Response to interpellation 2023/24:225 on longer fixed-term sentences

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Rasmus Ling has asked me if I consider that there is a principled advantage with time-limited sentences compared to a non-time-limited sentence, and if I will work to extend the maximum time-limited sentence in Sweden.

I want to begin by saying that there is a great principled value in that sentences are determined based on the seriousness of the crime, that is, its punitive value. This follows from the penal system's fundamental function to dispense justice, and it is only in this way that crime victims can be given redress. Some crimes are so serious that a proportionate and just reaction is a life sentence. In that respect, fixed-term and non-fixed-term sentences ultimately rest on the same principled basis.

That punishment is determined based on the severity of the crime should also continue to be the absolute starting point. This means that the vast majority of punishments will be time-limited. But in addition to that, there must be, in the system just as today, a certain scope for penalties determined with consideration of other factors, for example the perpetrator's dangerousness and the need for community protection. It is for among other reasons that the system needs to contain penalties such as forensic psychiatric care and, in some cases, detention sentences. The question of whether the latter should be introduced is something that an investigation is currently looking into.

Regarding Rasmus Ling's second question, he and I are in complete agreement. In the future, it should be possible to sentence longer fixed-term prison sentences than what is possible today, for example in cases of multiple offenses.

The government appointed an inquiry in July this year which, among other things, has the task of looking into this issue. The inquiry shall review the sentencing scales generally, both the sentencing scales for individual crimes and the outer limits for how sentencing scales can be designed. This means, among other things, that the inquiry shall submit proposals that make it possible to sentence to longer fixed-term punishments than today.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. I note that the Minister has many different issues on his desk and that it will be a long afternoon for him here in the chamber. It is, however, good that we can also discuss this.

There are several different crimes that can result in life imprisonment - murder, gross sabotage, blue-light sabotage and gross espionage are some of them - but most of those sentenced to life imprisonment are sentenced for murder. The Riksdag tightened the penalty for murder a few years ago. At that time, in 2020, it was approximately one-third of those sentenced for murder who received the sentence of life imprisonment, and the Riksdag felt that it should be a larger proportion. There was a large majority in the Riksdag for this; it was only one party, Vänsterpartiet, that opposed the proposal while the others were in favor.

The proportion has also become larger since then. In 2013, it was only a few people who were sentenced to life imprisonment, and I want to remember that it is now over half - correct me if I am wrong. The Riksdag tried at that time, around 2013, to tighten the penalty for murder so that more of those sentenced would also receive life, but negligence in the preparation caused the effect to be the exact opposite when the Supreme Court created another precedent. Gunnar Strömmer is probably aware of that history, even if it is not like that anymore - today, more people than ever are in prison with the penalty of life imprisonment.

Madam Speaker! Since the life sentence is not time-limited, it is in the nature of the matter that one does not know how long the penalty will be until it is converted. We have an arrangement where it is Örebro District Court that performs time conversions. Today, one can see how long the sentences become for crimes committed a long time ago, but we do not know how long those who are sentenced to life today will sit, as those are reviews that will be made in the future. What one can see if one looks ten years back in time is that the average time has been around 25 years for those who had their life sentences time-limited. The median is also around there. That is a fairly large difference compared to the 18 years which is the maximum time-limited sentence - a seven-year difference. This speaks for a possibility of having longer time-limited sentences, I believe, and the Minister for Justice was also clear in his answer that he and the government advocate for it.

Madam Speaker! I must say something so unusual in a debate as that I am satisfied with the answer. We will have to see how it goes with the other parts of the investigation that is referred to. It is not certain that we will agree on all parts; that remains to be seen. But at least in this part, we can probably see ahead of us that we will have a consensus.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to repeat why I believe it is important that we have life sentences in the sentencing scales. The fundamental starting point for criminal law must, in my and the government's view, be precisely the gravity of the crime. The sentences should, overall, reflect the seriousness of the crime, which does not only apply to life sentences. There are actions in a society – murder is perhaps the clearest example – that are so serious that they deserve the surrounding society's most powerful condemnation. In a civilized order like ours, it concerns deprivation of liberty, and the longest deprivation of liberty sentence one can be sentenced to is life imprisonment.

I mean that it is important that life imprisonment exists in the sentencing scale just for the most serious cases, even if the sentence in some situations over time shall or should be able to be converted to a fixed-term sentence, partly attributable to other circumstances, for example the risk of recidivism or how one has behaved during the course of the long prison sentence. But it is the gravity of the act that the court shall assess, and some acts are so loathsome that we as a society must be able to take action and demonstrate with all desirable force and clarity that it has crossed all conceivable boundaries of what we consider decent. Therefore, one shall be able to be sentenced to a life-long prison sentence.

