-homes who have links to gangs relapse into serious crime. Speak of a failed rehabilitation mission for the state's child and youth care! The sentences for 15–17-year-olds become unreasonably low from the perspective of the crime victims with today's juvenile discounts. We know that last year it was over 50 children under the age of 15 who were involved in legal proceedings regarding murder or murder plots. These are staggering figures, and it is actually, on the whole, a rather unique Swedish experience.

That we have ended up here is due to several different things. It is due to organized crime that for far too long was met with insufficient measures. It is due to the fact that the gangs to a large extent have moved the recruitment of children from the schoolyards and youth centers to mobile phones and that thousands of children are thus exposed to the gangs' activities. It is due to a system that has been built for another time and reality – the system that many in here obviously want to keep or possibly adjust just a little bit. We are then talking about confidentiality barriers between school, social services, and the police, free access to mobile phones at Sis, and rules that have left social services and the police helpless in relation to children under 15 who are involved in very serious crime.

Continuing as we have until now has never been an option. That is why we are restructuring both the crime-fighting work and the crime-prevention work. In many cases, these children can be seen as both victims and perpetrators. That is also how we must tackle this problem.

It is against this background, Mr. Speaker, that we are now debating the proposals that lie on the Riksdag's table. It concerns a broad approach to the criminal law rules for young offenders, with the aim of protecting society in a better way against life-threatening violence, to increase and strengthen the redress for crime victims, and to take care of children who commit very serious crimes in a much better way than today.

18–20-year-olds are adult citizens. With our proposals, they will also be treated as adults in a criminal law sense. The youth discount is removed entirely for those who have turned 18. Those who have turned 18 shall no longer be treated differently in court. It shall also not be possible to sentence to the penalty of youth care for crimes committed after the 18th birthday.

For 15–17-year-olds, we are significantly reducing today's youth discounts. A certain reduction can still be made in consideration of the perpetrator's age, but the values regarding the sentencing will, with these proposals, generally become twice as high as they are today. It is very well-founded from the perspective of the crime victim and the perspective of public safety.

We are tightening the penalty for youth supervision. We are strengthening the Prison and Probation Authority's control, among other things, by extending house arrest and by allowing it to be combined with a ban on staying in a certain place.

The age of criminal responsibility is temporarily lowered to 14 years for those who have committed serious crimes. The proposal therefore targets serious crimes that are commonly encountered in organized crime. We are talking about murder and other very serious and often life-threatening crimes where other children are often crime victims – other children with rights, other children with parents who have legitimate expectations that the surrounding society should protect their children from life-threatening violence.

By lowering the age of criminal responsibility, more just and reasonable penalties can be imposed, and it gives us completely different conditions to implement successful, rehabilitative interventions against these children.

There is no national consolidated statistics on what happens to children under 15 years of age who commit serious crimes. I must say that it almost shocked me. One asks the question: What happens to these children, those who are subjects of forensic investigation? No one knows. That is what I say in connection with the question of sustainable research on this group of children. Our justice system does not even know what happens to the children who are under 15 years of age and who are subjects of forensic investigation. No one has that statistics and even less any more qualitative perception of which children it is about and where they go afterwards.

But what we can say with certainty is that these children today are being sent back to a system that is insufficient to prevent and stop them from committing very serious crimes. In many cases, they are therefore also continued to be exposed to the gangs' recruitment. I have understood it as that Miljöpartiet, Vänsterpartiet and Centerpartiet want it to remain that way. It surprises me, not regarding Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet but actually regarding Centerpartiet, which I have generally seen has continued to hold high opinions of, even though I more and more often think that I possibly have reason to reconsider that, but I still want to hope and believe.

This led, in any case, to the government proposing a reduction of the age of criminal responsibility to 13 years for serious crimes. I still stand by the assessment that a 13-year limit would have been better. It would have reflected reality as it looks today in a better way. We know that of the more than 50 children who were involved in legal proceedings regarding murder and murder plots, almost one-third were not yet 14 years old. That was the background, not any motivation to throw 13-year-olds in prison. It was about adapting the regulatory framework to reality as it looks.

That was why the first age reduction this parliamentary term aimed at the social services' ability to implement measures against children even without the parents' consent. It was 15 years, adapted for a different reality. We lowered it to 12 years so that the preventive measures can be implemented even in cases where the parents oppose it.

There is a connection between these two issues – prevention and intervention measures when it has already happened, adapted to reality as it is, not some research studies concerning American conditions in the 90s.

