Firearms and explosives - stricter penalties for the more serious crimes

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Government and the Sweden Democrats continue to step by step implement the measures that in the long run will put Sweden on the right track. During the Social Democrats' last eight years in power, the number of fatal shootings in Sweden increased by 232 percent. It went from 19 dead in 2014 to 63 dead in 2022. It is this catastrophic development that the Sweden Democrats and the new government have to start from when we shape the policy that in the long run will make Sweden a better country.

Today we are debating the government's bill Firearms and Explosive Substances - stricter penalties for the more serious crimes. The proposal means that the penalties for, among other things, weapons crimes and crimes with explosive substances are significantly increased. The sentencing scales for gross crime are changed from imprisonment for a minimum of two years and a maximum of five years to imprisonment for a minimum of four years and a maximum of seven years. It is thus a doubling of the minimum sentence. The sentencing scales for particularly gross crime are changed from imprisonment for a minimum of four years and a maximum of seven years to imprisonment for a minimum of six years and a maximum of ten years. Anyone who goes out after January 1 and is arrested with a loaded weapon will be automatically detained and will have to spend at least four years behind bars.

Madam Speaker! I see this as step two of four in the Tidö parties' four-stage rocket to be able to remove many dangerous people from the streets for a long time. Let me explain in a pedagogical way.

On October 1 of this year, new rules on preventive coercive measures were introduced, which mean that the police may use secret wiretapping against gang criminals for preventive purposes. They can now more easily determine when and where crimes will be committed. From March 1 next year, the police will be able to establish search zones where they can search persons without suspicion in order to find, for example, weapons and in that way deter serious crime.

Suppose that through secret surveillance it can be determined that a person is about to commit a serious crime at a specific location. The police establish a visitation zone and prevent the criminal act. The person carrying a loaded weapon is imprisoned for at least four years. If the crime is particularly serious, the person can be imprisoned for up to ten years.

When the Tidö parties' proposal for double sentences for gang criminals becomes a reality, the person can be locked up for 8-20 years.

Madam Speaker! I can state that there is a difference between having the Sweden Democrats in a government cooperation and having the Sweden Democrats outside a government cooperation.

There was a major problem with the previous legislation on aggravated weapons offenses, namely that the prison sentences people were sentenced to were far too short. In a gang environment where much is about power and status, two years, or less than that, can even be seen as a feather in one's cap - as a certificate that one is prepared to commit serious crimes and that one is a dangerous person. Here, the doubling of the minimum sentence for aggravated weapons offenses will be of great use, not least when the Sverigedemokraterna together with the government introduce double sentences for persons within the gang criminal environment. There is a big difference between 8-20 years of imprisonment and today's minimum sentence of two years.

Something that research can point out with certainty is that crime decreases with age. A 20-year-old who is sentenced to two years in prison for aggravated weapons crime can, with the greatest probability, return to the same criminal community after two years in custody. If the person instead receives a prison sentence of at least eight years, which will be the case when Sverigedemokraternas and the new government's sentence increases have fully entered into force, the probability is not as great. This is due to age and maturity and to changes in the person's criminal environment and network, but also to Kriminalvårdens opportunity to get the person on the right track over a longer period.

Madam Speaker! In the best of worlds, no youth chooses a criminal lifestyle. I say "chooses" because we in Sweden have free schooling with grants up to the university level, free extracurricular activities, and an extensive association life. This is something that most people on earth can only dream of. Crime is something one chooses, especially if one lives in Sweden.

The most important crime-preventing measure we can take that falls under the mandate of the Justice Committee is quite simply to lock up dangerous people for a long time. The more dangerous people who are in prison, the fewer serious crimes will be committed. Fewer dangerous people will then mingle with youths who are on the verge of choosing a criminal lifestyle. The Sverigedemokraterna's and the government's policy will create a safer Sweden.

A problem that we face and which will be exacerbated in the coming years is the shortage of prison places. When the Social Democrats came to power in 2014, because the former Alliance did not want to govern the country together with SD, the shortage of prison places was not a problem. A year later, the Social Democratic Prime Minister stood at Sergels torg and trumpeted out that his country certainly does not build any walls. "We have been naive" is an expression that can symbolize these eight years. After the Social Democrats' eight years in power, 2,000 people are released while waiting for a prison place.

Mr. Speaker, now it is new times. In Sweden's institutions, bunk beds are being installed. Modular prisons are being built inside the prison walls, and at the same time, several completely new prisons are in the starting phases. The Sweden Democrats and the government will ensure that more people are able to serve their prison sentences in their home country. Prison places will be rented abroad to increase the country's ability to keep dangerous people off the streets for a long time.

