Criminal law issues
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M wants the sentencing scales to reflect the severity of the crimes and that prison sentences are handed out in more cases 1. M also wants to use restraining orders and electronic surveillance to a greater extent 1. S argues that the government lacks initiative, withdraws funds for work on women's peace, and that psychological abuse requires a new type of crime 2 3 4. S advocates for systematic work with restraining orders and ankle bracelets 5. SD wants to remove the sentencing discount for adult perpetrators, investigate lowering the age of criminal responsibility, and introduce detention sentences for dangerous criminals 6. KD wants to carry out a major reorganization of the criminal justice policy where the crime victim stands at the center 7. V wants to criminalize psychological and economic violence 8. C wants to raise the minimum sentence for aggravated violation of peace and criminalize controlling behavior 9.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Speakers (14)
Charlotte Nordström (M)
Mr. Speaker! The violence and insecurity have restricted the freedom and everyday life for more and more people. Time and again, we have seen how sentenced penalties and damages are not in parity with the general sense of justice and the citizens' view of what is fair. We must and we can reverse this development and re-establish the rule of law and respect for law and order. We can do it with the comprehensive review of the penal code that is underway.
It was on 20 July 2023 that the government decided to task a special investigator, Petra Lundh, with conducting a review of the sentencing scales to reform the penalty system, the so-called Sentencing Reform Inquiry. The sentencing scales shall, in a better way than today, reflect the gravity of the crime, and the penalties imposed shall appear reasonable and just.
There is a pointed need from many for a more overarching and coherent review of the sentencing scales that is now being carried out. This means that, for example, the penalties for a number of crimes will be tightened and that imprisonment will be sentenced in more cases than today. According to the supplementary directive, the assignment shall be reported by May 30, 2025, at the latest.
This criminal justice reform investigation will also address some of the motions that we have to deal with here today.
Regarding crimes of violation of peace and controlling behavior, the investigation into a review of the contact prohibition legislation, which among other things addressed the issue of increased penalties for crimes of violation of peace, submitted its report to the government in February, A more effective contact prohibition legislation - an increased protection for vulnerable persons. The investigation's assessment is that the penalty scale for gross violation of peace and gross violation of a woman's peace should not be changed, but in accordance with the mandate, an alternative legislative proposal is nevertheless submitted to increase the maximum penalty to ten years of imprisonment.
The report has now been referred, and the referral period expires on June 26. As I mentioned during last week's debate on one of the Justice Committee's reports, it is extremely important that women who are subjected to violence receive the protection they need. Therefore, the Moderaterna want that restraining orders be used in more cases and that electronic surveillance with the help of an ankle bracelet can be used to a greater extent to ensure that restraining orders are followed. We want the area for restraining orders to apply to more cases and, in some cases, be able to cover entire municipalities in cases where the threat is particularly serious.
The Penal Reform Commission has also been tasked with reviewing the sentencing scales. As work is ongoing, the committee is not prepared to now take the initiative for further increased penalties or other legislative changes regarding the crimes of breach of peace.
The memorandum with a proposal to introduce psychological abuse as a new criminal offense has been subject to consultation and is being prepared within the Government Offices. We all agree that men's violence against women must be stopped, both physical, psychological, and economic. The proposal to criminalize psychological violence has, however, received extensive consultation criticism. There is, for example, concern from not least civil society that such an offense could be used by perpetrators to direct accusations against women whom they themselves have subjected to violence, or that it could be misused in custody disputes. These are risks that need to be taken most seriously. An analysis is currently underway, and we do not want to anticipate it other than by stating that the issue is extremely important for the government to move forward on.
A large number of authorities have been tasked with working to prevent and combat men's violence against women. The Government will conduct a review of the need for tightened governance and follow-up of the authorities' work against men's violence against women. The Government has also begun the work of developing a new national strategy and a new action program against men's violence against women and honor-related violence and oppression.
Mr. Speaker! Together in here we must restore law and order, so that Sweden can become a safe country. We can and shall stop what is happening, reverse the development and put the crime victims in the foreground. It must not be possible to get away with it. It must not pay to commit crimes.
But it is not just about tightening the laws. We must also get all people in Sweden to follow the laws and respect the values that underlie them. Investigation and preparatory work is ongoing, as mentioned. They are being handled by the department, and we look forward to the proposals being treated here in the chamber. On this basis, I move for approval of the committee's proposal that the Riksdag rejects all motion requests.