I will continue to be genuinely concerned about the 13-year-olds. I am still convinced that what we are now building up in the Prison and Probation Service would have very good conditions to help these children, but I must also say that it is still very good that we can offer a reform regarding the 14-year-olds. It will catch many children. It will strengthen the conditions to rehabilitate those children. It will strengthen society's protection against serious crime. Then it is simply a reality that very high demands are now placed on other actors in society to catch the 13-year-olds and, for that part, even younger children who are involved in serious crime.

This reduction shall be temporary. It shall apply for five years. During those five years, a major mobilization needs to take place so that the social system gets a chance to catch up.

An important reason why we are moving to youth prisons is an insight regarding this group of children who are sentenced to closed youth care. I know that several in here do not think that Kriminalvården should take responsibility for 15, 16, and 17-year-olds. But this group of children has grown from 50 to over 300. They are pushing out all other children in need of state youth care, those who need treatment for completely different reasons and care for completely different reasons. This is therefore also a way to strengthen our collective ability to prevent crime, because we get a division of labor between criminal justice in relation to those who have committed very serious crimes and youth care – state or municipal – directed towards children with completely different needs in society.

Well, this is what we want this five-year period to be used for. It is about a mobilization on the social side so that we preferably avoid seeing any 13, 14, 15, or 16-year-olds in such serious crime that any part of the system needs to intervene.

The goal must be understood to be that as few children as possible – preferably none – should commit murder or other serious crimes. The answer to how we prevent children from committing crimes at all does not primarily lie in this reform, but rather it is about achieving the full effect of the changes occurring in the form of a new and more preventive Social Services Act, removed confidentiality barriers, a reformed Act on the Care of Young People, changed state youth care, and intermediate measures, to name a few.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we succeed neither in protecting society from serious crime, providing redress for crime victims, nor helping children to break away from the gangs. The victims of the life-threatening violence are, as stated, often children themselves. I am convinced that it is possible to reverse this development. In three years, the deadly gang violence has decreased by over 75 percent. The number of gang leaders we arrest abroad has doubled. Change is also possible in relation to the children.

One thing is certain: We cannot continue as we have so far, because then it will go as it has gone so far. It cannot be an option for a decent society. That is why it is so incredibly important to stand behind the government's reform for stricter rules for young offenders.

(Applause)

In this speech, Ludvig Ceimertz, Mikael Damsgaard and Charlotte Nordström (all M), Rashid Farivar and Adam Marttinen (both SD), Torsten Elofsson (KD) and Martin Melin (L) agreed.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! I can begin by saying that if the Minister had honored the Riksdag with his presence when the debate began, the Minister would have heard that the Centre Party is indeed for the creation of a register for these conviction decisions and judgments. We do not, however, think that the conviction register is the right register. Right must be right!

I will now move on to speaking about the youth reduction. I must also repeat there that the Center Party is in favor of the proposed changes in the youth reduction for 15–17-year-olds. We are in favor of the removal of the reduction for young adults who are of legal age.

But let us look at reality, as it is called, as it looks. For a 14-year-old, the youth reduction will be 80 percent. As an example, we can take a crime that a 14-year-old has committed and which has a sentencing value of ten years. It can be either a crime that in itself gives ten years or one that gives double from five years, if it is in criminal networks. We now have a situation where young people are held in custody for perhaps nine months. Then, with these ten years, an 80 percent discount, and two years of serving in prison, it becomes approximately nine months in an institution before one is then conditionally released. This means that with the Tidöregeringen and after a crime with a sentencing value of ten years, one is out and walking on the streets when one is 15 ½ years old.

In our model, we do not think that these children who are 14 years old are criminally responsible, but that they require long-term care if they have ended up there. With LVU, they have the opportunity to be there and receive care with now considerably greater coercion until they are 21 years old.

I would like to have the Minister's comment on this difference in reality, as it looks.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I shall first say something about the reduction. It is very important to say that it is not possible to judge it in the way that Ulrika Liljeberg does.

This thing with 80, 60 and 40 is not a rule, but it is a template. The important thing in the model is the nuanced sentencing. This is a starting point in relation to young people. It is not so strange – if everyone in here agrees that young people should be treated differently than adults and that the younger a person is, the greater the extent to which they should be treated differently. It must, however, be a nuanced sentencing which also means that the punishment can become significantly longer, especially if one has committed a very serious crime. That is the first thing.

