Response to interpellation 2023/24:610 on abolished statute of limitations for murder for persons under 18 years of age

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Pontus Andersson Garpvall has asked me if I and the government are prepared to abolish the prescription period for murder for persons under 18 years of age.

Let me begin by stating the obvious: It is deeply unsatisfactory if such a serious crime as murder does not lead to prosecution due to prescription, even though the crime can be solved. Through technical and forensic developments and the progress being made, for example in the form of new DNA technology, we can today in a legally secure manner produce evidence that allows us to solve crimes committed a very long time ago. The regulatory framework regarding prescription must be adapted to this development.

The prescription inquiry has been tasked with reviewing the regulatory framework based on these starting points. The inquiry has proposed extended prescription periods for serious crimes in general, even for crimes committed by someone who has not reached the age of 18. For someone who has committed a murder or another crime that can be punished with life imprisonment before they have reached the age of 18, the inquiry's proposal means that the prescription period is extended from 15 years to 25 years.

The government parties - namely the Moderates, Christian Democrats and Liberals - and the Sweden Democrats have in the Tidö Agreement agreed that today's prescription provisions shall be revised. As a first step in that work, the parties agree that the main proposals from the Prescription Inquiry shall be implemented. The work on a referral to the Council on Legislation based on the inquiry's proposals is currently ongoing at the ministry.

In a second step, according to the Tidö Agreement, a new investigation shall be appointed and be given the task of reviewing certain other issues linked to the criminal prescription period.

As Pontus Andersson Garpvall pointed out, we see a clear trend today: ever younger people are committing serious crimes, for example murder and serious violent crimes. The Government is working broadly to break this development.

As late as last week, the government decided on a national crime prevention strategy with a social-preventive focus. At the focus of this strategy are measures to, among other things, break the recruitment into criminal networks, prevent children and young people from being drawn into crime, and get people who commit crimes to leave crime behind.

Last summer, a new criminal offense was introduced that makes it punishable to involve persons under 18 years of age in crimes or criminal activities. We are now reviewing the sentences and sentencing discounts for young offenders. We are also testing whether the age of criminal responsibility should be lowered – not primarily to put children in prison, but to open the entire toolbox of youth care, youth supervision, and other special youth sanctions for even more.

We also intend to submit a proposition to the Riksdag to establish special youth prisons for young criminals who have been convicted of serious crimes.

All of this is good from a criminal law perspective. It also gives room for Sis, the State's Institutional Board, to focus on all other youths placed in the special youth homes, who have other needs that today to an all too great extent are not being met. Already now, we are severely limiting access to mobile phones for young people serving closed youth care at Sis.

An investigator has also been tasked with proposing an arrangement that gives the social services the possibility to set requirements for children and young people to, for example, participate in various activities or be at home during certain specified times. This resembles the child and youth orders that occur in Denmark.

In a number of different areas, we are therefore moving the positions forward to break the development of children and young people who commit increasingly more serious crimes. We do this for the crime victims, for the surrounding society's need for protection, and so that young people who have started a criminal career shall have a chance to break their destructive patterns.

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

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Madam Speaker! The increase in fatal shootings and bombings in recent years has prompted the Sweden Democrats and the government to take tougher measures against crime. Under the previous Social Democratic government, for example, the number of fatal shootings increased by 232 percent in just eight years.

In January, we introduced double sentencing for aggravated weapons offenses, and since earlier, the youth discount has been abolished for serious crime. But as the minister pointed out, more is to come. Not least, during this mandate period, we will introduce double sentences for gang criminals, which will make it even less attractive to choose a criminal lifestyle. A person convicted of, for example, aggravated weapons offense can then receive at least eight years of imprisonment, which can be compared with a mere one year of imprisonment that was the case just a couple of years ago.