Madam Speaker! Reversing decades of failed politics will take time, but much is in motion. The Government and the Sweden Democrats will implement the Tidö Agreement. I want to conclude by stating once again that there is a difference between having the Sweden Democrats in a government cooperation and having the Sweden Democrats outside of a government cooperation.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the bill.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Madam Speaker! Crime is something one chooses, said Pontus Andersson Garpvall in his speech. I have a very simple and short question. What does the member say about the cases that have been highlighted where young people have been taken away and forced to commit crimes? Is crime always something that one chooses in Sweden?

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

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Madam Speaker! There are, of course, specific cases where that is not the case.

What the new government has introduced is the bill that passed six months ago, which concerned involving children in criminal activity. It was based on an investigation produced by the previous government. Now the legislation is in place, and in some ways it is good. But the problem with this legislation is that it is quite typically Social Democratic or Green Party, because in the judgments that have gained legal force, the people who have drawn young people into crime have been sentenced to non-deterrent penalties. It is about day-fines for having involved young people in criminal activity.

I note that it is a step in the right direction, but as usual, it is far too lenient towards those who draw young people into crime. I would have wished that the new government had also returned with increased penalties in this area. If one repeatedly fails to do what is required to keep dangerous people off the streets, young people will continue to be drawn into crime, and as the member says, they sometimes have no choice.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Madam Speaker! It was good that Pontus Andersson Garpvall corrected his categorical statement. Let me, however, add that it goes significantly further. There are cases where it has been pure coercion, but in many other cases, it also depends on an environment where the young person's real options are relatively limited. This is something we need to work on in order to change.

Something we must remember is that those who commit crimes have, in almost all cases, previously been crime victims. Those who rob in the squares have been robbed at an earlier time, and those who hit have been hit. This we know. This obviously does not mean that all crime victims become perpetrators, but of those who are perpetrators, almost all have been crime victims. This is something that society and we politicians need to focus more on.

Madam Speaker! Regarding the legislation on involving children in crime, it was an election promise that Miljöpartiet had before the 2018 election. It has now become a reality, which is good. The legislation applies to both the recruitment itself and when children are used in crime in the way that has become all too common. We will, of course, continue to look at whether it lives up to the purposes we had, and we do not rule out that it may be necessary to tighten the penalties in the future. But the purpose of the legislation, to shift the focus to the fact that the adults bear a greater responsibility than the children, was very important, and that is why we introduced the law.

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

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Madam Speaker! When I use the categorical expression, as the member expresses it, that one chooses crime, I usually highlight all those people who live in particularly vulnerable areas and who choose to adopt this lifestyle. But the vast majority who grow up under tough conditions where the parents may lack jobs and education choose not to become criminals. I believe strongly that crime is shaped by values in society and within the family, and that it is rather that which makes many choose to burn a car instead of building a car.

We are investing an incredible amount of money in the areas where many young people choose the criminal path. But I believe that instead we need to focus on targeted interventions towards the children whom we see are at risk of choosing that path and towards the families where there is crime, in order to work against them in that way rather than against the area as a whole, because the vast majority who grow up under tough conditions choose, as said, not to become criminals.

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

Petter Löberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Initially, I move for approval of reservation 2 regarding the conditions of the correctional services, which we have together with Miljöpartiet.

Madam Speaker! Our country is in many ways a wounded country. Shootings and bombings have deeply affected our social fabric, a society that in almost all other ways is one of the best functioning societies humanity has ever constructed in world history.

If I am to be a little boastful, it is a social democratic project, which we are immensely proud of. Our country is built on the principle of great trust between people and between citizens and institutions. With a high degree of exchange of experience and with its face turned outward, our country has become stronger and, not least, boldly multicultural and thus creative. Our country is also built on consensus, a scientific basis, strong safety nets, and good opportunities for people to realize their dreams, not least through the generous education system.

This is not just about a chauvinistic self-image, but equally about how we are measured by the rest of the world and independent institutes. In many ways, we are the world's best country.

But we have rifts, and one of these rifts concerns gang crime, shootings and explosions. The violence has created a rift in our country, which not only challenges the chauvinistic self-image but affects individuals and groups in society most palpably. The violence is in many ways a system-threatening problem. The causes are multifaceted and sometimes difficult to trace, but there is a common denominator: weapons. Effective work to remove the illegal weapons in our society determines whether we will succeed in meeting many of the challenges with the spirals of violence.

