Criminal law issues

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating criminal law issues. The Committee on Justice proposes that the Riksdag reject all motions, among others with reference to ongoing work.

Today, Sweden plays a World Cup playoff against Poland, a match I will watch on-site later this evening. Thoughts of a Swedish victory made me think of a well-known Swedish quote that has taken deep root in the Swedish consciousness. In a televised match, Arne Hegerfors is said to have remarked that it "looks dark on Cameroon's substitutes' bench."

The fact is, however, that all World Cup matches shown on Swedish TV where Cameroon played have been reviewed, and nowhere could the quote be found. They have even reviewed all matches where different African teams played, but nowhere could they find that he, or anyone else, says this. Despite this, many who listen can surely say they have heard it. Even Hegerfors himself said many years later in an interview that he believed he had actually said so.

This phenomenon is called the Mandela Effect. It concerns how, through created memories, a person, or oneself, is made to remember things that actually never happened. Another quote where this effect can be applied is the one that says if a lie is repeated enough times, it eventually becomes a truth. Another well-known example is that many believe the Alliance leaders bathed in a bathtub when the Alliance was formed in 2004, something that also never happened.

Just within politics, we see time and again attempts at this. The Social Democrats repeat the mantra that they have always been for nuclear power, even though the truth shows the opposite. The same party claims that they have always wanted order and clarity in migration policy, even though the reality is completely different. They also try to take credit for the reorganization of crime policy, not least the criminal law issues, which is a third attempt.

We in the Sweden Democrats and our coalition parties won the 2022 election to fix the energy policy, where the Social Democrats' decommissioning of Swedish nuclear power has caused electricity prices to skyrocket. We won the election by promising order and clarity in migration policy, where there has been great disorder for a very long time, and now we have the lowest asylum-related immigration in over 40 years. We also won the election by promising proper sentencing increases and that we would deal with the violence and insecurity in Sweden, and now the shootings have more than halved. That is the truth, and everything else is an attempt at historical falsification.

In the debate, one is often met with the argument that stricter punishments do not work and that instead one needs to invest in preventive measures. First and foremost, that question is not black or white, but one can do both. During the last Social Democratic government term, the number of shootings increased by over 200 percent, and now it has decreased by half. With the argumentation I mentioned, the Social Democrats failed in the preventive work during their last eight years in power, while we in the Tidö parties have succeeded with the preventive work during our four years in power.

I believe in a combination of both. We need to give all children in Sweden the opportunity to do what they want with their lives, and I think Sweden is good at that. We have compulsory school from preschool class and throughout primary school. After that, you have the opportunity for upper secondary studies, where you also receive a grant to study, and after that, you have the chance to educate yourself even more and receive even higher study grants – if you do not take the chance to work immediately after upper secondary school.

Whatever one chooses, Sweden is full of opportunities. We have an extensive voluntary life that is significantly cheaper than in comparable countries, and we have leisure activities in schools and youth centers to hang out at after the leisure activities at the schools close. In other words, there is no reason whatsoever to choose a criminal lifestyle.

What are we then to do with the children who nevertheless choose to become criminals after parents, teachers, counselors, and social services have failed to set boundaries? Well, then it is the Prison and Probation Service that needs to step in, both for the children's best interests and for the safety of all law-abiding citizens.

Let me also be clear about one thing in this debate: Incarceration works. If one is incarcerated, one cannot commit new crimes, and one cannot recruit new youths to commit new crimes. If one is a youth, one will furthermore have a duty of education to be fulfilled at our new youth detention centers, something that has likely been difficult for these youths during the time they have been left to their own devices. It is nothing other than a good gift from society to them and their future.

They say that I have imprisoned thousands – I say that I have liberated millions. Those words come from the president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele. El Salvador became known for being the world's most dangerous country and had, in its worst moments, over 100 murders per 100,000 inhabitants. That is as if 11,000 murders were to occur in Sweden every year. In El Salvador, President Bukele chose to launch a counter-offensive against the gangs. Over 60,000 people with gang connections were imprisoned, and what happened then? Well, in 2025 the country had 82 cases of murder, which is slightly lower than Sweden in the same year.

With that said: I am not saying that El Salvador has done everything right, and this is in no way a support for the policy being pursued there. But it shows with all clarity that locking down works even in the most violent places on earth.

The criticism, however, was not long in coming from organizations such as Amnesty and Civil Rights Defenders, who also criticize our policy. Just as in the case of Sweden, these organizations never offer any criticism when people are murdered, raped, robbed, and have their lives destroyed. The criticism comes only when someone tries to set things right, just as when the same organizations have directed criticism at us. It is only when one tries to lock up thousands of dangerous people in order to free millions of people from gang violence that the so-called human rights organizations become outraged. To me, it is completely incomprehensible.

Now the Sweden Democrats and the Tidö parties are rolling out the largest penal reform of the last decades. This, in combination with our previous measures, which increased secret coercive measures for our law enforcement agencies, that more criminals shall be deported and that we want to be able to revoke the citizenship of those who commit serious crimes, implies draconian changes compared to how crime policy in Sweden previously looked.

