Criminal law issues

Charlotte Nordström (M)

Mr. Speaker! A ten-year-old girl who was visiting Gothenburg was stabbed with a knife. The girl's grandmother was also stabbed and suffered minor injuries. Think of what the girl and her loved ones have to go through - tragic and horrific.

I am outraged and I am looking into what has happened from many perspectives. I do it myself as a mother and grandmother. When I sit with my grandchild in my lap, I cannot let go of what the media is reporting. The insecurity that has escalated is unacceptable. It is not the Sweden that I want my grandchild and her siblings and friends to grow up in.

That it is then expressed that the suspected perpetrator is said to have been convicted of 52 crimes feels absurd and completely insane. The latest judgment was handed down in 2021. Such a criminal record must be stopped. There must also be an increased focus on the crime victims. It must not continue to be as it has been and is. It must not continue. This is just one of many incidents that affect and upset many residents.

Swedish crime policy has in practice often protected the perpetrators over the safety and respect for the crime victims. A crime affects many, not just the one who is subjected to the crime. It also concerns the family and friends of the victim. Despite this, it has often been the perpetrator who has stood in the focus of society's various interventions. We must change this fundamentally. My firm conviction is that society must always stand on the side of the crime victim.

Violence and insecurity restrict the freedom of more and more people in everyday life. And time and again we see that sentenced penalties and damages are not in parity with the general sense of justice and with the citizens' view of what is fair.

Criminal law issues

The question is what will happen to the trust in the rule of law if this is allowed to continue and when people experience that the justice system is not fulfilling its function.

Mr. Speaker! We must - and we can - reverse this development and stop these deplorable events. We can restore the rule of law and respect for law and order with the help of, among other things, the comprehensive review of the penal code that is underway, for in the Tidö Agreement it is described how the government, together with the coalition partner, will develop and implement reforms to combat and prevent crime as well as increase safety.

A complete and thorough review of the penal legislation is being carried out, which, for example, means that the penalties for a number of crimes shall be tightened and that imprisonment will be sentenced in more cases than today. Today's form of bulk discount shall be abolished, and recidivism shall be punished more severely. A new sanction, a detention sentence, shall be introduced for persons who pose a danger to society through, for example, a high risk of recidivism in serious crime. The penalties for gang-related crime shall also be tightened, and these are only a few examples of what is under development.

This is, of course, not just about tightening the laws; we must also get all people in Sweden to follow the laws and share the values that underlie these. I want to put the crime victims in focus and protect society and its inhabitants from the criminals and the perpetrators of violence.

The Riksdag has today to deal with the criminal law issues. It concerns a large number of motions with breadth and depth. Many of them are interesting and good, and I see the positive in them. It is pleasing that there are several of us who want to improve and make a difference. It feels hopeful.

Mr. Speaker! It is my first time in this speaker's chair, and with my local government experience, I could easily, out of pure routine, suggest that certain motions could be considered answered. But that is not how one does things in this assembly.

Many investigations are ongoing regarding the areas surrounding the motions. Large parts are already addressed by virtue of the Tidö Agreement, ongoing work, and investigations from previous committee work. To highlight something beyond the review of the Penal Code, I can mention that further increased penalties for crimes of violation of privacy are covered by the ongoing review of the restraining order legislation.

When it comes to the legislation on sexual offenses, the Inquiry into children's protection against sexual violations as well as certain issues regarding crimes against women and the elderly shall report its conclusions after the summer.

Regarding reinforced criminal law protection for certain socially useful functions, the government now proposes tougher measures against these crimes. Many people are exposed to violence, threats, and harassment because of their profession. It is extremely important that we as legislators signal how seriously we view that type of attack. The criminality is serious in itself, but because the crime victims perform an important function in society, it also becomes an attack against democracy and the open, free society. The proposals are now being reviewed by the Council on Legislation, and the intention is for the legislative changes to enter into force on 1 August 2023.

I previously mentioned a man with 52 crimes in his criminal record. A clearer stance against repeated crime was needed. The multi-crime investigation has recently submitted its report, and work is underway on its preparation. Preparation is also underway of recidivism regulations.