Annika Strandhäll (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you to the Member for an important contribution, which I can agree with in parts. At the same time, it is quite obvious that the commitment that the current government shows regarding gang crime is not at all reflected in the government's initiative when it comes to the work for women's peace.
The member himself mentioned the investigation into psychological violence that has been ready for nearly two years. The referral response to that investigation was ready on the Minister for Justice's desk one month after he took office, in November 2022. Despite this, and despite that the Minister for Justice stood here in the speaker's chair as recently as a year ago and said that if there is not a government bill on the table in a year, you can chase me with a blue light, there is still no such proposal on the Riksdag's table. The Minister for Justice answered as recently as one and a half weeks ago that the matter is still being prepared in the Government Offices, i.e., exactly the same answer as before. It is not as the member says. There is no extensive criticism.
The police stand behind this. All children's rights organizations stand behind it. Virtually the entire women's movement stands behind it. Unicef stands behind it. But the initiative when it comes to this government's policy on the area of women's peace is lacking. What does the Member of Parliament think about us seeing this lack of commitment from the side of the Minister for Justice?
Charlotte Nordström (M)
Mr. Speaker! Last week we discussed these issues. At that time, Member Strandhäll was not present. Then I took up the parts where the government and the Minister for Justice are working with vigor.
As I mentioned, I have read the referral response myself. We are obviously reading it in different ways. It is clear that there is massive criticism of what is contained therein. It is certainly better that a minister takes this seriously and wants to analyze what is stated in the memorandum before moving forward with a proposal.
Work is being done for high pressure. Last week, when we discussed violent crimes and crime victims, we also mentioned that the government is now reviewing the provisions on parole and whether it should only be granted if there are special reasons. It concerns the risk of recidivism in violent and sexual crimes, and we believe that in such cases, one should not be able to be released on parole. We have submitted proposals that women who have been victims of violence should be granted a strengthened right to a legal representative in the Court of Appeal for a safe and secure legal process. Men who hit women shall receive harsher sentences. This has also been clearly stated. Repeated sexual crimes should be able to result in life imprisonment. The minister has also spoken about this in the committee. There, the minister was very clear that this should be treated with force in the same way as gang crime.
Annika Strandhäll (S)
Mr. Speaker! No matter how you turn and twist it, the government has now been in power for 18 months. The bill we are now discussing was submitted as a completed referral on the table in November 2022.
After six years as a department head, I know that had the question been prioritized by the government, one would not only have managed to prepare it by this time. In fact, in that time, the Minister for Justice would have managed to appoint a completely new investigation that could have investigated the question, and a completely new referral round would also have been completed, if one looks at how one normally can get legislative proposals on the table in terms of time. No, the question is not prioritized.
There is also something noteworthy: When we propose a committee initiative in February, when we can state that this proposal is not in the government bill list for this year either, the same party that says it prioritizes this issue votes against it. That is not prioritizing the issue.
At the same time, something must be added regarding the work for women's peace. Yes, this government has appointed a lot of rather general inquiries in the criminal law area. On the other hand, one is simultaneously slaughtering the means for the work for women's peace. One is removing the state initiative that has existed for 17 years. This results in SKR shutting down its women's peace initiative. One underfinances the reform on protected housing and withdraws resources from civil society organizations that work with women's peace issues. One hand must know what the other is doing.
This is not prioritizing the work for women's peace, and this government will have to answer for that.
Charlotte Nordström (M)
Mr. Speaker! I have all respect for the fact that Member Strandhäll has been a minister.
I know that the Minister also reads the referral response. When it comes to the committee initiative, exactly that extensive criticism that existed regarding this memorandum was raised. There was no further discussion in the committee, and it is perhaps a bit unfortunate that one does not have that discussion in the committee.
I want to assert that our government and our minister prioritize this issue, Member Strandhäll. One wants to analyze properly in order to be able to come forward with good proposals, which Member Strandhäll can also stand behind.
The government has begun the work of developing a new national strategy and a new action program against men's violence against women, and I hope that it will also meet the approval of Member of Parliament Strandhäll.
Annika Strandhäll (S)
Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating, as mentioned, the report on criminal law. As those who listen closely will understand, my focus in this debate will lie on issues of women's peace, above all the question of controlling behavior.