We will also make it criminal to be a member of a criminal gang, something that requires a constitutional amendment. It is a measure that will truly put a spoke in the wheels of many of the organized criminal networks in Sweden. Since a constitutional amendment is required, a parliamentary decision before the election and one after the election will be required to pass the changes.

When we early in this parliamentary term implemented the change regarding the criminalization of participation in a terrorist organization, all parties were in agreement, with the exception of Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet, who reserved themselves and in their statements referred to, among other things, freedom of association. The aforementioned Amnesty and Civil Rights Defenders considered the legislation to be "deeply problematic." We simply have to see how the opposition parties position themselves when one of the parliamentary term's most important issues is addressed later this year.

Mr. Speaker! I move for the rejection of all motions.

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

Heléne Björklund (S)

Mr. Speaker! The member requested a rejection of all motions, so also the Social Democrats' motion on puberty requirements.

I would like to ask the Sweden Democrats why they do not want to proceed with the important issue that children should be allowed to be children regardless of how they have developed during puberty. We have, therefore, submitted a proposal to proceed and review whether it is truly reasonable to judge children differently depending on how far they have progressed in puberty. I would very much like the member to elaborate on their motion here.

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

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I cannot say that I do not agree with what the Social Democrats are saying, because I think just as you do that it is a very important issue, Heléne Björklund. The simple answer, however, is that we are rolling out a number of different changes to the legislation and that work is ongoing at the Government Offices regarding these issues. We will therefore simply have to return to that specific point further ahead.

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

Heléne Björklund (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Member Pontus Andersson Garpvall!

I am pleased that we agree on this issue. The Government has, however, not initiated any such matter, so it does not look like any proposal will be coming. It is therefore not just a rejection of our motion, but there is no investigation into this.

Furthermore, I want to follow up on this matter regarding online safety, which the European Parliament voted on five days ago. There, the Sweden Democrats voted so that one can no longer investigate, detect, and report sexual abuse that occurs online, i.e., that which we also handle here in Sweden. This means that in three days it will no longer be possible, which is an extremely severe deterioration and weakening of children's rights and the possibility to detect pedophiles online.

I know that the member does not sit in the European Parliament, but I wonder anyway if you have any contact and how you intend to proceed, Pontus Andersson Garpvall. Do you have any concrete solution for how we should handle this in Sweden when the opportunity is now disappearing at the European level?

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

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! During this parliamentary term, we have moved forward with a multitude of measures precisely to prevent this type of crime. How members have voted in the European Parliament must stand for them.

What I can state is that we have rolled out major sentencing increases during this mandate period, and more will come. We have ensured that from tomorrow, the police can work in the same way as Dumpen does to identify, find, and provoke crimes and thereby can ensure that more pedophiles come to light. In that way, one can work on crime prevention and reach the people who set out to try to commit sexual crimes against children. I think that is a step in the right direction.

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

Heléne Björklund (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the report on criminal law issues. I want to begin by clarifying that the Social Democrats stand behind all of their reservations. To save time, however, I move for approval only of reservation 11 under point 12, which concerns child pornography crimes.

I will use my time here today to speak about society's responsibility to protect those who are most vulnerable. It is about children who are subjected to sexual abuse, about children who are drawn into crime, and about women who live with violence and control.

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats are pursuing a crime policy with a clear message: We shall be tough on crime, but we shall also be accurate and ensure legal certainty.

Everyone here thinks that the past week, with five shootings and four dead, was abominable. I want to turn directly to the victims' relatives and say: Today we think of you especially. We think of you relatives, of you in the families, of you friends and of you who are kin. Our common promise from this chamber must be that we will do everything in our power so that it never happens again and so that children in Sweden can grow up in safety.

Gang violence is creeping down in age. Children are recruited into serious crimes and used by adult criminals, and far too many women are subjected to violence and control. We are proud of much that we did during our time in government. We ensured that many penalties were toughened. We ensured that more police were deployed. We also enacted a historic forfeiture legislation. But we are also honest: It was not enough. We should have done more, and we should have done it faster. Therefore, we have developed our policy.

We want to see a Swedish mafia law that ensures the entire criminal structure can be prosecuted, not just the one holding the weapon. We want to strike at the gangs' money – at their companies and their economy. If we are to break the gangs, we must break their business model.

Mr. Speaker! Criminal policy is also about the violence that occurs behind closed doors. Violence in close relationships is one of our absolute biggest societal problems. Behind every report of violence is a human being and an everyday life marked by fear. That fear has major consequences for everyday life and for working life. Therefore, this is a societal problem and not merely a problem for the individual human being.

It is not just about physical violence, but it is also about control, threats, psychological breakdown, and economic dependence. We have pushed for stronger sexual offense legislation, criminalization of honor-based oppression, and better protection for those exposed to violence. It is good that the criminalization of psychological violence is now becoming a reality – we are very pleased with that – but even more needs to be done. We also want to see that economic violence and post-violence are investigated, that the police receive better tools to secure evidence, and that the protection for individuals and the vulnerable always carries the most weight.