Together, here in the chamber, we must restore law and order so that Sweden can become a safe country. We can, and we shall, stop what is happening. We shall reverse the development and put the crime victims first. It must not be possible to get away with it. It must not pay to commit crimes. Investigation and preparation work is, as said, ongoing in many areas of the most pressing motions regarding the criminal law issues. They are being handled, and we look forward to when the proposals can be treated here in the chamber. With this as a basis, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal that the Riksdag rejects all motions.

(Applause)

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Mr. Speaker! Honored committee colleagues! Today we are debating the Committee on Justice's report on Criminal Law issues. Safety issues have been at the center of the political debate for a long time, and just as the previous speaker said, many of us are concerned about how the increasingly more severe violence with shootings and explosions is currently affecting many innocent people and increasing insecurity in districts across our entire country. Furthermore, we see how older gang criminals exploit children. 15-year-olds who should have been doing their math homework or sleeping over at a friend's house are instead committing murders with heavy automatic weapons. So, we cannot have that.

The Social Democratic government overhauled the crime policy, toughened eighty sentences and made over 30 criminalizations. We expanded the police and set an ambitious police goal. We now see the effects with more convictions and more years of imprisonment. But we also realize that more must be done.

The Tidö Agreement marks a change in Swedish politics. The focus is on repressive measures, but I mean that the government, together with the Sverigedemokraterna, does not understand the whole picture. Even though we are to debate criminal law issues today, a one-sided focus on harsher punishments will not solve all problems. Preventive measures are also required, and not least a policy that holds society together. I will return to that later in my speech.

A week ago was March 8, International Women's Day. But it is not enough to only mark such a large and important issue – one of the two most important issues for us Social Democrats – on one day a year, which is to stop men's violence against women.

Deadly violence against women is the ultimate oppression. Women are subjected every day to violence, harassment, and sexual crimes. The violence also affects children who are forced to witness abuse and assault. Every 20 minutes, a report of a female assault is filed, around the clock. For more than one woman a month, a relationship with a man ends with her being murdered, often in connection with her wanting to leave the perpetrator.

In the government position, we Social Democrats put forward a 99-point program that contains proposals in many different areas. The program must be implemented in its entirety, while at the same time more new measures must be introduced. During the recent parliamentary terms, a number of important steps have been taken regarding both increased penalties and preventive work. Among other things, honor motives have been made an aggravating circumstance when the court determines a sentence, and a new crime of honor oppression has been introduced.

Right now, further tightenings are being investigated to tackle honor oppression, such as innocence checks and conversion therapy. The Social Democrats look forward to the investigation's proposals. In a government position, we tightened the penalties for sexual offenses, and the consent law was introduced, which implies a shift in the view on rape. The penalties for assault, aggravated violation of a woman's peace, and violation of a restraining order were also tightened. It is now a crime to expose a child to seeing and hearing crimes of violence in a close relationship. The rules were changed so that the police can access important evidence in the form of, for example, SMS messages between spouses.

The Social Democrats want to see a zero vision against men's violence against women. The violence must be prevented, and the men who commit crimes against women must be punished. The penalties for aggravated crimes against a woman's peace need to be changed. To protect women from other types of violations than those that are physical and from controlling behavior, we also want to criminalize psychological violence. We believe that a specific ground for increased penalties for hate crimes against women should be introduced.

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats want the penalties for crimes often committed by gang criminals to be tightened. This concerns aggravated unlawful coercion, unlawful threats, aggravated unlawful threats, robbery, extortion, and aggravated extortion. Committing a crime must lead to a tangible consequence.

Since 2014, the Social Democratic government has implemented a number of new sentencing increases. More people serve longer prison sentences, but there is more to be done. The severity of the crimes must be reflected in the punishment, not least when it concerns multiple, repeated crimes.

The increase of the minimum sentence for aggravated weapons offenses to two years with mandatory detention achieved a success. We want to more clearly signal the severity of the crime in order to remove gang criminals from the streets by proceeding along that path and doubling the minimum sentence to four years. In this way, the police can reach even more. The police shall also be able to use secret room surveillance, so-called bugging, in cases of suspicion of aggravated weapons offenses.

To push back the gangs, however, we must do everything we can to break the recruitment. We see a need to address the serious crime that affects and attracts many young people. We turn away from general sentencing increases; we must not end up in a situation where young people are pressured into heavier crime or that they are locked up in a kind of university for crime where they are fostered into a criminal lifestyle with no return because our tools have become too blunt. Such a development would rather increase the problems than reduce crime.