Just as I said in my previous exchange with Charlotte Nordström, the issue of violence against women and women's peace was a strongly prioritized issue for the Social Democratic-led government during all the eight years that we had the privilege of sitting in government.
Parallel to our robust fight against gang crime, we constantly had the issue of violence against women as a priority. We constantly monitored that the investments we made in that area were in parity with our investments in the area regarding organized crime and gang crime.
We then commissioned an inquiry specifically regarding the issue of psychological violence. Psychological violence is a horrific form of abuse, which is de facto more common than the physical abuse that all too many women are subjected to. The inquiry was completed in August 2022. The previous government then proposed that psychological abuse should be introduced in Sweden as a new type of crime.
What is it about? What is it that we are actually talking about? Yes, the psychological abuse aims to break down a partner's—often a woman's—self-confidence. The abuse can take very diffuse forms. It is difficult for, often, the woman to see the violations and their systematic nature. They often come creeping in at the beginning, which means that one is not always aware of what is happening in the relationship. Many times this happens in such a manipulative way that one adopts the abuser's negative image. This eats away at one's mind and one's soul.
Psychological abuse is a systematic and repeated violation of, usually, the woman's person. It is directed at her intelligence, mental health, illness, appearance, clothing, choice of friends, parenting ability, cooking, cleaning, sexual experiences or relationships at the workplace. Often it also involves a power imbalance between the parties.
To be constantly insulted with words is psychological abuse. The psychological violence can also consist of being isolated from the outside world, not being allowed to pursue one's interests, move freely outside the home, or socialize with relatives and friends, or being ridiculed, exposed, or defamed in front of others by the person one has a relationship with. We also know that the psychological violence can be directed towards children, pets, or others who are close to the person being subjected to it. It becomes another way to exercise control. Many women who are subjected to both physical and psychological abuse state that it is this part that is the worst.
It is also common that young people are particularly vulnerable.
Today we, as was said, have no definition in our Swedish penal code. But according to both the Socialstyrelsen and WHO's definitions, the violence can be both physical and psychological.
That psychological violence is a real and serious problem stands beyond all reasonable doubt. For example, the mapping from Stiftelsen Allmänna Barnhuset from 2022 showed that 15 percent of the students reported that they had been subjected to psychological violence by an adult. 12 percent reported that they had been subjected to it by a parent.
As I said in my previous exchange: One month after the current government took office, this investigation, with a proposal for entry into force on 1 January 2024, was fully referred and with completed referral responses on this government's table.
The investigator's assessment was that there was a need to further strengthen the criminal law protection and that a new specific crime type should be introduced aimed at precisely the heinous violence that I described.
Brå points out in its referral response – regarding the massive criticism that actually does not exist in the referral response – among other things Denmark, where this type of legislation already exists, which speaks strongly for the fact that it is possible to introduce it here as well. The police also believe that there is a need to introduce this legislation and give a thumbs up.
There is no preparation process in the Government Offices regarding a fully submitted proposal if the government wants to present it, which takes 18 months.
After my colleague in the Committee on Justice, Sanna Backeskog, had submitted an interpellation to Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer, he stood here in the Riksdag's rostrum a year ago and spoke very warmly about the importance of something being done in this matter: "I turn the tables and say that if this is not on the Riksdag's table in a year, you can chase me with a blue light here in the rostrum at that time. I just want to confirm that the crime victim perspective is a very strong reason to legislate against actions that obviously are not caught by criminal law today but which we, for a number of reasons, believe that the whole society, ultimately through the state and criminal law, must mark sharply against. It is urgent to find a way forward."
As late as last week, I participated in yet another interpellation debate on exactly the same theme here in the Riksdag. The Minister for Justice then, almost a year later, gave exactly the same answer: The question is complex. It is being prepared in the Government Offices.
This is not sufficient! It is a clear expression that a matter is not being prioritized, and that is not sufficient. We cannot have a government for which the important work for women's peace and new initiatives to combat men's violence against women only become a lip service.
The Social Democratic-led government initiated the paradigm shift in crime policy through approximately 80 tightened sentences and a new criminalization of about 30 offenses. Now we have more police than ever. We opened two additional police training programs. We see that the work must continue with further sentence increases and more police.