Mr. Speaker! When we talk about criminal law, we must also talk about the victim's situation after the crime. We Social Democrats know that society is at its best when it holds together, but very often crime victims feel that society does not stand sufficiently on their side. Many crime victims describe how lonely they feel when the legal process begins. Therefore, the work of civil society is so incredibly important.

Women's shelters and crime victim helplines do invaluable work, but they must be given long-term and stable conditions. The support for the crime victim helplines has decreased, and the women's shelters testify that protected housing is being closed down. We want to see a unified crime victim law that strengthens the right to support, protection, and information.

Mr. Speaker! We see daily how children are exploited in crime. Adults who themselves avoid risks and instead send children forward is the most cynical thing I have ever seen. The new penal provision including the involvement of minors in crime was therefore a very important milestone. It clarifies that those who recruit or use children in crime shall be able to be convicted. We Social Democrats now see that it must be followed up that the law actually works, especially when it comes to the recruitment of children into gangs. We are also prepared to tighten it further.

Mr. Speaker! I want to elaborate on the reasoning behind our reservation 11. It concerns child pornography crimes and how we protect children from sexual exploitation.

Part of this concerns the so-called puberty requirement. It is a difficult word but a very simple problem. A child should always be a child, but right here the legislation makes an exception. This means in practice that two 15-year-olds can receive different protection depending on how their bodies look. As the law functions today, nude images of a child who has progressed far in puberty sometimes may not be counted as child pornography.

At the same time, these crimes are changing very rapidly. Abuse material is now spread in digital environments that did not even exist when the laws were written. The laws must keep pace with reality. Therefore, we believe that the government should appoint an inquiry to review the so-called puberty requirement regarding child pornography. The focus should be very simple: Has a child been exploited? Has a child been sexualized? It should not be about how far puberty has progressed. The legislation must be clear, modern, and fair.

I also want to say something about the fight against sexual abuse of children online. In just a few days, important EU rules risk expiring, as I said earlier. These rules make it possible today to detect abuse material and identify children who are being exposed. This means in practice that fewer children can be found, fewer perpetrators can be exposed, and more abuses can continue in silence.

As a parent and legislator, I find it very difficult to understand this. That is why it is also very difficult to understand that the Tidö parties voted no to this in the European Parliament. We Social Democrats think it is a completely wrong priority.

Mr. Speaker! We will continue to work to protect children against sexual abuse, against exploitation and against being drawn into crime. We are ready to take responsibility, also in opposition. We are ready to do things together, despite being in opposition, because we see how important this is and that children must be saved from being drawn into crime and vulnerability.

I would like, as I have said, to move for approval of reservation 11 under point 12.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are now carrying out a reorganization of the crime policy to make Sweden a safer country. It is about a fundamental shift in perspective: from a focus on the perpetrator to a focus on the crime victim and society's need for protection. Dangerous people shall be imprisoned so that all of us others dare to be out.

The plan to push back the gangs stands on three legs: strike hard against the gangs' gross violence, strangle the criminal economy, and break the recruitment of children and young people into the gangs.

At the same time, we have implemented important reforms to combat men's violence against women and honor-related violence and oppression.

We are now debating a committee report on criminal law issues where a large number of motions from the general motion period are being addressed. I move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of the motions.

By reason of the report, there are grounds to provide a broader description of the policy shift that the government is now implementing. With security zones and preventive stay bans, independent forfeiture, anonymous witnesses, expanded secret and preventive coercive measures, relaxations in the regulatory framework surrounding camera surveillance, and removed confidentiality barriers between authorities, the police have received a multitude of new tools that have proven to yield good results in crime fighting.

The government is making historical investments in the justice system. The appropriations for the justice system will increase from 69 billion to 108 billion during 2023–2028. This is completely necessary to manage the fight against organized crime, but also all other crime in its full scope. Sweden cannot have an order where much of the volume of crime is completely ignored and where violence against women is not taken as seriously as serious organized crime.

The Swedish Police Authority has received a clear mandate for change: to re-establish a locally visible and safety-creating police force, increase the pressure in investigative activities, and ensure effective management, use, and monitoring of the police's growing resources.

Mr. Speaker! We now see how the police are growing also locally. The places at the police training programs are now filled, and a new police training will start in Uppsala. This creates conditions to not only work incident-driven but also proactively to prevent crime.

The Prison and Probation Service is being expanded, and by the end of the parliamentary term, the Prison and Probation Service will have expanded by over 5,000 places.

Mr. Speaker! In order to combat the criminal economy and welfare crimes, the Swedish Payments Agency and the Financial Intelligence Unit have been established. The police have been given new opportunities to use covert coercive measures even against certain economic crimes, for example, aggravated fraud, aggravated tax crimes, aggravated benefit crimes, and aggravated smuggling.

The Customs' powers have been expanded. Export of stolen goods from Sweden has been criminalized, as has unauthorized hawala activity. Furthermore, the possibilities to impose a business ban due to crime have been expanded.