We Social Democrats have two overarching priorities for crime policy. Today, I have briefly presented this and pointed out a number of areas where we see a need to take further steps within criminal law. We shall break the gang crime and stop violence against women.

The government's and the Sweden Democrats' policy is aimed at toughening more punishments. We see that while tougher punishments and more police are indeed needed, more preventive measures are also needed. Therefore, we Social Democrats have set a goal that every krona invested in the police shall be met with a krona on preventive activities. We cannot accept that more and more young people are being drawn into crime, and therefore we must do everything we can to break the new recruitment. Here, the government is not doing enough.

Mr. Speaker! Every day it is reported that ordinary people are facing tougher economic conditions. Unemployment is growing, and a wave of layoffs is washing over the country. The government's inability to see the big picture worries me.

The picture of crime is complicated, and we know that the vast majority in our society do not commit crimes. We also know that this applies to disadvantaged residential areas. But at the same time, the serious crimes hit these areas the hardest, and the gangs recruit children just there.

Poverty is not a crime, but growing inequality increases insecurity and reduces trust. For those who want to reduce crime and increase safety, it is therefore a matter of reducing injustices in society. We know that societies with large differences are also more insecure.

The government talks about pursuing a policy that is supposed to hold our country together. But the truth is that the Sweden Democrats, together with the government, chose to lower taxes for high-income earners, remove support for affordable rental apartments, and put welfare on a starvation diet—this in the middle of a deep economic crisis.

For my part, it is incomprehensible, and I actually do not understand how cuts in school, social services, labor market training, or investments in society can contribute to increasing cohesion or increasing society's opportunities to break crime.

This is a government that does not see, hear, or make a difference for ordinary people. The government's inability to recognize the need for preventive measures, while we tighten penalties and invest in the police, involves great risks moving forward.

We stand by our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 32.

(Applause)

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of all motion proposals.

Crime has changed over time. Organized crime and gang criminality in its current form were completely unknown concepts in our country a number of years ago. Our current penal code came into existence in a different time and has been built up gradually, but changes are required. The government has therefore begun a complete and thorough review of the penal legislation. It covers many of the proposals found in the various motions, which are often well-intentioned in different ways.

A wave of severe violence with strong links to gang crime and organized crime is sweeping across the country. Shootings and explosions have unfortunately become part of our everyday lives, and with them follows an increased sense of insecurity. A tightening of the penal code and the consequences is therefore desired, much-needed, and necessary.

The government's goal is to increase safety, to prevent more young people from being drawn into crime, to ensure that more crimes are investigated and lead to prosecution, to combat serious organized crime, to ensure that crime victims receive increased redress and that punishments become more just.

Mr. Speaker! A key to this is that more crimes are investigated and lead to prosecution. Crime clearance is in itself crime-preventing, and we must increase the efforts in that part moving forward. Stiffer penalties are of no use if people perceive the risk of detection and prosecution as negligible.

The police's investigative activities currently constitute a bottleneck in the fight against serious crime. We see a shortage of experienced investigators. The National Forensic Centre, NFC, has long processing times, which delays and complicates the investigation and naturally reduces the opportunities for prosecution and legal action.

Mr. Speaker! Surveys show that people in general have great confidence in the police, but the same surveys show that those who have been victims of crime complain about the effectiveness. Only 25 percent of those surveyed are satisfied with the police's efforts. The clearance of gang-related crime is low. The crimes are complex, resource-intensive, and difficult to investigate.

In addition, the Swedish National Audit Office notes in its latest review of the police's handling of volume crimes that it is disappointing. Large numbers of crime reports are directly dismissed. Preliminary investigations are closed even when the investigative situation is relatively good, and many cases are shelved. The Swedish National Audit Office briefly notes that the police's handling of volume crimes is inefficient.

Let me mention an example. The retailers have conducted a pilot study where they submitted 100 cases where the evidence was strong. These primarily concern theft cases within the retail trade. Not a single one of these cases has, however, led to an indictment or prosecution.

These crimes are actually entry-level crimes and the beginning of a criminal career. If signals are sent out that nothing happens, it leads to people continuing on their criminal path.

Companies have stopped reporting. Svenskt Näringsliv estimates that the costs of crime amount to approximately 100 billion annually. Victims of crime do not dare to report. Frauds against the elderly are written off or balanced out. Quality deficiencies in preliminary investigations mean that these do not lead to prosecution or legal action. The list can be made very long.