Not least since the abolition of the youth discount for serious crimes, we have seen a clear trend that youths under the age of 18 are involved in serious violent crimes. It is riskier for persons who are 18 years or older to commit serious crimes because persons between 18 and 21 years old can now receive life imprisonment. Perhaps that is why it is now commonplace for persons under the age of 18 to be involved in shootings. The punishment simply deters the older ones.

The clearance rate for the serious violent crimes has improved since the Sweden Democrats and the government took power. Stockholm police report that they have moved from a clearance rate of around 15 percent to today's figure of over 70 percent.

But many murderers likely go free. Many murders are unsolved, and several of the shooters were likely under 18 when the murders were committed. Today, the statute of limitations for murder is 15 years if the suspect was under 18 at the time of the crime. This means that in the future, we will likely end up in more situations where the perpetrator was a minor at the time of the crime and can therefore escape punishment when the statute of limitations expires.

My view is that it is fundamentally important for the crime victim's next of kin to receive redress in the form of a perpetrator being convicted for the murder they committed. That the perpetrator was under 18 at the time of the crime is of less importance.

Criminal justice in Sweden is not just about incarceration to keep dangerous people off our streets and about making perpetrators become good members of society to the extent that it is possible. It is also about justice, not least for the relatives of murder victims. The person who has committed such a grave act shall receive a punishment for what they have done. The relatives shall receive redress, which they will never completely receive because they will never get back their son, daughter, brother or sister. The least one can demand from the side of society is that the perpetrator is punished for what the perpetrator has done. That the perpetrator was under 18 at the time plays no role whatsoever, in my opinion.

The Minister wants, in a first step, to implement the Prescription Investigation's proposal to increase the prescription period from 15 to 25 years, which is good. But does the Minister see an opportunity to, after a new investigation and in a second step, completely abolish the prescription period for murder for persons under 18 years of age?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Pontus Andersson Garpvall for the opportunity to discuss these important issues here today.

There is no doubt whatsoever that for many years we have had an extraordinarily serious social development in Sweden where lethal gun violence has tripled over a ten-year period. The government is now doing a great deal in cooperation with the Sverigedemokraterna to reverse this development. We are allocating resources to the justice system in a different way, giving the police more effective tools, ensuring that the sentences reflect the severity of the crimes better than they do today, and emphasizing the preventive effect that a longer incarceration can have. If one stays inside twice as long for a serious weapons crime, which one does from January 1, in the normal case four years instead of previously two years, one cannot commit new crimes during that time, recruit new children or youths into the criminal networks, and so on.

All this is rooted in a principled fundamental view that concerns redirecting perspectives regarding the view of punishment and criminal policy in general, to take less account of the perpetrator and his interests and place greater emphasis on society's need for protection against serious and grave crime and, of course, the victim's interest in support, protection, and redress. This dimension obviously also has significance for the issues we are discussing here today.

For a crime victim or for relatives of a crime victim, it can naturally appear extremely offensive that a crime committed a long time ago and which could not be solved then, but which now, due to new evidence, new technology, or other reasons, turns out to be possible to solve, still cannot lead to a consequence for the perpetrator because the crime has been prescribed. This issue is at the forefront, and it is important and good that we get to discuss it here today.

Let me, before I enter into this issue, emphasize that the main focus of our policy is to provide law enforcement with tools that make it possible to solve as many crimes as possible as quickly as possible. In Stockholm, in 2022, the clearance rate for fatal shootings was just over 15 percent, but when we summarize 2023, the clearance rate was over 75 percent. The corresponding figure in Uppsala was 85 percent. That is due to a combination of a number of different factors, but one factor is new, effective tools for law enforcement, other methods of working, and so on.

We will, of course, place the emphasis in our efforts on that crime should preferably be prevented and deterred before it occurs, but if it does occur, it should be able to be investigated and solved so that the perpetrator or perpetrators can be convicted in as close connection as possible to the committed crime. Here we are doing an enormous amount.