We are taking action to prevent gangs from recruiting children. Preventive coercive measures have been introduced even against children under 15 years of age to reach those who control and order via the children's mobile phones. We are also implementing up to a tripling of the penalty for recruiting children to gangs, from a maximum penalty of four years to twelve years. More types of coercive measures shall be allowed to be used against children who have not reached the age of criminal responsibility, and the requirement for using certain coercive measures, for example seizure and house search, is lowered.

This may sound harsh. But when children are ruthlessly exploited, these reforms protect children from being drawn into serious crime.

Mr. Speaker! We also strengthen the position of crime victims. Crime victims shall receive crime injury compensation directly from the state. The state then demands the compensation back from the perpetrator. In this way, the crime victim does not need to claim compensation from the perpetrator themselves. We also strengthen the right to a complainant's counsel in the Court of Appeal.

Even within the crime prevention work, historical reforms are being carried out. A new Social Services Act has been introduced, and a historical investment of over 10 billion is being made over five years. We are breaking down confidentiality barriers between school, police, and social services, and we are clarifying parental responsibility and strengthening parental support. We are making investments in school social teams. We are establishing the BOB structure for children and young people in organized crime so that one can work more effectively with this problem, and we are increasing the number of places in special youth homes. These are some examples of what the government is doing within the preventive work.

Mr. Speaker! Regarding the criminal law issues, the government is now implementing the largest reform of criminal law in modern times. During the spring, we will decide on the Criminal Law Reform Commission's proposal to toughen the penalties for fifty crimes and ensure that the entire range of penalties is utilized.

In cases where a perpetrator has committed several particularly serious crimes, it becomes possible to sentence to life imprisonment even when life imprisonment is not on the sentencing scale. A sentencing aggravation provision for crimes related to criminal networks means that gang criminals can be sentenced to double penalties. A system of conditional imprisonment is introduced, and the presumption against imprisonment is abolished. Today's form of bulk discount for multiple crimes is abolished, and a new provision that gives increased impact for additional crimes is introduced.

Mr. Speaker! We have previously extended prescription periods, tightened the rules for conditional release, and introduced a possibility to postpone release if the convicted person misbehaves during their imprisonment or if there is a risk that the person will commit new serious crimes. Criminal liability for attempted crimes, preparation, and incitement to crime is expanded, which makes it easier to convict those behind shootings and explosions around our country.

Mr. Speaker! We have decided on a new penalty, security detention, so that persons with a high risk of recidivism in serious crime can be deprived of liberty for a longer period. Given the varying positions from the different opposition parties and the different rounds that have occurred, I can state that a red-green government would have had some difficulty agreeing on the design of such a reform.

Furthermore, we criminalize escape and tighten the regulatory framework for deportation due to crime.

Mr. Speaker! An important part of the government's work is to protect women and children from violence and sexual crimes, not least when it occurs in close relationships. We are tightening the penalties for aggravated rape, aggravated rape against children, aggravated assault, and extremely aggravated assault. Repeated aggravated rapes shall be able to lead to life imprisonment, and the most dangerous repeat offenders shall be able to be imprisoned for an indefinite period. Persons who have a high risk of recidivism in serious crime shall be able to have their parole postponed.

We have strengthened the rental housing protection for victims of violence. A man who uses his apartment to commit violence against his relatives shall be able to lose it, and the victim's opportunity to take over or retain the apartment is strengthened. We have made restraining orders more effective and more intrusive to strengthen the protection for women who are victims of violence, and we are working to tighten the penalties for serious cases of stalking.

We are criminalizing psychological violence and strengthening the criminal law protection against such vulnerability. We are also reviewing the protection for the weaker party in property divisions in order to counter economic violence.

We are improving prevention, among other things by removing confidentiality barriers so that information can be shared to prevent violence. We have designed a concrete zero vision for men's violence against women and established a special ministerial council for women's peace under the Prime Minister's leadership.

Mr. Speaker! Furthermore, we have criminalized innocence checks, certificates of innocence, and innocence interventions. We have made it a criminal offense not to disclose or prevent a forced or child marriage and to attempt to take someone abroad to be married off. Foreign polygamy, forced marriage, and child marriage are no longer recognized in Sweden. We also prohibit cousin marriage. Regional resource centers against honor oppression have been made permanent and are being expanded to the entire country.

The government's work for a safer and more secure Sweden is broad. Criminal law changes are an important part but at the same time only one part of a whole that encompasses many other reforms within the Justice Committee's preparatory area, but also reforms within many other policy areas.

Even though much still remains to be done, we can now begin to see results. The deadly gang violence has been halved, and the clearance of the most serious violent crimes has increased significantly.

The number of shootings has more than halved compared to the dark record year 2022. The last few weeks, however, show that the situation is fragile. Great progress has been made, but the gangs' violence capital is large. The propensity to use violence to resolve conflicts is palpable. It shows that we cannot slow down the pace.

The police force is the highest in modern times. It is 1,800 more police officers in outer service compared to 2022.

The preventive restraining orders have had a major effect on local areas. In central Gothenburg, robberies have been halved, and in places such as Rågsved and Fittja, entire drug scenes have been able to be shut down.

Since the toolbox of preventive measures was opened, acts of violence have been able to be prevented, and the capacity of criminal networks has been significantly reduced.