The person who is subjected to a crime has an entitled claim to redress and for some form of justice to be served, and that is where it falls short today. The sad thing is that many never have their case examined or receive the help that is expected.

I am well aware that the many acts of gross violence are prioritized and drain the police's resources, but there are deficiencies in the criminal police work that must be addressed if we are to succeed with the objective of increasing safety and reducing crime.

The Christian Democrats would welcome an increased investment in this part so that we achieve a real increase in crime clearance and obtain an investigative activity within the police that is significantly more efficient than it is today. It is needed so that we can achieve an increased prosecution of the seriously criminal as well as within petty crime.

This is in itself, as I mentioned, a crime-preventive activity that I believe we underestimate, and it is there that I believe we must allocate the resources in the future. Sharper legislation, stricter punishments, and better consequences are welcomed. We must ensure that this also becomes productive.

(Applause)

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I note that the Social Democrats still seem to be very proud of the criminal justice policy that they managed to implement during their eight years in government. Much of this was repeated by the Social Democrats earlier in the debate.

Two years of care from the side of society as a punishment for someone who has committed such a serious crime as murder - how is that possible? Most in our country surely ask that. I can answer that. It is the Social Democrats who have made it possible. And the Social Democrats have not only made it possible - they have also actively defended such low sentences as two years in a care home for murderers who may even have extensive criminal records from before. For the Social Democrats, this is reasonable and balanced. They are very proud of the criminal justice policy that they managed to achieve during their eight years in government. Just this, as well as very many other very low sentences and a lack of respect for vulnerable crime victims and their relatives, the Sweden Democrats have for a very long time tried to change.

Mr. Speaker! Now we have a new government in place. We have a Tidö Agreement that will entail major changes in the criminal law area. It will take a few years before the major legislative changes are in place. For the Sverigedemokraterna, the Tidö Agreement's major changes in the criminal law area are just the beginning of a long task to create redress for crime victims and their relatives and to punish persons who commit serious crimes very harshly without regard for the interests of the criminals themselves.

Mr. Speaker! Let us hope that the Social Democrats never again have influence over justice policy or criminal law issues. A two-year prison sentence for a crime such as murder is a joke. It is a slap in the face to the relatives and a political betrayal that we must never forget.

I note that the Social Democrats' representative in the debate on the report on Criminal Law issues chooses to speak largely about school and social services in their statement. But I consider the criminal law issues to be so important that we should be able to focus on what we respective parties consider to be reasonable within these specific issues.

The Tidö Agreement, which is now in place, between the government and the Sweden Democrats means that the criminal law issues for this debate are somewhat trimmed. Despite this, there are almost 40 reservations. The Sweden Democrats continue to submit reservations on the criminal law issues. We naturally stand behind all of our reservations, but for the sake of time, we choose to move for approval only of reservation 35, which deals with the life sentence. Someone who has received a life sentence can today, after ten years of served sentence in an institution, apply to have a fixed-term sentence. We believe that it is fully reasonable to be able to sentence persons who commit very serious crimes to exactly life imprisonment without the possibility of having the life sentence converted into a fixed-term sentence. This is exactly what we handle in the reservation that we choose to move for approval in this debate.

When it comes to criminal justice policy, there are different values to consider. We in the Sverigedemokraterna have had the victim's perspective as the starting point when we have designed our criminal justice policy. We do not start from the criminals' interests of being rehabilitated as quickly as possible, but we start from the restitution for crime victims and their relatives. There must be a reasonable balance with that starting point so that more people in our country will have respect for the justice system and our law enforcement authorities. I believe it is a dangerous development, Mr. Speaker, if we depart from this and continue the line where one can receive two years of care effort from society's side if one commits such a serious crime as murder. I believe it is a dangerous path for the respect for and trust in the rule of law.

One can also use criminal policy to tackle, for example, serious organized crime. Incapacitation is a very important part of it all, but also toughening the sentences in a way that deters from committing very serious crimes. One example is something that the Socialdemokraterna often point out that they themselves did during the last parliamentary term, namely toughening the sentence to two years for serious weapons crime. Sverigedemokraterna considered it to be a very reasonable way to go at that time. The problem was only that it would have been significantly better to do it much earlier.