The second thing is that it is quite true that there is a gap between detention and the departments in the Prison and Probation Service that is challenging. Therefore, very large efforts are now being made, not least in relation to the youngest, where the Prison and Probation Service, for example, is considering the possibility of special detention solutions for children that are much more integrated with the main operations. It is about ensuring that from day one, they are given access to the education, the treatment, and the activity that is now being built up.

It is actually a Champions League – if I may say so – in comparison to what these children have had! They have, so to speak, hovered around Norra Ångermanland division 2, if one may put it that way, and now they get the Champions League. I think that is fantastic!

It was said here earlier that one was not prepared for the Prison and Probation Service. It is clear that one was not prepared for the assignment before receiving it. I hope and know that several of you have already been out and visited these departments. It is fantastic to experience them. I have met managers in the operations who have been managers at Sis and at HVB. They say that they are now finally getting real tools to work with the children, and that is extremely central.

The last thing I also want to say is this: This does not mean that we are closing the door to either HVB, foster homes, or state youth care. There will, of course, be a continued cut. One completely decisive thing is the mandate we have now given to the different parts of the system to work together around the children so that they can also seamlessly move forward from such a sanction into other interventions on the social side.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! On this, we are in agreement. We both have great confidence in the Prison and Probation Service and its activities, and the youth work or children's work that is now being started. We have also stood behind the relaxations in secrecy which are a prerequisite for the whole of society to be able to pull up chairs and help these young people.

Something still remains. I do not have any reservations here, because I thought this was somewhat indisputable. It still states there that the youth reduction is 80 percent for these young people. Then we are told that it is a flat rate. That means it could be both smaller and larger.

In my example, I had already accounted for the fact that it could potentially have been double punishment based on the penalty value. We took the example with a penalty value of ten years' imprisonment if it had been an adult. It still remains a question of whether it is 10, 20, or 30 percent in the normal case for a 14-year-old who has committed a crime with a penalty value of ten years.

What we fear is that these interventions – however competent they may be – are much shorter than what is suggested. Many times it would be better to get interventions on Sis, which has indeed undergone a much-needed restart with new management and so on. They can continue for a longer period.

We must also honor the principle that when one has served a sentence, one has served it. We cannot say that one should continue to receive interventions on the grounds of a crime when one has served their sentence.

Even though there is room for interpretation, the fact is that a 14-year-old who commits a crime will be back on the streets and squares quite quickly with the current proposal.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I know that Ulrika Liljeberg has read the bill. There she differs from, for example, Thomas Bodström, who appeared in the debate yesterday. I remember that in his memoirs he boasted that during his time as Minister of Justice he did not read a single page in any of the bills that he submitted. I know that Ulrika Liljeberg has a much more serious approach to this work.

It is, however, no news when I come today and say that this is a standard. It is, so to speak, a basic chord in the model. One must have a starting point but preserve the nuanced sentencing so that the punishment can be both higher and lower depending on the circumstances in the concrete case. It is a crucial part of the reform.

It was also very important for the investigator – and it has been important for us to emphasize – that this is not a rule. It is not Borgeke's table of values when it comes to the sentence reduction, which we will come back to later. There, it has practically functioned automatically, and it shall not do so here.

I think this is a good point. These are children who likely need a longer chain of different interventions. Therefore, I think it is important to mention all the actors who will be involved with the child after they have served their sentence. It could be the institutions that Ulrika Liljeberg mentions, but in the normal case, it might be the child's school and the social services in the home municipality. All actors will therefore be involved from day one and, together with Kriminalvården, set up the whole thing.

The great merit of this model is that a controlled release takes place. That is why I think it is so regrettable that you so sincerely do not want 14-year-olds to be covered by it. The Prison and Probation Service's probation will therefore be able to play an important role in the whole.

I say it again: we agree on the excellence of the Prison and Probation Service. I think it should cover as many children as possible. I think it is a bit sad that the Center Party didn't really want to come along. Now it will work out anyway, as it looks, and it will be good, above all, for these children.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for participating in this debate.

Research is not prioritized very highly, I understand from the Minister's contribution. I interpreted it as being directed mostly at what I said, because I referred quite a bit to research.

The research aligns somewhat with what the authorities have also highlighted as a problem. If one does not think there is enough research, I also mentioned that a considerable number of objections have been raised against the proposals from the various involved authorities. For example, the Swedish Police Authority and the Swedish Courts Administration highlighted the risks they saw with a differentiated age of criminal responsibility. They spoke about implementation problems, legitimacy problems, and so on. The Swedish Prison and Probation Service, which the Minister mentioned, emphasized that they lack sufficient resources and the right competence, and so on.