Implemented sentencing increases in combination with increased efficiency of the law enforcement authorities have led to more seriously criminal individuals being able to be put behind bars. Thus, they have been incapacitated for a long period.

I see that I have exceeded my speaking time a bit too much, but there was simply very much to tell about everything that the government, together with the Sweden Democrats, is doing in this area. We do all this because we stand on the side of decent people and to build a Sweden where effort pays off and crime is punished.

(Applause)

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

Heléne Björklund (S)

Mr. Speaker! Member Damsgaard spoke about how much the local police have been expanded and how they have become more visible. We are very happy about that, but for the sake of information: In Blekinge, two out of five police stations have been closed. It is a great failure, I believe, and I will continue to point that out in this chamber. We have proposed a moratorium on the death of police stations so that it does not continue. I hope we are in agreement on that.

Speaking of the police, the police have pleaded with the government and with us as legislators for tools to take down the murder advertisements online that are used to recruit youths, which I spoke about in my speech. Since 2023, the number of youths aged 15 or younger who are involved in murder cases has increased from 21 to 173.

We Social Democrats have pleaded and said that we should deal with this now. We are in complete agreement. Mikael Damsgaard has said that it is a good proposal. We have raised it in the Committee on Justice. The bill exists. We are in agreement. We can fast-track it. It is to come in June, but the government insists that the law should not come into force until September. By then, the summer holidays will have passed. It could become another recruitment party to recruit young people into crime.

Why does the government not want to fast-track this when we say that we want to?

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Heléne Björklund, for a very pressing question!

The question of how young people are recruited into crime is incredibly important. There is a great need to strengthen protection. We saw what effect it had when the police were allowed to start using secret coercive measures against young people under 15 years of age. It is an issue that the Social Democrats actually opposed for a long time.

Regarding the question of being able to remove the recruitment advertisements online, we in the government parties have no other opinion than that we are keen to get this in place as soon as possible.

An investigation was released around Christmas. It has been out for consultation and is now being prepared in the Government Offices. There are a number of points that must be addressed in the investigation and the continued preparation, so even though we are eager for it to go quickly, it must be done in a correct manner.

There is no ambition on our part for this to go slower than necessary, rather, maximum speed is what matters in this issue. The next step is that a referral to the Council on Legislation shall come from the government.

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

Heléne Björklund (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe you, Member Damsgaard, when you say that we are in agreement and that we want the same thing, but it is not at top speed. This is to come in June. Then we will make decisions here, but the law shall not enter into force until September.

We have made several decisions here, not least during the pandemic, when we could fast-track matters. The Government says that we must fast-track a matter here before the summer, concerning alcohol service. We have also agreed to that, but this so important issue, which we are in complete agreement on, you necessarily want to have in September.

Is there any reason at all for this, we ask, when we say that we can make decisions? We are going to handle this here in June anyway. The views that you say exist shall be handled, but the law shall not enter into force until September. We shall have the debate here in the chamber in September.

This is another extended hand. See to it that we can handle the issue here before the youth go on summer break, so that the police get the three tools they have requested to take down the murder ads! That is how youth are recruited today – 173 children under 15 years old.

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! Initially: The bill on alcohol service that the member compared it with had somewhat different circumstances and was also somewhat simpler to process and prepare. The investigation on that also came earlier.

The ambition is absolute that it should be in place as soon as possible. I can state that no referral to the Council on Legislation has been received and that no bill has been submitted yet. What the government has announced is indeed September 1st, but there is no ambition whatsoever to let this drag on any longer than is absolutely necessary.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin with some reflections that I have made during the relatively short time that I have served in the Riksdag.

Many of us are concerned about how political decision-making has changed in character over the years. The Riksdag is increasingly beginning to resemble a playground where it is no longer so important what is said or what decisions are made. Sweden has a long tradition of doing fundamental work before laws are enacted. We have placed great value on what views important institutions have had before decisions are made. That is no longer the case.

In the report we are dealing with today, which concerns criminal law, there is a constant reference to the criminal law reform commission that the government has appointed. It is certainly fine to have ambitions, but it is reasonable to also be able to expect some form of quality.

The Council on Legislation, whose task it is to review and comment on legislative proposals, has in its opinion stated that what the government proposes is literally not suitable as legislation. It is extremely powerful criticism that should make anyone prick up their ears. We will have to see what the government does with its proposal in the end. The reasonable thing would be to send it back to the investigator, but we know that there is a lot of prestige in politics nowadays.

It is a striking risk that the government will place a bill on the Riksdag's table – a bill that the Council on Legislation calls a rush job and which is not suitable as legal text – which the Riksdag, in the worst case, will pass with a narrow majority solely because the government parties have purely party-political interests in mind rather than the common good of society. And the consequences could be fatal for the Swedish people.

During the mandate period, it has been the consistent case that the government has pushed through policies and legislative proposals that are ill-considered and also deeply problematic. I am personally disappointed. I had higher thoughts of the Riksdag and the government as institutions. I actually believed that we could be better than this.