We could see an escalation of violence between criminal gangs in our country during the 00s and the beginning of the 10s. At that time, firearm violence was used to mark territory - shooting in the leg and injuring opponents. Then, a sentence increase to two years would have been a reasonable measure to deter the use of weapons in conflict management. But the Social Democrats chose to wait until people were being murdered in cold blood on open streets. The general debate demanded sentence increases in this area to such an extent that it was eventually done. But by then, Mr. Speaker, it was too late to achieve a deterrent effect with such a sentence increase.

The mere inability to handle this by taking the lead and showing the way is a dangerous part of the whole. I mean that the Sweden Democrats and the Tidö parties have significantly better conditions to act before it is too late, even in the criminal law area.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! The new government has, when it comes to crime policy and the Tidö Agreement, together with the Sweden Democrats, a work project that contains several political reforms. The purpose of these reforms is to increase the combating and prevention of crime and in this way increase safety in society.

I intended to devote a few minutes to talking about some of these reforms. I would indeed wish that more could be talked about in this house regarding the criminals and about crime. Crime is something that affects many, that hits many and that affects our society. Much more needs to be talked about crime.

I see no problem with a criminal who commits a crime getting a chance to show that he or she has improved after serving a sentence. I can even go so far as to say that one can get a second chance. But then we must start discussing somewhere how many chances a criminal should get. Is it 5, 10, or 30? Where is the limit? We must look much more seriously at how lifestyle criminals behave. These are people who live by committing crimes, who go in and out of our institutions, and who receive suspended sentences on a rolling basis.

A person who has a high rate of recidivism shows that he or she is not receptive to the care, therapy, or rehabilitation offered within the correctional system and social services. In that case, there are a few alternatives. Either one lets this person continue to commit crimes and create more crime victims, or one ensures that the person is locked up for a longer period, so that they cannot commit more crimes and create more crime victims. I actually do not know what the third alternative would be. Conversation, therapy, and rehabilitation do not seem to work.

Therefore, I think it is wrong that a person who commits several crimes, for example 15 burglaries during a three-month period, is not sentenced for each crime individually. Today, all burglaries are lumped together, and a sentence is imposed. Each burglary is indeed examined individually in court, but I would like it so that a unique sentence was then also imposed for each individual burglary and that the total prison time was subsequently added up. I know that it is not possible today, and lawyers I have spoken with argue that the prison time would become so high. I still believe that the sentences should be reformed in some way.

More and more people do not dare to testify today, and I have spoken about this before. People are afraid of ending up badly themselves. Statistically, we know that the risk of testifying and ending up badly is quite low, but nevertheless it happens. And it is serious. Society must be able to protect those who testify – those who step up.

The crime of abuse in a legal case, where one threatens a witness or attacks a person who has testified, must be elevated and valued much more seriously than it is today.

It is also interesting that for so many years it has not been criminal to escape from an institution or a prison. I have asked many wise people about this, and the best answer I have received is that there must be a hope for the inmates. The thought that they should be able to escape unpunished must be there.

This sounds strange in my world. Why do we want a convicted sex offender, a serial rapist, to be able to sit in his cell and think about escaping and that, if he did so, it would not cost anything in terms of a punishment? It is incomprehensible.

I do not understand this eagerness for the criminals to have it good. Now, do not think that I am a person who wants to see prisons with dirt floors and water and bread. Absolutely not. On the contrary. I want to see prisons that can offer meaningful activities and a drug-free environment. There may be cinemas and gaming rooms—no problem, especially for those serving long sentences. But it must include behaving oneself. Escaping from a prison should not be punishment-free.

How should the authorities work against young offenders, persons under 18 years of age, who commit crimes - or rather, work with them? One of the reforms in the government's and the Sverigedemokraternas work project is about preventing young men from even ending up in situations where they commit serious crimes, including by developing and streamlining LVU, the act with special provisions on the care of young people, which gives the authorities greater opportunities than before to take a child into care who risks being drawn into organized crime. It is important that the authorities intervene early when a child is about to be drawn into crime. When I speak with social workers and police, they mention children in middle school, i.e., 10-11-year-olds. Even an increased parental responsibility can be part of the solution, where the social services can decide on mandatory interventions for both the children and the guardians. There are also those who argue that placing some of the financial responsibility on the guardians can be effective, for example in the case of damages.