An important shift in perspective related to that is what we now want to achieve with the broad criminal law reform that is underway with the investigation on sentences. It is about moving from a criminal law that largely proceeds from the perpetrator's interest to a criminal law that proceeds partly from the crime victim's interest in redress, and partly from the surrounding society's need for protection against, in particular, serious crime. It is a question of system-threatening crime but also serious crime of another nature, for example, repeated sexual offenses. Even from that perspective, life imprisonment becomes a natural part of the whole. This also leads to something that I perceive we are somewhat in agreement on, namely that longer fixed-term sentences than what is the case today should be able to be imposed.

I would like to raise one more aspect. A question that is not part of criminal law today but which we are investigating in a special order is the question of introducing a detention sentence in Sweden. Some intuitively feel that it sounds uncivilized that when the sentence has expired, one can be sentenced to a penalty that means one has to remain in prison even though the sentence value in relation to the crime for which one was convicted has expired. But it is about the aspect of public safety.

One can, for example, imagine a situation where someone has committed a serious sexual offense and the severity of the crime justifies a prison sentence for a certain period, but where the risk of recidivism, considering the surrounding society's need for protection against crime, justifies a longer period in prison than the severity of the specific crime. We have that type of consideration when it comes to forensic psychiatric care – other considerations result in being locked up for a longer period. I mean that the aspect of societal protection should be able to have such an impact even regarding sentences that do not involve forensic psychiatric care.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Madam Speaker! Regarding the need for life imprisonment to be a penalty, we are in agreement. It was also the Green Party in government with the Social Democrats who drafted the bill stating that it should be the normal penalty for murder. In that question, we have no point of contention, as I understand it.

Furthermore, I see, and what I understand the government also sees, the need to have a higher maximum fixed-term sentence. Today it is 18 years. I mean that it would be good if it were closer to what is the actual average time or median time for a life sentence. It provides the possibility to have greater flexibility at the time the sentence is pronounced by the court than today, when the maximum is a 18-year fixed-term sentence and otherwise a non-fixed-term sentence whose length one does not know until it is converted much later.

Regarding the argument about a paradigm shift from a perpetrator focus to a crime victim focus, I do not perceive this difference. I believe that for a long time there has been a focus on the crime victim's redress and, not least, on increasing safety in society as far as possible. Then there are different paths to get there, and we have different priorities for how we should achieve this. It is very clear according to both research and experience that many perpetrators who commit serious crimes have been crime victims at an earlier point in time, not least during upbringing - at home, at school, or in the immediate environment. The person who robs on the square has, in the vast majority of cases, themselves been robbed at an earlier occasion. Had better support from the side of society been given to the crime victim, perhaps it would not have gone so badly that that person had moved forward and themselves become a perpetrator. Then, of course, there is a need for society, regardless of that, to punish the one who commits the crime. There is no difference of opinion in that part either.

Madam Speaker! The Minister for Justice also raises the issue of custodial sentences. It is a product that we have not yet seen, so I will not say very much about this. I know that this is something that exists in other countries. We will, of course, look into it. But the starting point that, at the time one is sentenced, one knows to the greatest extent possible what will apply is still a principle that I think is important, even if it is not the only principle. As said, we will return to this when we see more closely how the proposal is designed.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to emphasize that now that we have a civilized exchange on fundamental issues regarding criminal law, we should take note of the possibility of finding common points of connection rather than focusing on or looking for that which might potentially set us apart. Since we now have this fundamental discussion, I would, without entering into polemics with Rasmus Ling, like to reflect on some fundamental questions that I believe will require positions and choices when they become concrete.

The first concerns the general approach to criminal law and the shift in perspective from the perpetrator to the crime victim and societal protection. Should it cover all of criminal law, or should it only cover certain parts of criminal law?

I was perhaps a bit surprised when we submitted this proposal and appointed the inquiry last summer. I received criticism from the Social Democratic side that we were now engaging in some kind of general repression instead of focusing entirely on the criminal networks and gang-related crime.

I was surprised by the more systematic views one can have on how to approach criminal law. It is also because we have so many times here in the chamber discussed other crimes that are extraordinarily serious. This applies in particular to sexual offenses and violence against women, crimes that target the rule of law, offenses in legal proceedings, threats against witnesses, or threats against judges.

There is so much crime that is not in itself gang-related crime but which, in my opinion, if one takes the starting point that the punishment should reflect the severity of the crime, there is a strong interest for us as a society and a country to tackle.