During these years, we also strengthened the work regarding men's violence against women. We appointed, among other things, 350 new investigators who specifically work with issues of women's peace. We implemented the consent legislation which makes it clearer that sex that is not voluntary is illegal. This constitutes one of the milestones and has radically increased the number of convictions in rape cases.
We also tightened the penalties for several sexual offenses as well as for assault, aggravated violation of a woman's integrity, and violation of a restraining order. It is now also a crime to expose a child to seeing and hearing crimes of violence in a close relationship.
It is important for us Social Democrats that this work continues with the same clarity and the same force. That being said, I want to emphasize that we naturally stand by all our reservations, but I move for approval only to reservation 4 regarding controlling behavior.
Adam Marttinen (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I do not rule out that recriminalization is the way forward so that fewer women are subjected to serious crimes, especially in close relationships. Therefore, it is very pleasing that we have a government that is taking quite groundbreaking measures in this area.
A new sanction proposed by the government is precisely detention to make it possible to keep people even with fixed-term sentences locked up if they, in accordance with their previous criminal history, are considered to pose a danger to society.
The Prison and Probation Service has fairly good tools for identifying the most dangerous perpetrators who assault their women in partner violence. The levels are low, medium, and high probability of recidivism. Unfortunately, these tools have shown themselves to have a fairly high accuracy. In our prisons, there are today more than 400 people who are assessed to have a high risk of recidivism in just this type of crime. In probation, there are around 700. Unfortunately, we have been alerted to very many cases where persons in probation have entered into new relationships with women they have assaulted and thereby created new crime victims.
New criminalization in all its glory, but why are the Social Democrats against introducing a type of detention sentence that makes it possible to hold people with a high risk of recidivism? That way, one can avoid creating new crime victims from the very beginning.
Annika Strandhäll (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you to Adam Marttinen for the question, and welcome to the debate!
The Sweden Democrats' newly awakened interest in issues of women's peace pleases me immensely. At the same time, perhaps the simple solution is not always to lock people up and throw away the key. As Social Democrats, we are generally quite skeptical of that type of sentencing scales.
As I mentioned in my speech, this was one of the highest priority issues during all the years that we led the government. Not least in the area of women's peace, a number of new criminalizations, increased penalties, and the introduction of a number of other different measures took place.
It concerns, among other things, restraining orders, an area where we look forward to further tightenings being possible, and an increased use of ankle bracelets. One can also work in a more systematic way with all the other possibilities we have in our society, not least when it comes to shifting the focus from the perpetrator to the one who is a victim of crime. It could, for example, involve that the woman should have the opportunity to keep the housing and that she receives collective support from all resources in society.
Given that the police themselves have been very critical of their own prioritization regarding men's violence against women, we also agree that the police should prioritize this crime category.
Adam Marttinen (SD)
Mr. Speaker! That is why it is so strange that the Social Democrats stand behind the secrecy provision that prevents the correctional services from informing the police when these specific high-risk individuals are released from the institution. Stepping up to protect people out in society when dangerous people are released is, as I see it, part of the important work.
I certainly have full respect for the fact that we disagree, but it is strange that politicians can consider that the best way forward is for people who have relapsed into crimes such as aggravated violations of a woman's integrity and who are judged by the correctional services to have a high risk of recidivism for just that type of crime to receive fixed-term sentences and be released and reintegrated into society again as quickly as possible, in order to be able to create new crime victims there. It is a logic that does not hold together.
My commitment to the issue stretches quite far back in time. In 2017, I raised the issue of suspended sentences regarding exactly this type of problem. It was a very high-profile case where it was so clear that the person in question had victimized many crime victims after time-limited sentences. But during their time in government, the Social Democrats ensured that these individuals would be reintegrated into society as quickly as possible, and new crime victims were victimized.
Why are the Social Democrats so intent on ensuring that men who are so well-identified and whose criminal history is so well-documented receive time-limited sentences and are reintegrated into society and create new crime victims? Why is the issue of detention sentences so impossible for the Social Democrats to accept?
Annika Strandhäll (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Adam Marttinen!
I do not share the image that we think these perpetrators should be released into society as quickly as possible, as Adam Marttinen expressed it twice in his post. On the contrary, during the eight years we led the government, we tightened the penalties, not least when it came to sexual offenses but also for assault, aggravated violation of a woman's peace, and violation of a restraining order. The claim is therefore not correct.