Mr. Speaker! We in Vänsterpartiet naturally stand behind all our proposals, but I still intended to highlight one of them a bit specifically here today.

Vänsterpartiet has long been pushing for that men's violence against women must be fought harder and more powerfully from the side of society.

Naturally, no sensible person is a defender of men's violence against women. And it would be completely foreign to me to act as the government parties' representatives and describe my political opponents as some kind of defender of what is one of our very greatest societal problems. So that is not the case. Everyone here is opposed to men's violence against women. But it is still deeply problematic that from the government parties' side it is often portrayed as if men's violence against women were a crime committed solely by immigrated men. The consequence of that rhetoric is obvious to everyone.

This is something that we unfortunately see is a pervasive rhetoric in all areas. Shortly put, all existing social problems can be blamed on immigrants or the poor in general, at least according to the government parties.

We in Vänsterpartiet refuse to accept such an infantile formulation of the problem. Men's violence against women can take many different forms and is committed by men of all kinds.

Sexköp is such an expression. In 2022, the minimum penalty for purchase of sexual acts was increased from a fine to imprisonment. After the tightening, however, the penalty in several judgments has become a suspended sentence in combination with 40 days' fines, which is considered to correspond to a one-month prison sentence. That the courts sentence to a suspended sentence in combination with fines instead of imprisonment may be partly due to the sex buyers in question being previously unconvicted, partly due to the maximum penalty for sex purchase only being one year of imprisonment and that sex purchase is not a so-called crime against public order.

Since the intention of the legislative change was to tighten the penalty for purchasing sex, we in Vänsterpartiet believe that the application of the sex purchase legislation should be reviewed. The purpose should be to see if any changes are required for the legislative change to lead to the intended result. The Government should therefore take the initiative for a review of the application of the sex purchase legislation to address this.

With that, I move for approval of reservation 5.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! For most in our country, safety is high on the wish list. Law and order remains one of the voters' absolute most important issues.

Dark headlines about the violence and the serious crime follow one another, with individuals who consider themselves entitled to use violence and commit violence against the entire society.

New legislation, more efficient tools, and increased investments in the police and the rest of the justice system are yielding good results. But gang crime and organized crime remain challenging, so much remains before we have pushed back the crime that ultimately constitutes a threat to our open and democratic society.

Mr. Speaker! The highlight is that we have a government that understands the seriousness of this. As mentioned here in the speaker's chair, we are now making the largest reorganization of the criminal justice policy in modern times.

The proposed penal reform involves double sentences for gang criminals, some fifty sharpened sentencing scales, abolished youth reduction, a new structure that better reflects the gravity of the crime and the consequence of conditional imprisonment. We also propose a lowered age of criminal responsibility for the very most serious crimes.

The tightening of security that we are now seeing is a consequence of a successive dismantling of good norms and values. Linked to this, and as a consequence, the development of gang crime and organized crime has been facilitated through access to a good recruitment base, good organizational opportunities, good profit opportunities, and weak control possibilities. Much of the explanation for the brutal crime development that we are now witnessing lies in this.

It has not been clear which values are not electable. Sweden has largely betrayed the importance of the family and the importance of a compass for what is right and what is wrong. This has also been reflected in the low sentences and in a sentencing that has placed greater weight on mitigating circumstances for the perpetrator than on the requirement for the crime victim's redress.

Mr. Speaker! The Government is now working diligently and with great energy in the legal area for law and order, for safety, to strengthen good norms and values, and for crime prevention work. But there are no magic bullets against crime.

As a police officer, I have spent my entire professional life engaged in crime fighting and have seen the development of crime from close quarters. It has not been encouraging, I can say. 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 as 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 in this. Slowly but surely we will regain safety, but it will take time; it is just as well that we realize that.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats have for years said that society must prioritize the person who has been subjected to a crime, and now we have a government that lets this fact guide the policy.

We are now working for legislation that tightens the penalties to be imposed when justice is served in our courts. The goal of this work is simple: to rebalance the scales and change criminal law. Let the crime victim, not the perpetrator, stand in the center! Place the care there, not on the perpetrator!

Mr. Speaker! Investigations indicate that a majority of voters actually believe that tougher and more deterrent sentences are the best course of action to reduce crime.

Incapacitating hardened criminals has a crime-preventing effect. Deportation and exclusion of criminals also have a crime-preventing effect.

Crimes in close relationships were mentioned earlier here in the speaker's chair. We can state that the police have for some time been working on something called Operation Beta. I do not know if you have heard of it. In Operation Beta, 1,200 men linked to crimes in close relationships have been identified and sought out, and even in that case, we see a crime-preventing effect – the number of women killed by their partner or former partner is the lowest ever. But in this case, a zero vision applies. We can state that we must let the efforts continue, but signs indicate that it is heading in the right direction. We are now focusing more on the perpetrator and more on protecting the victim, and we are on our way.

I looked at the statistics. It was mentioned here that this is a major problem. It is a major problem, but the truth is that the statistics are going down. The police are now handling crimes in close relationships as serious crimes and have also placed them in the unit for serious crimes, which is an indication that one is taking this most seriously.