I understand that all of this can be changed. It is possible to acquire competence if one feels that one does not quite have it. I wonder why the government has nevertheless pushed this through instead of continuing with a development that one is also involved in. It is not the case that previous governments have done nothing and just let things be. For example, a reform process of Sis has been ongoing. Not least Miljöpartiet has been extremely critical of many parts of Sis's activities but has at the same time seen that a large number of improvements have been carried out.

What Sis, for example, usually receives quite good reviews for is that they are good at getting young people to participate in school education and so on. I wonder: Why is it so central to lower the age of criminal responsibility and transfer young people to Kriminalvården, instead of continuing to develop Sis to ensure that children who find themselves in this situation receive the best possible care to reduce the risk of recidivism?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! First, I want to emphasize that I am a very warm supporter of research, but my question to Ulrika Westerlund is then: Exactly which studies is Ulrika Westerlund pointing to? Bring out the studies so that we can discuss them!

When I counted backwards, I found 2–3 crime research summaries in this area that concern American conditions. My point is that I have not seen any studies concerning the fact that over 50 children during the last year were involved in murders and murder plots and were subjects of evidence collection. I also do not know of any experience in other countries that is so extensive and has been researched in such a way that it is immediately transferable to such categorical conclusions as those, among others, Miljöpartiet draws in this issue.

That is my point. Sweden finds itself precisely in the so-called Swedish situation with 62 fatal shootings that we took over. I do not agree with Ulrika Westerlund that previous governments have not sat with their arms crossed. I think that previous governments have done so, and that is why we were also in that situation. The Swedish situation was also unique. Why has our gang crime, if I may use that expression, been so incredibly violent compared to other countries?

Research is naturally extremely important, but it sometimes becomes a bit of magic words when one looks at which studies form the basis for them, and one has to leaf through layer by layer to find them. This is not research that, in my opinion, hits the situation we find ourselves in. We must break that, and we do so in different ways. We have succeeded very well when it comes to gun violence. I do not know what the research said about it. Miljöpartiet had some objections regarding research there as well. Now we have nevertheless reduced the violence by 80 percent. There is, therefore, some experience. That is what we should look at.

Regarding the objections from the judiciary, I can only state that these have now been handled by the judiciary in such a way that the model we have now put into motion regarding the correctional services is, I dare say, the best in the world at handling children who commit serious crimes.

Regarding the differentiation, it is true that there was criticism against it. The alternative to our model, where we focus on serious crimes, was to focus on all crimes. We do not, after all, have problems when it comes to youth and crime in general, but we needed to focus on this acute problem.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much for the answer!

My point was that if one, as a minister, does not consider that there is sufficient research, one can instead listen to what the authorities have said. That was what I exemplified.

I have also, as I suspect several others have, been on a visit. We were in Kumla and met the management, who discussed how they had prepared for this. They will, of course, execute the decision that has been made here and receive children. They were quite clear that they still did not think this was a particularly good idea, but that they will, of course, do it in the best possible way, and I do not doubt that. They are extremely competent people who will do their utmost. They did, however, say that they had pointed out problems and considered that these problems remained.

We also had a discussion about how it is that there is such a high recidivism rate among young people who have been at Sis. They then said very clearly that it is due to the lack of aftercare. They did not believe that they themselves could press some magic button that would make the recidivism rate decrease drastically; instead, the risk of recidivism will remain if one does not invest very much in aftercare. Here, the minister has mentioned free care. We have been supporters of a similar system that could be developed for young people who are released from care within Sis.

I really hope that a lot of resources will be allocated to aftercare, because I also believe that it is one of the key issues for tackling the recidivism rate. You can invest as much as you want in good care within Sis or the Prison and Probation Service, but if you don't get aftercare, there is a great risk that many young people will still relapse into crime.

Another problem is that the correctional services are completely overloaded. We may return to this in our next debate. When the correctional services are to make room for young people who are not to share a cell and who are to receive a good deal of resources, even larger problems will arise for the correctional services as a whole, which are to take care of all detainees, which will be the consequence of the government's other proposal which the next debate, as said, is about.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Speaking of empirical evidence, we have quite a lot of empirical evidence regarding the model that the Green Party would like to continue working with in state youth care. It shows, after all, that nine out of ten children in this group relapse into serious crime. It is an unambiguous experience, and for me, it is nevertheless a reason to say that we obviously cannot work in this way.