Mr. Speaker! I want to conclude by talking about something that is very close to my heart. For far too many years, violence against police has been seen as something that police should expect. It is part of the job to get hit, to get a stone in the head, to be spat upon or to be run over.

Many police officers have over the years been disappointed by how low the courts have valued violence against the police; the penalty value has been too low. Likewise, it has been difficult to obtain damages and compensation, especially considering that police officers are expected to "tolerate" this. This is what we want to change. We want to strengthen the protection for police officers, security guards, and other law enforcement groups. Likewise, we want to tighten the penalties for threats of violence against an official and introduce the crime of misleading an official.

Just the latter makes me react. It is a mystery to me why we elected representatives do not think it is serious. It should not be penalty-free to call a police officer a whore. I do not know who wants to live in a society where it is acceptable to call a female police officer gender-based slurs, or where one can graphically scream at her what one wants to do to her sexually. Who wants to see such a society? It is incomprehensible to me. It will be interesting to follow which party, or which parties, think that it should be okay.

(Applause)

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! There is, of course, much to say about criminal law and today's criminal and penal policy. The question is how we curb the crime that frightens many of us today. We receive constant reminders of the criminal gangs' violent rampage, which affects many economically. We also receive many reports on how women and children are affected by men's violence—all too often with a fatal outcome. At least one woman loses her life every month, and it often happens in situations where they are about to break up with a violent and dangerous man. Sometimes the violence directly affects the child—also there with the risk of a fatal outcome. The Tintin case is an example of this.

Why do I mention these two blocks at approximately the same time? It is because I see connections. It is not a coincidence that many of the children who have grown up in homes where they have seen dad hit and use violence as a means of power themselves perceive that it is effective in future relationships and in relation to others. More notice that this can be included as a component in choosing a serious criminal path together with others in your gang or your group.

We must see the connections and try to limit all forms of violence against men, both that which originates from gangs and that which is directed against women and children. They are connected, but we have the ability to limit them if we intervene early. Above all, children must be supported. It is incredibly important preventive work.

We in Vänsterpartiet are, of course, for the fact that when crimes are committed, they should be punished. It is important from a societal perspective that we mark boundaries for what is permitted. What many are focusing on today is the length of the sentences. There must, naturally, be proportions. We must weigh what we consider to be serious crimes. There, the punishments and sanctions should be more effective, and a review needs to take place. It has begun to be realized that crimes against women and children are just as serious as many other crimes in society.

With this said, ever stricter and stricter punishments are not always effective. There is research that convincingly shows that it does not work that way. Punishment means something, but preventive measures are by far the most important.

I have lived in Umeå for a long time. It is a city that is highlighted in the media for having succeeded relatively well in pushing back gang crime. What backgrounds exist in Umeå? It is a radical city. There is a strong feminism there. The city is consciously community-building, which is not easy to fix in a few minutes or a few years. It has, among other things, been about constantly safeguarding that when the city is expanded – it has expanded significantly – it must always occur with mixed housing. There must be rental apartments, condominiums, and villas. We shall counteract everything called segregation as much as possible, and there must be social interventions with good schools and forms of activity that also support those who have it worst in society.

I will not say that it is obvious how it has gone, but there have been many gains in those processes. And it is still the case that many are fighting to build further on the inclusive and more equal society.

Then we are also touching upon what is happening today to create divisions and a breeding ground for crime. Yes, it is the enormously growing class inequalities and the appalling wage differences. Gaps are forming between people, and one can almost understand that it is provocative. "I want to have [it] too, and sometimes I take my rights." It is terrible, but we must realize that such connections exist. Investing in an equal society is the most important thing we can do.

When it comes to crime and punishment, this issue of proportionality is very important - that and that there is a prosecution at all. Otherwise, it doesn't matter what penalty levels we set up on paper in the legal texts.

It is also about us creating meaningful situations – that punishment is not solely about detention. That is where the great challenges within the correctional services lie today. We will have to return to that, but there are great risks that we cannot invest in either work training or treatments within the correctional services and that new groupings and much violence are already being created there, affecting both inmates and staff.

I would like to move for approval of reservation 14. It is a contribution to the debate concerning our desire for Sweden to live up to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We do not do that today.

A loophole there is what reservation 14 is about – that persons with disabilities are not counted as a group that can be subjected to hate speech against a group. That is what we want to heal and change.