The punishment has not been perceived as fair and proportionate. Crime victims have not received the deserved redress that is expected. Now we are changing that with punishments that ensure dangerous persons are locked up for longer periods and cannot commit new crimes, destroy others' lives or recruit new young people into criminality. And when they finally come out, we shall ensure that they do not relapse into crime.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs a new criminal law, a new balance where we reweigh the scales with a focus on stricter sentencing rather than discounts. We change the bulk discount in its current form and let aggravating circumstances weigh heavier. Victims of crime must not be left in the lurch, for if we do, we leave the entire society in the lurch.

Ultimately, as has been said, it is about values – that criminal law is perceived as just and that the person affected by a crime and the violation this entails receives deserved redress.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker: The Christian Democrats are the values-driven party. 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.

With these words, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! 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. We see fraud against the elderly and against the welfare state. To this, we have violence against children, men's violence against women, as well as the organized crime that affects individuals and companies throughout our country.

These are serious crimes. It is a serious situation. Much good has been done, I want to say, but much more needs to be done. Sweden can do more. The number of reported crimes is decreasing, but it is by per mille units and not more than that. It is important that we continue to work.

Today we are debating criminal law. The basis for imposing punishment is partly to punish the individual, in many cases to keep them locked up for a while and also to offer rehabilitation. They must be proportionate punishments based on the general sense of justice. The punishments must also be general-preventive, that is, deterrent for the surroundings. The public must see what happens if one commits a crime. They must also provide a kind of redress to the crime victims, to the extent that it is now possible.

But what we often forget when it comes to criminal law is that all of this is based on the assumption that one is prosecuted – that one gets caught. There we know that it fails in very many cases.

Centerpartiet believes that the Swedish justice system can do more. In many types of crime, we have an all too low clearance rate.

Crimes against children is one of these areas. In the police's annual report for 2025, it is stated that the number of reports of assault, including aggravated assault, against children last year was 26,094 and that 3,090 suspects were reported for prosecution. It is not quite possible to compare suspicions and suspects, but if we take a proportion, it is 12 percent who are prosecuted for these crimes. The police also write in their annual report that there are significant dark figures regarding children's vulnerability to crime.

High penalties are only worth something if one gets caught. We hear here about the reorganization and the pride. We hear about the budgets and the laws. We need to shift the government's ability to manage agencies toward leadership and delivery. High penalties are not worth anything if one does not get caught.

We view the messages that secret coercive measures should be used more extensively in the case of violence against women positively. We can consider whether it should also apply to serious crimes against children, those crimes that we perhaps all agree are the most serious.

Mr. Speaker! In today's report, the Centre Party highlights primarily two things: partly strict liability for age in sexual offenses, and partly crimes of quantity.

Regarding strict liability, we do not think it is reasonable to have legislation based on what one believes about a person's age. A complete departure from physical development as a relevant circumstance is required. It is unreasonable for children to be deprived of an acceptable protection for their sexual integrity due to their physical maturation. We stand behind reservation 7, but I will move for the approval of another reservation.

I also want to raise this regarding petty theft. Petty theft was previously called shoplifting. It is a major problem for retail, especially the grocery trade. Since last autumn, the practice has been that the misappropriation of property with a value of up to 1,500 kronor is regularly assessed as petty theft, regardless of how many misappropriations occur under this amount limit. This is, of course, exploited by both individuals and organized crime.

To reach those who habitually seize property in a manner judged as petty theft, the Center Party believes that these acts, seen in their context, should instead be judged as theft of the normal degree. This would give the justice system more tools to prevent continued crime and also align better with the general sense of justice.

Now, the penalty for petty theft is a fine or imprisonment for a maximum of six months – the most common is a fine – while the penalty for theft is imprisonment for up to two years. There are no initiatives from the government to change this, either to lower the amount limit – it is now established in practice, but we know that the government can, of course, decide on this if needed – or to upgrade repeated multiple offenses from petty theft to theft.

This is somewhat ironic, because it means that thieves have received inflation protection when the price of the stolen goods has increased – unlike, for example, the country's pensioners. HD writes in a judgment that the amount is being increased because the price of the goods has increased.

I meet food retailers all over Sweden who are very upset about this. They also tell me that the police do not prioritize these crimes to a sufficient extent.

I just say: Sweden can do more!

Centerpartiet supports the government's fight against serious organized crime. We also welcome the ministerial council that has now been established against men's violence against women. But the government's pride sometimes leaves a bitter aftertaste when we have such a low proportion of reported cases to prosecutors regarding violence against children, an area where the police also say the dark figure is large.

It also feels difficult to hear about the small businesses that are affected by crime when the government partly considers 1,500 SEK to be merely shoplifting, and partly does not prioritize these crimes to a sufficient extent. It is too narrow a focus and too low ambitions from the government's side. Sweden can do more than this.

On behalf of the Centre Party, I move for approval of reservation 8 concerning repeated petty thefts.

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! I share Ulrika Liljeberg's outrage. Just like the member, I have met many ICA retailers and others within the trade, not least, who have been hit hard by repeated thefts. I share the outrage that this is not being condemned and handled in a better way.