The Social Democrats will present the proposals that are required. We did so in government and continue to do so in opposition. No, we have not been naive. For a period of eight years, we rather demonstrated a lack of naivety. We were clear-sighted and presented proposal after proposal at a pace of reform that our country has never before seen, and we allocated resources to the different parts of the justice chain in a way that our country has also never witnessed. When we came to power in 2014, the department was completely empty of products. There was almost nothing, so we had to start from the beginning.

One of the more successful legislative changes we implemented was the increase of the minimum sentence for weapons offenses to two years of imprisonment and automatic detention. Hundreds of perpetrators have since been behind bars instead of walking around and "flashing" weapons in the city. Previously, we had many cases where the police arrested a person with a loaded weapon in the morning, and in the evening, the person was released. Now that is over, and we are proud of that.

In April, we had a motion debate on weapons issues here in the chamber, and then we proposed in our reservation that the penalty for weapons crimes should be doubled. That is exactly what is now on the table and being discussed here. The SD-supported government is thus delivering yet another Social Democratic proposal. But soon you will actually have to start standing on your own feet. It is no longer possible to lean on the previous government's powerful craftsmanship.

We now see the outlines of proposals that you have begun to carve out yourselves, and it creates a certain type of unease. To be clear - referral procedures, preparation requirements, and rule of law principles are things we must safeguard even in the future. Now it is up to proof, and you need to show that you can manage it.

Now I will move on to some principled arguments regarding the question itself. One can, of course, wonder whether harsher penalties always solve things, but we know that in the vast majority of cases, it has no significance whatsoever for the perpetrators' motives. They do not think about the consequences of their actions at all. This applies in particular to young offenders.

With weapon crimes, there is a certain difference, and that is why we accept this and have also pushed for harsher penalties for weapon crimes. There is a difference when one smuggles weapons, is a gunsmith, or perhaps hides weapons for relatives and boyfriends or girlfriends, because then one takes a calculated risk. When these penalties are now tightened further, it is naturally something that will be taken into account to an even greater extent than before.

There are some problems with proportionality when it comes to other crimes of a serious nature, and it is something that the government, in particular, has pointed out. Now, the minimum sentence for aggravated weapons crime lands a good bit above the minimum sentence for, for example, aggravated assault - yes, even just below manslaughter and extremely aggravated assault. We therefore need to review the entire sentencing scales and take a collective approach, because right now it is starting to become dissonant between certain things. Intellectually, it can be defended with the deterrent factor that exists in just these crime categories. Then it is possible to justify such a dissonance in proportionality.

I also want to highlight something that more speakers may eventually take up, namely that the criminal environment will adapt its modus operandi to how the legislation looks. There is a risk when we drastically increase the penalties for these weapons crimes that we once again push down the acts into groups that are not covered by criminal law and that all younger perpetrators become involved in all more serious crimes, just as we have been able to see in other cases. It is a consequence of us, as legislators, eagerly trying to solve a problem and suddenly finding ourselves in an even more tragic situation. We therefore need to be on our toes.

The Social Democrats have a reservation, and it concerns the Prison and Probation Service. It may seem a bit separate that it is included when it concerns issues of weapons, but I believe it is important to remind each other time and again that it needs to be taken into account when laws are enacted in the chamber.

The Prison and Probation Service's referral response is in many ways a distress signal from one of Sweden's largest agencies, as well as one of the best-managed. It is described that they have an extremely difficult time managing to expand the number of prison places as much as required, not least as a consequence of the legislation that is currently underway. This is no news for us. We have recently visited many prisons. The committee has, among other things, been to Hall.

Different types of managers within the Prison and Probation Service appear increasingly stressed. We have spoken with many union representatives who see the operations deteriorating fundamentally and that it is happening very quickly. The client-facing work is not keeping up, and the dynamic security work does not have the edge they are used to.

It is about security but actually also about the crime prevention and recidivism prevention work within the institutions. The strained situation represents an attack on the factors that make Swedish correctional services one of the best in the world, for example that it is escape-proof and drug-free and that one has good treatment programs as well as work, studies and activities which ensure that one leaves the institution in better condition.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats never give up on people. We refuse to do so, no matter how many evil deeds they have committed. So, eventually, they will come out of the institutions, and then they shall have better tools to make amends and manage outside the walls within the boundaries of the law.

We are very concerned about the indifference that the SD-led government shows towards the different parts of the justice chain when it comes to resources and consideration of consequences. A frequently repeated cliché is that the justice chain must hold together, but it requires a strong focus on that. Therefore, in our reservation, we demand that the government immediately produces a plan for how the authority, in this case Kriminalvården, shall manage its mandate.