I agree in principle that we should not stand up for crime victims and protect the surrounding society against crime. Nevertheless, it will require some effort from us when we look at the outcome of the investigations.

I will take two examples. The first concerns the focus on the perpetrator. Today, there is a presumption against imprisonment. If the court can find grounds for it, it shall choose a penalty as lenient as possible, and then a penalty that preferably is not imprisonment.

People speak of the so-called mitigating circumstances. If the crime has had other consequences for the perpetrator, for example, if he or she has lost their job as a consequence of the crime that has been committed, this shall be taken into account for the perpetrator in such a way that the court can reduce the sentence as a kind of compensation for those consequences.

It is a sentencing that is based precisely on the perpetrator and the perpetrator's circumstances and not on the crime victim's rightful claim to receive a redress where the punishment stands in relation to the crime that the crime victim has been subjected to. I believe this will become an important principle issue if one wants to achieve a shift where it has consequences for, for example, the choice of penalty and the length of the sentence in various respects.

The second is the question of civil protection. I have full respect for that Rasmus Ling does not want to buy a pig in a poke and say yes or, for that matter, no to something that you have not yet seen. We know that, for example, our Nordic neighbors, both Norway and Denmark, have detention sentences.

In the Norwegian case, there is no life imprisonment, only fixed-term sentences but with the possibility of detention. In Denmark, there is life imprisonment, fixed-term sentences, and a possibility of detention. It is clear that there, the surrounding society's need for protection is prioritized.

Are we prepared to, for example, when it concerns certain really dangerous gang criminals, serial rapists, or others who are very dangerous to their surroundings, decide on indeterminate sentences that fundamentally are about detention and protecting the surrounding society against that crime? I am prepared to go that way. I hope that we can build broad majorities for it.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the parts regarding the presumption against imprisonment and the reasons of expediency, there may be some things where we will have different views, I imagine. This applies in particular against the background of the situation we have within the Prison and Probation Service which worries us very much and which I hope also worries the Minister responsible for the agency and how it looks.

We are concerned that more people sentenced to short prison terms risk serving them in prisons that are overcrowded and where cells are shared. They come out after a fairly short time, but they are not equipped to perhaps continue a normal life. They may have done something, admittedly very stupid, but risk not only losing their job, the family situation they had, and their housing. They have also developed criminal contacts.

We can get such a society for most common drug crimes, for drunk driving, or for other offenses that previously have not led to imprisonment. If we put very many – it could be several thousand a year – in prison for this type of crime in society, they can cultivate networks and lose their previous normal honest situation. Then I think we risk making society significantly worse. That is something that also should be considered in the discussion.

Regarding the comparison with other Nordic countries, it looks different in many ways. Norway, as the Minister of Justice said, does not have life imprisonment. They have a maximum of 21 years of imprisonment but have the possibility of preventive detention. In Denmark, they have life imprisonment. They generally issue, despite the discussion that is ongoing, shorter sentences than we do in Sweden today in the normal case.

Then there are very many other parameters. I only have a speaking time of two minutes compared to the Minister's four minutes, so I do not have time to go into it. We will have to take it in upcoming debates.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Rasmus Ling, for the opportunity to discuss the criminal law issues!

It is about the crimes and the punishments on a more principled level. It is not as distant from real-life conditions as a listener or viewer might imagine. On the contrary, one can say that the principled choices we make regarding the view on punishment and how they should be used in practice will have a highly immediate significance for crime victims' opportunities to obtain redress and for the surrounding society's opportunities to protect itself against serious crime and dangerous criminals.

I really want to stand up for the need to carry out a broad and general reform of the penal code. There is once again doubt about whether we must do things that target the most acute issues for society or the system when it comes to the criminal networks and the gang criminals.

We do that as well. From January 1, the minimum sentences for serious weapons offenses will be doubled. The normal case will be that a person who has handled weapons and explosives is imprisoned for four years instead of two years. It is incredibly important to protect the surrounding society against crime. It is incredibly important to make it harder for the networks to draw new youths into their criminality.

There is an ongoing investigation regarding the non-autonomous forms of crime. This concerns attempts, aiding and abetting, and preparations. It is about achieving a broader scope against the networks and the criminals. We are making important targeted sentencing increases that hit straight into the operations of the criminal networks.

We really must not forget that there is a great deal of other serious crime in society. It concerns the crimes close to the citizens, such as assault, property damage, theft, shoplifting, violence in close relationships, violence against women, and sexual offenses. It is such things that affect both children and young people.

We must also embrace all of that. That is why it is extremely important to move forward with a general reform of the penalties. We will return to those questions many times during the mandate period.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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