The type of enthusiasm for the detention instrument that the Sweden Democrats occasionally express does not normally belong in a democratic society without there being special reasons. There is incredibly much more to be done in the field of women's peace, beyond detention sentences. In light of the fact that the Sweden Democrats express such an interest in women's peace work, I hope that I can be joined in the hope that one can meet in other areas, which include, among other things, the fact that after your appointment as the largest party in the government base, you still sit and watch as the state funds for women's peace work are cut. 6 percent of what is needed to introduce the protected housing reform is sent to Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, and one watches as SKR's women's peace initiative is closed.
The list of propositions echoes empty when it comes to new investigations and new legislative initiatives to combat men's violence against women. It is about both prevention and using the full power of society to combat the crime.
Torsten Elofsson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! For most in our country, safety is at the top of the wish list. Law and order is one of the voters' absolutely most important issues. This applies both in relation to the legislation adopted here in the chamber and ahead of the upcoming EU elections, where cross-border crime is something we must solve together.
Dark headlines about the violence and the gross crime follow one another. Skärholmen, where a father was murdered before his son's eyes, is an enormous tragedy for everyone involved. It is yet another heinous murder that shows the enormous needs, the brutality, and the challenges we face with individuals who consider themselves to have the right to use and inflict violence on the entire society. A father is deprived of his life for the simple reason that he spoke out.
Mikael, as he was called, stood up for the Sweden we want, but this Sweden is being silenced by the gross crime.
Mr. Speaker! The light in the darkness is nevertheless that we have a government that understands the seriousness of this. We are now making the largest reorganization of crime policy in modern times. It is being done because we see and know what the dismantling of good norms and values over time has done to Swedish society. Much of the explanation for the brutal development of crime lies in this. It has not been clear which values are not selectable. Sweden has betrayed the importance of the family and the importance of a compass that shows the direction for right and wrong. This has also been reflected in the low sentences and in the sentencing that has placed greater weight on mitigating circumstances for the perpetrator than on the redress of the crime victim.
Mr. Speaker! The Government is working diligently and with great energy in the legal area for law and order, for safety, to strengthen good norms and values, as well as for crime prevention work.
There are no silver bullets against crime. As a former police officer, I have seen the development of crime first-hand throughout an entire professional life. The measures that are now being introduced should have been in place much earlier, but the inclination and the will for change were lacking. Now it is what it is, and I know that it is a patient work that is required, a methodical work step by step. There is no quick fix here. But slowly and surely, we regain safety.
Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats have for years said that society must prioritize the person who has been subjected to a crime. Now we have a government that also lets this fact guide the policy. The government has initiated a paradigm shift in the view of law and order. We have commissioned a complete and total review of the Penal Code, that is, the legislation that governs the sentences handed down when justice is to be administered in our courts. The goal of this work is simple. It is a matter of rebalancing the scales, of changing criminal law and letting the crime victim, not the perpetrator, stand in the center. Place the care there, not on the perpetrator.
Mr. Speaker! A recent survey from Infostat indicates that a majority of voters believe that stricter and more deterrent sentences are the best line to reduce crime. The sentences are not perceived as just and proportionate, and crime victims do not receive the redress that is expected.
Nor neither is the punishment perceived as a deterrent for the one who commits a crime. One is locked up for a while but is often out again after a short time, back in the destructive gang environment where one receives their validation. A change is needed here. There must be punishments that ensure dangerous persons are locked up for longer periods so that they cannot commit new crimes, destroy others' lives, or recruit new young people into criminality. And when they finally come out, we must ensure that they do not relapse into crime.
Mr. Speaker! In the same survey from Infostat, 70 percent state that it would be good to abolish the sentence reduction for crimes of a repetitive nature. 61 percent think that the sentence reduction should also be abolished for young people, and 64 percent think it is a good proposal that one is sentenced to an extra harsh penalty if the crime was committed in a gang environment. People in general seem to agree with the government that a change is needed when it comes to the view on punishment and criminal law.
The figures speak for themselves. Sweden needs a new criminal law, that is to say a new balance where we re-weigh the scales with a focus on increased penalties rather than discounts. We Christian Democrats want to change the bulk discount in its current form and let aggravating circumstances carry more weight.
Offenders must not be left in the lurch because we would then leave the entire society in the lurch. Ultimately, it is a matter of values, meaning that there must be justice and that the one who is affected by a crime and the violation it entails must receive redress.