It states in the report that the government is closely following the operations, but more than observation is needed. Powerful commitment is required, but also some hands-on involvement, and we Social Democrats will continue to bring the situation of the Prison and Probation Service to the forefront here moving forward. Rest assured!

(Applause)

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

Louise Meijer (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has received many people over a long period. Such a quantity of people, combined with a poor and demand-free integration into our labor market, our language, and our values, has clearly brought with it several problems that our country now faces. That being said – as important as it is to point out the problems with large-scale immigration and that we need to have an absolute minimum immigration moving forward, it is to say that we are here now, together. We are in the same boat.

We need to ensure that we, together as a country and as Swedes, stick together and share a sense of community. There must therefore be some basic requirements and starting points that are not negotiable here.

Firstly, everyone must do their best to contribute. This primarily means that adults should be self-sufficient. When more people work and contribute, we get more money to spend on our common welfare.

Secondly, everyone should learn intelligible Swedish. It is difficult to get a job and feel a sense of community if we do not share the same language. If one can speak more languages than Swedish, it is of course welcome and contributes to Sweden's competitiveness in a global market.

For the third, one must share our values - more or less. It does not mean that everyone needs to think exactly the same, but the Western world and Sweden are built largely on the ideals of the Enlightenment. We shall continue with that. Reason, meritocracy, secularity, and the individual's rights shall prevail over the family's honor.

None of these three starting points - self-sufficiency, language and values - lie in hair color, skin color or religion.

Madam Speaker! This morning, many hard-working Swedes went to work. Some have lived here for several generations, others have come here later in life and will live here for several generations to come. For all these Swedes, the Moderaterna are now working to restore the work principle and security. We will take back control over law and order in the country.

Our children must not be lost to either criminal gangs or religious fundamentalism. This requires effective crime fighting. Ensuring that gang criminals who carry weapons in public places serve long prison sentences is an example of effective crime fighting.

Today we vote on doubling the sentence for specifically aggravated weapons offenses from today's two years to four years. When we also get it established that gang criminals receive double sentences, it means eight years of imprisonment for carrying weapons on the street. It changes from two years of imprisonment, as it is today, to eight years of imprisonment. It is a difference, and it makes a difference who governs Sweden.

Locking up these dangerous individuals is particularly important for our children and young people in particularly vulnerable areas. Shootings occur at schools and preschools. Our preschool children no longer just practice evacuation. They also practice "sheltering in place" and barricading themselves to prevent any child from being harmed during a shooting.

We know that shootings occur in playgrounds and courtyards where children are hit by bullets. Not least, we know that completely innocent children have been killed by the shots of gang criminals. To mention the obvious example: Adriana. We need effective crime fighting to protect our children.

Madam Speaker! With the budget for the justice system that we voted through last week, we are fulfilling what we campaigned on, namely to regain control over law and order in Sweden. The opposition talks about it as if it were repression. But it is not repression, it is justice.

Access to Swedish society and its laws and rules, and the possibility of living one's life safely and in freedom, shall be available to everyone, regardless of where one is born, regardless of where one's parents are born, and regardless of where in Sweden one lives. But that is not the case today.

Step by step, bill by bill and decision by decision in this chamber, the Moderate-led government is now contributing to reversing the negative development and changing Sweden for the better. We put Sweden first for everyone, both old and new Swedes.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of the Centre Party's reservation.

It is incredibly important to remove firearms, explosive weapons, and explosives from criminal environments, where they are primarily used within serious organized crime as a part of their activities and violence capital.

Firearms differ from other crime tools. They are extremely deadly and are also very potent tools in threats, and their use has increased significantly. Explosives are destroyed by themselves upon explosion, but firearms specifically can be used time and again. It therefore becomes extra serious, and it is important to address this.

It is also important that we review the legislation regarding the smuggling of these items, and that is why it is welcome that the increased penalties cover both possession and smuggling.

Centerpartiet shares the government's view on the need for stricter penalties, but we believe that the crimes categorized as serious in the bill should have a minimum sentence of five years instead of the four years proposed, in order to further demonstrate the gravity of this.

With this said: What is important to keep in mind today when we debate stricter sentences is that no increased sentencing scales in the world deter anyone if they do not risk being caught, being prosecuted, and being convicted and receiving the increased sentence. If that is not the case, the increase will only be a paper tiger.