It is also naturally desirable that disability is introduced as a specific ground for hate crimes. We have submitted a motion regarding this, and we hope that the investigation currently looking into increased penalties covers that theme.

There is much more to say, but I must stop there for the moment.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden faces great challenges daily. As an elected representative, I am proud of the professional employees who every day, all year round, make contributions for the public, for us in the common good. This happens in many areas, but here today in the criminal law debate, I want to extend a special thanks to everyone who works within the so-called blue-light professions and within the justice system. A big thank you to you!

In recent years, we have seen a very problematic development for safety in Sweden. We see both gang crime and violence in close relationships. We see trafficking of people, weapons, and drugs. We see fraud against the elderly and against the welfare system.

Ensuring that all people are and feel safe and secure is one of the state's core tasks that we must take most seriously.

The police must therefore be present, available, and visible for all people in the entire country. In the same way that the fire brigade and the ambulance arrive when one calls, the police must do so to a greater extent than today. It is crucial for people to feel safe, but we also know that the risk of being caught normally strongly affects the propensity to commit a crime in the first place.

It is also important to work preventatively, as several here have pointed out, by working preventatively both with individual individuals and by minimizing motives, places, and situations where crimes are committed. But sometimes preventative work is set in opposition to tougher measures and is said to be coddling of perpetrators. Then it is forgotten that the biggest winner of crime prevention work is not the one who does not become a criminal, but the one who avoids being subjected to the crime.

Mr. Speaker! We have taken note of the government's plans for new reforms and new legislation that we have been able to read about in the Tidö Agreement, in the government's statement, and in various propositions, and heard about today.

We in the Center Party see that many of the proposals are necessary and desirable. We will be an active and constructive party in order to meet today's crime with agreements that are as broad and long-term sustainable as possible. The government can count on that.

But the government can also count on us to hold liberal values and legal principles high. We need to take measures, but not at any cost. We must be able to be both effective and professional, but not at the expense of important legal principles. It does not suit us as a country to diminish either our ability or our ambition to prevent and solve crimes with a high level of integrity, transparency, and legal certainty.

I would like to conclude by focusing on this issue regarding the prescription of sexual offenses.

Both technical progress and a generally changed view on prescription call for that the prescription periods for these crimes be changed. It is therefore important that the Prescription Investigation's proposals are promptly prepared and presented as a legislative proposal.

In May 2020, a legislative change came into force which meant that the statute of limitations was abolished for certain sexual offenses against children and child pornography offenses. This is positive, but I believe that the statute of limitations should also be abolished for sexual exploitation of children and aggravated sexual assault against children.

There is also reason to generally review the prescription periods for sexual offenses, partly against the background that new forensic technology makes it possible to solve crimes that were previously not possible to clear up, but also from the perspective that it can sometimes, for various reasons, take time before a crime is reported, but that does not take away from the fact that what happened was a criminal act.

I support all of the Center Party's reservations but move for approval only of reservation 37.

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

Bassem Nasr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! On the agenda are criminal law issues. These are issues that are a central part of the criminal justice policy. They are broad in nature, which is evident in the motions and has also been heard during the debate today.

Criminal law issues

The Green Party has submitted several motions. I will briefly account for three of these.

One of the Environment Party's motions concerns crimes against peace. We want the minimum sentence for aggravated violation of a woman's peace to be raised to two years' imprisonment. The Environment Party also proposes that the prescription period begins to run when the condition that constitutes the crime, i.e., the harassment, ceases.

Another of the Green Party's motions concerns changing the legal designation for child pornography crimes. Instead, we want the crime to be referred to as documented sexual abuse against children. It is a designation that more accurately reflects the crime and proceeds from the perspective of the crime victim. I know that the government has ongoing work on this issue, and we want this change to occur expeditiously.

The third of our motions that I want to mention concerns a review of the legislation on sexual offenses. There is ongoing work to evaluate how criminal liability for negligence regarding age functions. If the conclusion is that there are deficiencies in the criminal liability, an investigation regarding the duty of care concerning the victim's age in sexual acts against minors can proceed. In the motion, we also want to strengthen the protection against sexual violations for children between 15 and 17 years old.

I stand behind all of the Miljöpartiets reservations, but for time-saving reasons, I move for approval only of reservation 4 regarding crimes against peace.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 12.)

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