Regarding the limit for petty theft, we perhaps have no idea what practice the Supreme Court sets. It is they who have raised the limit for petty theft – adjusting it is therefore not a decision for the government or the Riksdag. In the context where this type of crime is condemned to too small an extent, it naturally constitutes a problem.

I have a question for the member. I experience that one of the major problems is that prosecutors say that the thefts occurring in stores often do not receive any additional punitive value. These individuals have, as a rule, already committed so many other crimes – crimes against the knife law, petty assault, petty drug offenses, or other thefts – which means that the additional thefts are not assigned any extra punitive value. Consequently, they are not prosecuted and do not lead to an indictment.

This is what we want to move away from through the reform of the penal code and by changing the quantity discounts. How does the Center Party view this? How will the Center Party take a stand on the change in the view on quantity discounts?

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! We view the review of quantity discounts positively. We already want to remove the existing quantity discount, that is to say that repeated thefts will still only be counted as a theft.

The Center Party is more offensive and thinks that repeated thefts of 1,490 kronor day in and day out should be classified as theft – every single one of them if they occur habitually. Here, the Center Party is the party that wants to lead the way in a commonly occurring crime that constitutes a major problem. It becomes a bit like juggling different legislation.

Centerpartiet is offering here something that is requested by police and food retailers. It is about lowering the amount limit. It is completely correct that it concerns the practice stated by the Supreme Court last autumn. But we know that the government decides on other amounts. Look, for example, at social assistance. It is not the National Board of Health and Welfare or a court that decides on that, but it is the government that has decided on the crown what one needs to get by. It is not about there not being occasions where the government decides on things because one considers that something needs to become right and correct.

I pose a question back to the member. How can one think that theft up to the value of 1,500 should be seen as petty theft and that one can do this repeatedly without it meaning that one is "leveling up"? Even if we assume the government's announced proposal on volume discounts, it is still a question of petty theft in the government's proposal, but in C's proposal, it becomes a question of theft.

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Madam Speaker! I return to my question regarding volume discounts. The abolished presumption against imprisonment would have great significance for those who commit many crimes. We also want to sharpen the view on recidivism. Can we bring the Center Party along in the changes, so that we get a sharpened view on volume criminality? It should then not only apply to thefts but also to persons who repeatedly commit crimes and make everyday life unpleasant for many other people in our country.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! I can nominate C for service! We are the party that raises the issue of the volume of crimes and the police presence throughout the country. We also want to increase the weight in everyday crimes, which constitute the largest volume of crimes. They affect individuals, associations, and small businesses.

We shall in no way downplay serious crimes with immense consequences, but for most, a crime of volume, such as theft or vandalism, is an immense experience. That is why, for example, it is so important that there are police in every municipality.

I agree with what the Social Democrats have previously said about police stations being closed down, for example in Blekinge and Dalarna. During the government's offensive years, police reception points are being closed down and thus the possibility to report crimes locally. Not all crimes can be reported digitally. It is incredibly important.

Let me give an example of a quantity crime. We have a crime with a value of 1,450 kronor that was committed on three occasions. If we remove the quantity discounts, according to the government's proposal, you will be sentenced for three thefts (snatterier). That is good. With the Center Party's proposal, you will be sentenced for three robberies (stölder). For habitually committed crimes, as part of organized crime, we shall "level up" the thefts to robberies.

Here, it is a question of large amounts, and these are crimes that can serve as an entry point to other crimes or constitute part of serious organized crime. With the Center Party's proposal, there will be a police presence throughout the country. Volume discounts are removed, and the small crimes are "leveled up" and seen with the seriousness that is needed.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is a pleasure once again to be able to come in and substitute in the Committee on Justice.

The question of taxation of income from prostitution, when sex buying is now criminalized, has become topical. In practice, women at risk of crime who are released within the framework of the sex buying legislation risk instead being prosecuted for tax crimes.

The investigation on exit programs for persons subjected to prostitution has, in the report *Ut ur utsatthet*, proposed a review of taxation in prostitution. This issue should be handled by the government immediately, and the government should develop guidelines for how persons in prostitution should not have to pay tax on a payment they receive when they are subjected to sexualized violence.

If a change in the tax legislation is necessary, it should be made. We believe, however, that the question of taxation of income from the sale of sexual services concerns more than the specific tax issue and should therefore be handled with a broad approach. The overarching goal is to stop the exploitation of people in prostitution. The Government should promptly conduct a review of the problem regarding taxation in prostitution.

Many of the women who are exploited are people who have come to Sweden from other countries, sometimes against their will or with hopes of other means of livelihood that have turned out not to exist. These women live in double vulnerability if they are also, for various reasons, afraid of being deported back to persecution in their home country. Here it is important that these people are not afraid to seek help and contribute to those who commit various crimes linked to the exploitation of people being convicted.

It is therefore of central importance that these women are given the opportunity to participate in legal proceedings and receive the help and support they need to be able to process traumas.

I naturally stand behind all of the Green Party's reservations, but I choose to only move for approval of reservation 9, which concerns this issue.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 1 April.)

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