The Christian Democrats are the values-driven party, and as a Christian Democrat, I will always fight for the values that have built our society strong. These values are needed now more than ever. Mikael in Skärholmen stood up for the Sweden we want. Sweden must no longer be silenced by the gross crime.
With these words, Mr. Speaker, I move for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report.
Adam Marttinen (SD)
Mr. Speaker! We are debating the Committee on Justice's report on criminal law issues. Unfortunately, the debates about the most serious crimes are recurring in our society. Murders occur in the open street and grave crimes of violation of peace against women. Ruthless gang-related violence is being perpetrated, and gang criminality and terrorism instill fear in our communities. Those who represent the previous government have repeatedly said that they indeed did everything they could to implement their own crime policy. The Social Democratic governments did a lot, according to themselves, to implement their own policy. One must not doubt that they truly did everything they wanted to do during their time in government. Then one can also state that there is a big difference between the previous governments with the Social Democrats at the helm and the current government when it comes to the Tidö Agreement's part in crime policy.
Let me give a few short examples. Someone who deliberately and plannedly murders another human being can today be met with three years of closed youth care. Three years of closed youth care for a person who murders another human being! It is well-considered Social Democratic policy that has been defended for eight years in government. It is clear that there is a difference between the Social Democrats' criminal law policy and the Sweden Democrats' view on the matter.
Fortunately, as we have said, we have a Tidö Agreement which addresses not only that part but much more as well.
The sentence reduction for adult offenders will be removed. The sentence reduction that exists for persons between 15 and 18 years old, who are currently criminally responsible, will be reduced. Furthermore, the Government shall investigate and lower the age of criminal responsibility in our country.
We think it is important that one takes responsibility for one's own actions and that serious crimes are followed by serious punishments - not least, Mr. Speaker, to provide redress to the crime victims who were harvested as a result of this violence.
One hears how mothers process trials when their children have been murdered and the retribution for their children's death became three years of closed juvenile care for a perpetrator. We cannot have it this way anymore. Thank goodness we have a new government in place.
A selection of the criminal law tightenings and reforms that will be implemented is that quantity discounts will be abolished in their current form. The three most serious crimes shall be assigned full penalty value. Recidivism shall be punished more severely. A new penalty of detention sentences will be introduced so that society finally gets the opportunity to keep the most dangerous criminals locked up even for fixed-term sentences, for example, persons who commit repeated crimes of violation of peace against women. Those persons must be able to be kept locked up when the Prison and Probation Service makes the assessment that there is a high risk of recidivism. We think it is completely unreasonable - the Social Democrats think it is reasonable, but the new government thinks it is unreasonable - that persons with a high risk of recidivism are released in cases where the Prison and Probation Service's methods show high accuracy in assessment. Even those on parole are released and harvest new crime victims while they are under parole.
For me, it is absolutely hair-raising that we have had governments that have defended this way of dealing with very dangerous individuals in our country. But now we finally, as we have said, have a government that is also reviewing those parts.
We will double the penalties for gang crime. This is because the gang criminal environment constitutes a systemic threat. They attack society in completely different ways than in other types of violent crimes. It is clear that we need a sharpened focus on getting these individuals locked up for longer periods in order to break down the structures that threaten society at its core.
The presumption against imprisonment must be abolished. This means that more people will serve their sentence in prison. It is also something that the Social Democrats are against.
New sanctions for young people will be introduced.
We have implemented proposals on visitation zones, which the Social Democrats have voted against, and stay bans for gang criminals and persons who cause disturbances in areas, which the Social Democrats have voted against.
There is, Mr. Speaker, a solid piece of work and a well-executed investigation at the Ministry of Justice. It is because of and thanks to the fact that we have received a new government in place that puts the crime victims in the foreground and that will ensure that dangerous perpetrators are actually punished and kept inside the institution. A very big difference will be noticed in the field of criminal law when this government has implemented its policy compared to what the Social Democrats' previous governments implemented.
Mr. Speaker! I choose not to move for anything, but we obviously stand behind the Sweden Democrats' reservations in the report.
Gudrun Nordborg (V)
Mr. Speaker! I begin by, as a member of the Left Party and a feminist, urging approval of reservation 4.