The lack of aftercare has indeed been an important reason for us. This is not just a torpedo regarding the age of criminal responsibility from the Miljöparti's side, but you are also opposing that Kriminalvården should have the mandate when it comes to young people at all. It is, after all, a rather radical position, I must say. It will be interesting to see what you will do with that if you should, by some chance, get a majority after the election. Then perhaps all of this will be rolled back if you are truly ultimate. Helldén was actually that for 30 minutes. It will be exciting to see what happens with that.

The Prison and Probation Service has the controlled release and the conditional release. This is a completely decisive reason for our preference for taking care of even the young offenders in that model. One does not get the social side from the probation service as a central actor. The probation service's expertise is to work with persons – for that part also younger persons who have committed crimes – and their reintegration into society. For me, it does not make sense not to use our best resources in relation to the problem that we perhaps think is the most painful of all.

Regarding the authorities, it is entirely correct that Kriminalvården took on the assignment with 15–17-year-olds without objections – I want to emphasize that. The discussion has concerned the prerequisites for taking care of even younger children. There, adjustments have been made that mean they have very good prerequisites to handle 14-year-olds. I dare to assert that this is much better than all other alternatives available in our society.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! I turn to the Minister for Justice and ask if we can take a closer look at the realities we live in. For me, it is quite obvious that decisions that will strongly affect many people's lives in the future should be based on both research and proven experience.

When it comes to the lack of research, one can mention the proof of liability. There have been so few cases previously that there is no good research with follow-up. It will hopefully come, because I believe it is an important reform in these packages.

There is also research where relatives of those who have been killed by violence have been interviewed. Many of them do not want either harsher sentences or a lowered age of criminal responsibility. There is, therefore, some room to work with there.

What is most important, I mean, is however partly that we can draw some conclusions from research in other countries, and partly that we have an immense bank of experience in those who work with this issue in Sweden, here and now. There, both the judiciary and many other affected authorities and interest organizations have been strongly opposed. Why can we not take advantage of that and reform Sis and invest in the school – as they do – and in the best care in the meantime, but also add aftercare?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I completely agree that in an emergency situation we should try to base our political decisions, in the absence of extensive studies regarding our own conditions, on the practical experience that we build up by handling the problems of our time. In that case, it is simply a reality that we must do both.

A major reform of Sis, the state youth care, is currently underway, but I want to return to the fact that the state youth care was given the mandate to take care of this group of children at the turn of the millennium. Previously, it was Kriminalvården that had responsibility for children who committed serious crimes. Then Sis took over the mandate. At that time, it concerned a fairly small group, in relation to all other groups of children in need of state youth care.

In line with societal developments, it has changed. We have gone from approximately 50 children who were previously convicted of serious crime and subject to state youth care to over 300 children. This has enormous effects for all other children in need of state youth care – children growing up in homes with substance abuse, who themselves have substance abuse problems or major psychosocial problems, and for whom there is then no room in state youth care.

This is about achieving a better distribution of work based on our experience. The correctional services will now take responsibility for those who have committed the serious crimes, which will provide much better conditions for rehabilitating that group of children. At the same time, we are easing the pressure on state youth care and other social interventions in order to seriously be able to direct resources toward preventive work and children who are younger and have not yet been drawn into serious crime.

We must also reform Sis, and we are doing that too – preferably with aftercare and preferably in more controlled forms.

Regarding other risks that the judiciary has pointed out – I may be able to come back to that at some point – they are now being handled in a very judicious manner.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the supplementary answer from the Minister for Justice!

Then I also wonder why it has become the case that Sis has such a great resource shortage that they cannot take care of the children who have a problem but are not criminally burdened. It is a sign that the resource distribution has been wrong that Sis first, by moving over a group to, I mean, worse care within Kriminalvården, can free up resources so that one can do a large part of the preventive work and take care of children who are badly exposed for reasons other than that they are involved in crime.

Why has it become so, and why could one not rectify it by placing the enormous resources that are spent on Kriminalvården on Sis instead? It could be a better investment in crime prevention work and thus a better investment in what could be a crime victim perspective than an investment in a perpetrator perspective within Kriminalvården.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to state youth care, it is a fact that we took over a failed situation from the left side of politics. It was underfunded. It had insufficient tools. Mobile phones were allowed. One could not even protect the children from other children through segregation. All of that we have now corrected.

I want to emphasize that Sis, with its fantastic and hard-working employees, is also on a positive journey – even though we from the Moderate side and, I dare say, the entire blue-yellow side see a great need for further reforms of the operation ahead. They have an incredibly important task in relation to all other children at an earlier stage where we can anticipate and prevent crime.