We do, admittedly, receive information that police and prosecutors are preventing more serious crimes than before, and we know that many are deprived of their liberty and sentenced. At the same time, we must see this in the light of the enormously large resource additions that the police and the justice system have received and will receive. We here, and above all all citizens and crime victims, therefore have the right to have high expectations of the government. Today's proposal is therefore correct, with the Center Party's reservation, but I remind that it is a great responsibility that lies on the government's supporting parties to deliver so that we see further results.

I would also like to conclude by pointing out the importance of the legislation that we and many others have stood behind, which gives the customs authorities increased powers and resources. It is also a matter of ensuring that the National Forensic Centre receives sufficient resources to be able to, often quickly, handle weapons cases and cases involving explosive goods. It is important that the entire chain is in place.

Finally, I want to say that Centerpartiet shares the concerns about the Prison and Probation Service that the Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet have raised. It is, as has been said, the whole that counts.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today, the Riksdag will decide to tighten the penalties for weapons offenses again. Formally, it is tomorrow that the buttons will be pressed, and the entry into force will occur in a few weeks, on 1 January 2024.

The minimum sentence for aggravated weapons offenses will be four years, the maximum penalty will be raised to seven years, and the penalties for offenses of the normal degree and extremely aggravated offenses will also be raised, in broad consensus. What differs compared to many of the other parties is that Vänsterpartiet has no reservation and will vote for, and that Centerpartiet wants an additional small increase for aggravated weapons offenses. Otherwise, there is agreement between the parties, so there is no major drama in that sense.

A bit anecdotically, I can take the opportunity to say that the tightening of weapon crimes began ten years ago, when it was also a right-wing government and the Minister of Justice was named Beatrice Ask. At that time, the minimum sentence for a serious weapon crime was six months, which was raised to one year in 2013-2014. Now we are up to four years, and there has been quite a large consensus regarding this all the way.

Madam Speaker! There is another aspect of the whole in this area which perhaps does not concern the weapon crime penalty itself, but which I nevertheless think is worth noting. Miljöpartiet and Socialdemokraterna raise it in reservation 2, which I otherwise move to approve. It concerns the situation within Kriminalvården, which we will have every reason to focus heavily on.

The Prison and Probation Service is an agency in crisis, Madam Speaker. What makes it a crisis is that there has not been sufficient expansion and that broad sentencing increases have been made. Now, this also applies to common crimes. This summer, the penalties for drug offenses and also many other crimes committed by many people were tightened, and then we will see that an already pressured and difficult situation becomes even harder. There, it is difficult to fulfill its mission.

Convicted persons have to wait to serve their prison sentences because there simply are no places. It is the same thing in the remand centers. Double occupancy is the new normal in the prisons, and it is not a good situation. It will increase the risk of radicalization and violent extremism. It will increase the risk that persons who were not previously involved in crime will become involved during their prison sentence. This is not a good situation, Madam Speaker.

Our reservation is that the government should develop a plan for the Prison and Probation Service in order to be able to handle this better. We do not have a majority for this in the chamber, but it is not an issue that we will let go. We will push for this against the government and the Minister for Justice, because we are very concerned. Those who commit crimes shall, of course, receive a punishment for it, but we must not have a situation where we increase the damage to society through the punishments that are given.

Firearms and explosives - stricter penalties for the more serious crimes

With this, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of reservation number 2.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the report Firearms and explosives - stricter penalties for the more serious crimes. There are actually good reasons to have that debate.

It is well known that we have an extremely serious situation with violent crimes in the form of shootings and explosions that are unparalleled in comparable countries. Most recently this weekend, there was a shooting in Södertälje with several injured, and shootings also occurred in Malmö and Stockholm. Just over a week ago, there was an explosion in a villa area in Uppsala with extensive damage.

We can observe that the police are doing a good job and are now preventing many violent crimes and arresting perpetrators shortly after the crimes. Despite this, however, no clear reduction is noted - we see no clear downward trend.

Madam Speaker! From a general prevention point of view, it is therefore important that society clearly and distinctly marks that this type of crime has an unusually high punitive value. Increased clearance and long prison sentences will hopefully have a deterrent effect on potential perpetrators.

In the month that someone nevertheless completes a crime with firearms or explosive goods, or is found in illegal possession of these objects, the individual in question has demonstrated and confirmed their dangerousness and shall therefore be deprived of liberty for a longer period. I want to conclude with a small quote from Olaus Petri, who had a number of judicial rules. One of them reads: He who abuses freedom is worthy of losing it.

With that said, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 13 December.)

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