Psychological violence and controlling behavior should be criminalized. As I have already pointed out here, a proposal, a comprehensive and solid department memorandum, was submitted to the department in the summer of 2022 regarding criminal liability for psychological violence. The referral process was completed on November 15, 2022, which is approximately one and a half years ago.
Why is the bill delayed? I share the views that have been expressed earlier in the debate – that it is a matter of a lack of interest in issues that primarily affect women and children. They have seriously come into the shadow of gang crime, as if we were not to see the connections between those crimes. I will return to that.
I mean that it is appalling that reforms that would mean a lot for giving women and children stronger protection and the opportunity for redress are not prioritized by the current regime. People talk about crime victims but forget women and children.
It is also about an important reform that would create increased understanding of what violence in close relationships and men's violence against women and children really means and what effects it has.
It is still the case in Sweden that almost every other woman has experienced this violence at some point. Many experience it repeatedly and continuously in their everyday lives.
It is also the case that every tenth child has experienced violence in their home. Every document twentieth child does so often.
We must deploy additional resources here and increase the understanding of the vulnerability. It is about human rights but also about a very long history of resistance.
I want to start by pointing out something that I consider to be an important building block.
In Sweden, we often talk about respect for human rights and especially about other countries showing this. But what do we show?
The Istanbul Convention - the convention that was adopted by the Council of Europe already in 2011 and entered into force in 2014, i.e., ten years ago - shows a definition that shall apply in the countries that have ratified the convention, which Sweden has done. One speaks about men's violence against women and children, and one speaks primarily about gender-related violence.
What is meant by that? Yes, it is physical violence and sexual violence. There, I believe everyone agrees that we have legislation in any case – even if it is not followed. But one also marks psychological and economic violence, meaning both of those things. There, we lack legislation in Sweden.
It is interesting that the Istanbul Convention includes economic violence in the concept of psychological violence. They are thus linked in two ways.
It is also the case that the convention requires the member states to enact legislation. This is something that Sweden has committed to by ratifying the convention. It is therefore high time that we get down to business.
That economic violence is included in this is very important, because we primarily see women who, after a relationship, discover that they are still burdened with debts caused by the man or that have been affected during the relationship by them not being able to work or that they have lost financially in settlements that the man has forced upon them.
It is very common for this type of violence to occur in parallel with physical and sexual violence. It is a dimension of psychological violence. In that regard, we have already received criticism from Grevio, the monitoring body for the Istanbul Convention.
It is worth mentioning that the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women has criticized Sweden for a long time. It started as early as 2007. It is noted that we partially have good legislation, but that there are too few convictions and that the application of the legislation must be improved. I also want to note that the Convention on the Rights of the Child very clearly includes psychological violence. We have adopted it as Swedish law, but we do not follow up on that with criminalization either.
What do we mean by violence? From what I have already said, you can understand that there are many variations of violence. How we have perceived violence has varied greatly over time. I will take just a few historical examples.
There was an immense discussion in the previous two chambers before the Penal Code was to enter into force in 1965, because there was a proposal that rape in marriage should be criminalized. It was about to tip over the entire major criminal law reform.
In 1979, we received a ban on child abuse that made the world marvel. Many are now following suit.
Domestic violence was not subject to public prosecution until 1982. It was one of the women's movement's first successes in legislation. Now, violence in the home was to be perceived as just as serious as violence in a public place, where it was often man against man, while in the home it was men against women.
In 1999, the crimes of violation of peace came into force. For the first time, we realized that it is more serious to be subjected to violence and abuse in the home than in public places – where it may be one-time occurrences, while it happens repeatedly in the home.
This was an enormous paradigm shift. The consideration it was based on arrived as early as 1995. There, the primary goal was to address situations of what one, not without reason, called psychological terror. Common to what one wanted to punish were actions intended to permanently violate a woman's integrity and damage her self-esteem. It was a legal expression of what concerned psychological influence. It was argued that psychological violence should receive severe and long-lasting penalties, and that was included in the paragraph that was proposed. Just as in the situation we have now, it became an enormous debate. How should this be interpreted? Especially the male-dominated referral bodies were extremely critical of this, so it was not included in the reform proposal.
Psychological violence must be given further attention, and we must return to the basic principles regarding the crime of violence against women. In the current investigation, it is further noted that it is a continuum – it is nuances rather than species differences between the different types of violence. There is psychological violence, which often comes first. There is physical violence and sexual violence, and now we are also talking about forms of digital violence, which it is argued should be included in psychological violence.