One of the reasons why we are moving to Kriminalvården regarding children who have committed serious crimes is that we believe we can better protect society against crime. One problem was the low security at Sis and the risks that it posed for others, not least other children. Another reason is that we can now at Kriminalvården offer much better rehabilitation tailored specifically for the group with this issue, and then build care and treatment for all other children with other needs in the state youth care.

It will require much more investment there. It will require changed legislation. I believe that it will require a different principal and that it is converted into another kind of authority.

We shall have high ambition when it comes to state youth care, but I dare say that it will have incredibly much better conditions to fulfill its basic mission regarding all other children and their needs when the Prison and Probation Service can now help to take care of those children who have committed very serious crimes.

In both respects – where I believe that the social side can learn from the Prison and Probation Service – there should be a much greater focus on aftercare and controlled release. This should not only be offered to children who have committed serious crimes, within the framework of the Prison and Probation Service's activities, but also be expanded in state youth care in relation to all other children in need of a long-term relationship with youth care.

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (-)

Madam Speaker! What is happening in Sweden now is extremely serious in many respects. We know exactly who is affected and who will continue to be affected. It is not ministers' sons who participate in criminal gangs who will be imprisoned. It is children in working-class families, families who perhaps have social difficulties and families in certain geographical areas. They are black children. They are brown children.

Government after government has torn down all safety nets over decades. Something that many of us flagged has become a reality, that is to say that criminals exploit children for the crimes they want to be committed.

The solution from those who have been responsible for the development is therefore prison sentences for the children who have not received a safety net. And not only that, they are also introducing measures that make life tougher for families in our suburbs – punishment for parents if social services' measures are not followed, tightened benefit rules that hit the most vulnerable, and surveillance that is being normalized.

We have a society that is increasingly characterized by repression and control. Families with residence permits never get to know if they actually have a future here. You can ask yourselves: What do you think happens when families are broken economically, when parents live under constant pressure, and when trust in society is destroyed?

The recruitment base for the criminal gangs is not a coincidence but a result of a structural exclusion. Youth grow up in areas where the school does not have sufficient resources, where there is no meaningful leisure time, and where parents struggle to make ends meet. It is the children who are left outside, who do not see a future with jobs and housing, who then become targets for the gangs' recruiters.

Recruitment has become professionalized and now takes place in social media and encrypted chats. The police are now warning that all children with mobile phones are in the risk zone.

We have now reached a point where children in the 12–13 age group are being recruited. For a child to be able to choose a brighter path, a path of hope, that path must be visible, accessible, and credible. Today, it is not for many children in our suburbs. They see no school that catches them, no youth center that gives them a meaningful community, and no future with jobs and housing. Society is built on endless consumption so that one can see oneself as a part of it.

The research is crystal clear. We know that protective factors in the form of a functioning school, a stable family, and meaningful leisure time are what keep children away from crime. That is where the preventive work must begin, that is, with early coordinated interventions where school, social services, police, and the leisure sector collaborate. But to break the recruitment chain, the interventions must receive the resources they need to grow.

Unfortunately, children are lured by money, status, and community. But once they are in, threats are used against both them and the family to keep them there. We are talking about powerful forces. Let us speak plainly. This is about the most vile form of market economy where children's lives are priced and their "impunity" is an asset exploited to the maximum by the drug industry.

What are the politicians doing? They are precisely reinforcing the structures that make children easy prey for criminal networks. A society that monitors and punishes families, which forces parents into an impossible equation between work, housing, the children's future, maintenance and so on, makes it difficult to keep track. It makes it difficult to keep the gangs' recruitment machinery away.

In all of this – where do children and young people find the path to hope for a better future? I have mentioned several times that I myself come from and live in Skärholmen. I would like to bring up a couple of examples from Skärholmen. The Minister mentioned that we should talk about reality, not about research. I think one can talk about both.

The first time a child encountered the police's repression, he and his friends were eleven years old. The child had played football with his friends and was on his way from the football pitch with two of his friends. They were stopped by the police, and they were asked where they were going. Why were they so sweaty?

One friend, light-skinned, was asked to wait while the other two were taken in different directions for questioning. The two children who were taken for questioning were both black. The following year, when the children were 12 years old, all three had had the experience of being questioned by the police.