It is about what these actions do to the victim. If we are to have a true victim's perspective, we must expand our penal legislation and ensure that all different types of acts of violence involving undue control and psychological abuse of a victim are included in the legislation. It is about power and control.
It is also about ensuring that more children do not become witnesses to or victims of crime and abuse in the home, which in turn leads to them using violence and committing abuse in their own lives. We must intervene as early as we can. This is an important example.
Ulrika Liljeberg (C)
Mr. Speaker! Sweden faces great challenges daily. In recent years, we have seen a very problematic development of safety in Sweden. We see gang crime with shootings and explosions, we see human trafficking, weapons and drugs, and we see fraud against the elderly and against the welfare state. All these crimes are extremely serious. Today, I will focus on another serious area: men's violence against women and violence in relationships.
When it comes to, for example, visitation zones, we speak of "vulnerable areas," which are defined by the police. But I want to remind you that when it comes to sexual offenses, men's violence against women, and violence against children, all of Sweden is a vulnerable area. Therefore, I want to again highlight the need for a present police force in the entire country for all crimes and all people.
It has been argued, among other things here in the debate, that longer sentences and tougher measures result in fewer crimes. That is true to some extent, but what we know deters almost mostly is the risk of detection and prosecution. An imminent risk of getting caught is very preventive. This requires a locally present police force throughout the country that has a high level of trust among the population and that investigates all types of crimes. This is what we know happens when the police are on site. So let the police be on site in the whole country!
We also need to have a greater focus on getting the men to stop committing these serious crimes, and not a sometimes somewhat one-sided focus on how women can best escape the men. Brå has, among other things, shown successful methods within the police that target the men directly, the perpetrators. We see that more of that is needed.
Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party has today motions on several issues up for consideration. When it comes to crimes of violation of privacy, we see a need for a sentencing scale that corresponds to their severity. The minimum sentence for gross violation of privacy and gross violation of a woman's privacy needs to be raised from one to two years of imprisonment, and the maximum sentence for these crimes needs to be raised from six to ten years of imprisonment.
I also consider that the criminal classifications extremely serious violation of peace and extremely serious violation of women's peace should be introduced. It is significant for the general perception of justice if the most serious peace violation crimes are named by their correct names so that the full gravity is apparent.
We further consider that psychological violence and controlling behavior should be criminalized, which has been touched upon earlier here in the debate. In the summer of 2022, such a proposal was submitted in the department memorandum Criminal Responsibility for Psychological Violence. We view it positively that it is put on the table. We also consider that the government should present this as soon as possible.
The parties in the government basis propose rejection of all of this. Most proposals on increased penalties for violations of privacy, controlling behavior, and other matters are rejected with the justification that the so-called Penal Reform Commission is ongoing. Its report is not expected until May 30, 2025, which is to say in over a year. Then the usual process with referrals and drafting of legislative proposals takes place, and this can take time.
It is in itself a good way to calmly investigate, refer for consultation, and then legislate, and to have sufficient time between the decision here and the entry into force. This should, however, be weighed against some of the other legislative processes we have seen from the government's side recently and will probably see more of in the future. We have seen rapid consultation rounds during public holidays and short periods between committee processing, debate, and entry into force.
On Wednesday, for example, we have a debate on the bill Strengthened protection for certain police officers, where a strong objection from many referral bodies was that they desired a unified approach. They wanted the government to wait for the ongoing referral round for another investigation, which handles the need for similar protection for several other groups of public employees. But there, they ran a fast track for a group of police officers.
We from Centerpartiet are, as said, aware of the seriousness, and we stand behind the bill that is to be debated on Wednesday. But we note at the same time that violence by men against women, which so far this year has taken at least twelve lives, is not prioritized in the same way. I know that there is no one, neither here nor in the government, who does not think that these are despicable crimes. But at the same time, it can be expected that one uses the power one has been given to protect everyone in the best possible way. That also includes promptness with legislation, especially in cases like this, which do not concern constitutionally protected civil liberties, as has been the case in some of the legislative matters that have been fast-tracked.
The government can do better. Protecting all people from being subjected to crime is, as said, one of the state's primary tasks.
I therefore move for approval of reservation 2 under point 2 regarding increased penalties for crimes of breach of peace.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.