Before I came to the Riksdag, I was chairman of the Skärholmen district committee. One of the first things I did was to form a youth council. They were given their own budget and the freedom to work on what they thought was important. One of the first things they wanted to do was to have a conversation with the police. It was a tough meeting. Each one of the youths in the Skärholmen youth council's board had experienced situations where they had been treated poorly by the police. They experienced that it was difficult to accompany their younger siblings to the park because they might meet the police and be interrogated. Then there was how the police treated the night walkers, in a perhaps not so respectful way when one is actually supposed to cooperate with each other.

There is much to tell about the meetings between the youths and the police. I know that they took advantage of the experiences.

From Skärholmen, there are many other stories, for example about the single mother who lost the right to sole custody of the children against a violent father, who of course was part of not so pleasant environments.

There are also examples where social workers have tried to present plans to save youths and children from crime, but have not been able to carry them out because the resources have not been available. It is sad. A couple of months later, the situation is, of course, much worse.

It is those voices we must listen to when we talk about how we can make the future of children and young people better. It is not by having them encounter repressive forces or overworked social workers who have neither the resources nor the energy to take care of them.

This is a policy that creates criminals, not a policy that prevents crime. The criminal networks cannot recruit from strong families and safe schools. We know that. They recruit from chaos and despair. This government is currently building, with the silent consent of many politicians, a Sweden with more chaos and despair for the families.

This policy will rather lower the age of those who are recruited. We warned about this several years ago, and now it becomes a further lowering of the age. This will not stop the gang crime. The drug deals in the wealthy neighborhoods are going so damn well.

It is another work that is needed. We need to protect the children and the youth, and we need to stop that which makes the money roll in.

A different social construction was needed; a social construction that protects children from chaos and despair, that strengthens families, that gives children hope for a different future. In the left of the future and in Stockholm's left alliance, we want that. We know that a different society is possible; a society that invests in welfare and school as well as gives families a stable foundation to stand on, not a society that builds more walls and then is surprised when children are thrown against them.

Punishing children for adults' failures is not politics. It is a betrayal. To lock up a child is to cement a criminal identity. We know that from Denmark. It is not about rehabilitation, but it is about breaking the connection with school, the family, with a normal life. It is not a healthy environment to grow up in.

We are talking about children who are usually victims themselves, who most often have been subjected to serious crime and who are now being exploited by adults. They should not be punished because we adults have not been able to protect them.

Our suburbs will be hit even harder. It is there that children grow up in exclusion, and it is there that they encounter racism at an early age. It is there that parents sometimes have double jobs to manage the finances. It is there that people live in cramped conditions, and it is there that one does not know if they are allowed to stay in Sweden. It is there that the school does not have the strength to make each of the children visible. It is there that the gangs recruit.

To replace social interventions with imprisonment is to give up hope for a better future for these very children. We need investments in schools, youth centers and social services and a preventive work that actually works.

We who come from and live in the suburbs and who know what it means to live in those areas are speaking out. And we are not alone. There is a broad alliance of civil society organizations, such as Rädda Barnen, Bris and Barnrättsbyrån, and trade unions that are opposing this.

Together with new political forces that want to create a fairer and more democratic society, as we want to do here in Stockholm, we demand a policy that builds up and does not tear down.

My fellow citizens! Let us not be a country that punishes children for adults' crimes. Let us not be a society that locks up 14-year-olds. For that is a society that has given up. I refuse to agree that we give up on our children. We do not do that now, not ever.

To you in Skärholmen or another suburb that does not see hope for a beautiful future, I want to say: I hope that you dare to ask for help, that you dare to tell an adult about the threats, and that you get to know that your life should not be characterized by violence chats but by playing with your friends, playing football, reading in school, and coming home to warmth.

With that, I move for approval of motion 2025/26:4234, that is, the rejection of the proposition.

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

Daniel Riazat (-)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by moving for the rejection of this proposition. Since I, unlike what seems to be the majority in the Swedish Riksdag, believe in research and proven experience, I move for the approval of the same motion that Lorena Delgado Varas has just raised here in the speaker's chair.

This is an incredibly important debate. It is my next-to-last debate in the Swedish Riksdag. I have sat in the Riksdag for the past twelve years and have seen how the debate has gone from being somewhat objective to becoming symbolic politics that does not at all concern improving our society.

We are not here to debate whether 14-year-olds should be imprisoned, as if that would in any way lead to an improvement in fighting crime. We are here because this government is about to lose the election and because the fascist views that we have seen enter year after year have been strengthened because now other parties also stand behind them. Today, we are no longer in a situation where it is only the Tidö parties that stand behind this fascist thought, but now the Social Democrats have also completely agreed to this type of repressive policy.

Not even the government's own experts – lo and behold – stand behind this policy. All experts in the investigation that forms the basis for the report on lowering the age of criminal responsibility have said no to the proposal to lower it to 14 years. The Bar Association has said no, the Children's Ombudsman has said no, and civil society organizations have said no.

Many have pointed out that this violates, among other things, international conventions, for example regarding children's rights. But also criminologists and legal experts have been incredibly clear that this is not a solution to curb crime.

Everyone in this chamber knows this. We are not actually sitting here debating that matter itself. We are debating what kind of society we should be. A majority in Sweden's Riksdag has made a choice. Society was once built on the idea that we should have trust and that we should ensure we build up a common welfare for everyone. It was a social project that everyone could be a part of. Now, instead, society is to be built on repression, and it is to become a society for a few, who will become richer and richer at the expense of the rest of society.

For 30 years, you have been closing down youth centers, schools, and sports activities and wonder: Why do children end up in crime? You are privatizing the Swedish welfare state to pieces, ensuring that fewer people are educated for the jobs they are to work in, for example within schools and other areas, and wonder: Why didn't the children get the help they needed? You hunt asylum seekers and refugees and spend billions on it at the borders instead of spending the billions on stopping weapons and drugs, so that some can get their cocaine on Östermalm.

And now we stand here today and talk about lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 14 years. All of you in the Swedish Riksdag who vote for it today should be ashamed of it. It is something that I will never be part of or contribute to. I want to be clear that Framtidens Vänster, which I represent, will never agree to this type of repressive proposal that lacks facts and proven experience.

Our society needs fewer gaps and more investments in welfare and in our children – not more prisons. Children should go to school, not sit in prison.

(Applause)

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (-)

Madam Speaker! This is my last debate in this chamber this mandate period. I wish it had been about something other than putting 14-year-old children in prison.

Madam Speaker! Let me start there. Children are not born as criminals. No four-year-old dreams of becoming a torpedo. No seven-year-old writes in their schoolbook: "When I grow up, I want to shoot someone." Something happens along the way. Someone discovers the loneliness, the anger, the poverty, and the longing to belong. And when society does not say "I see you," someone else does – a recruiter, a gang leader, an adult man who does not himself dare to hold the weapon. The gangs get there before us. That is the truth we must dare to face.

And what does the policy answer? We move the age of criminal responsibility further down. It is lowered to 14 years. This government says, with the support of the Social Democrats, that 14-year-olds can be sentenced to prison. The youth reduction is limited. And for persons under 18, the maximum prison sentence is raised to 18 years. Listen to that – 18 years! We are prepared to give a child a prison sentence that is as long as their entire childhood. And that is what we call decisiveness.

I do not say this to excuse crime. Those who have lost a child to violence should never have to hear politicians downplay what happened. But justice and prevention are not opposites. We must protect the child from being shot and protect the child from becoming the shooter. It is the same struggle, Madam Speaker.

Behind many of these children, there are adults. They order, pay for, and deliver the weapon. Then they send forward a child to bear the risk. I want to see a state that hunts them with all its might, that takes their money, takes their weapons, and smashes their organizations and operations.

We must punish the adults who use a child's life as a consumable. When the 14-year-old becomes too risky for the gangs, they will not shut down their operations. They will look for a 13-year-old and then a 12-year-old, an 11-year-old, and a 10-year-old.

Sweden must decide. Shall we let the gangs go further down in age? Or shall we stop them before they reach the children?

Madam Speaker! I have stood in this chamber and at this rostrum many times. But as I now make my final speech this mandate period, I want to leave behind a conviction. In a society, one must never become so afraid for one's children that one stops believing in their possibility of change.

A child can commit a terrible act, and it must have consequences – yes. However, a child's worst act must not become the entire definition of its future.

We can build more prisons – more prisons than homes, even – and we can raise the walls and lower the ages. But if children continue to end up there, we have solved the wrong problem. The most important battle is, in fact, fought long before one reaches the court. It is fought the day a child stands at a crossroads and two hands are stretched out: the gang's hand, and society's hand.

Our task is not to build the best prison cell for the child who took the wrong hand. Our task is to ensure that our hand reaches the child first. That is the policy I still believe in.

I want to leave this chamber with these words: Protect the crime victims, and hunt those who recruit, but never give up on the children's future. If you did not know this, you know it now.

I would like to move for the approval of motion 2025/26:4234.

I thank all colleagues, the Chamber Office and the Committee Office for this time in the Swedish Parliament.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 7.)

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