When it comes to the issues of prescription, the prescription has been abolished for murder and other very serious violent crimes. When it comes to children between 15 and 17 years of age, it can be said that the special treatment which is also seen in the prescription rules is based on the fact that, overall, we handle crimes committed by those between 15 and 17 years of age in a different way than adult offenders. It is more of an explanation than an expression that I necessarily think it is right. It is, in any case, the background.

In a first step, the prescription period is now being raised to 25 years for children between 15 and 17 years old. It is an important step, and it will affect many of the situations that Pontus Andersson Garpvall raises. Once we have completed this, we can return to which additional issues need to be highlighted in a second step.

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

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.

To continue the discussion on prescription, a case in Gothenburg was highlighted a few years ago where a murder was committed in a fabric store in 2005. DNA from the suspect could be found at the scene, but a match was only found about a year ago. By then, 18 years had passed since the murder, and since the suspect was 17 years old when the murder was committed, the crime was prescribed. The murderer thus escaped punishment because she had managed to evade detection for over 15 years. For me, and also for Justice Minister Gunnar Strömmer, this is very upsetting – and when something is upsetting, one must as a politician ensure that something is done about it.

The prescription investigation proposed an increased prescription period in these cases from 15 to 25 years. But suppose that 26 years have passed before the perpetrator is discovered. Then it would have been exactly the same situation as now, with a person who cannot be convicted because the prescription period has expired. Therefore, I see rather a need for the prescription period to be completely abolished for young murderers than for it to be extended. But what we are doing now as a first step is a good and reasonable step.

As the Minister pointed out in his first speech, the progress in technical and forensic development means that more crimes can be solved. This increases legal certainty; not least, more crimes that were committed a long time ago can be solved.

A problem with the previously mentioned case was that the woman who was connected to the murder far too late had been suspected of a number of crimes but was not DNA-profiled until after 18 years. Had it been done earlier, the murder could have been solved sooner. It demonstrates the importance of never hesitating to use the technical tools that exist whenever it is possible.

The arguments for a statute of limitations are often that the crime will not be solvable because too much time has passed, that the perpetrator should not have to live with a threat of punishment forever, or that the perpetrator has sorted out their life after a long period. In the case of murder or other very serious crimes, however, I believe that all these arguments fall. Justice and retribution must carry more weight.

I understand if the Minister does not want to anticipate the future investigation and also cannot rule out that the prescription period will always be abolished in cases of murder, but could the Minister give his view on whether he sees any disadvantages with a completely abolished prescription period?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me first say that I think it is extremely important that we now review the prescription rules. Even the changes that we are now preparing and will implement will make an extremely large difference when it comes to just the prescription issues.

Today, only certain specifically designated crimes are exempt when it comes to prescription, such as murder, manslaughter, rape, aggravated rape, and rape of a child. It is therefore a number of extraordinarily serious crimes where there is no prescription today. Simply put: If a perpetrator is found after many years, these crimes will always be able to be prosecuted.

When we are now to implement the proposals on prescription periods that are in this first investigation, which I have mentioned, we are making very large changes. We simply say that when it is life imprisonment in the sentencing scale, prescription shall not apply. Then it suddenly covers many more crimes such as aggravated arson, aggravated sabotage against emergency services, human trafficking and aggravated public endangerment.

I believe this is an incredibly important signal to crime victims. When there are technical possibilities and we can solve crimes even when a very long time has passed and it concerns really serious crime, there should be no prescription period that puts spokes in the wheels for solving and prosecuting in those cases. Even when it concerns less serious crime, we will change the rules so that in fewer cases than today we get distorting effects or serious effects due to prescription rules. This is, therefore, a very big change. As said, we are raising the prescription period to 25 years - if we are to follow the investigator's proposal - also for children and young people between 15 and 17 years old who commit serious crimes.

I think the arguments that Pontus Andersson Garpvall puts forward for completely removing the prescription period also for children and young people over 15 years are justified and reasonable. Then there are other arguments in the other scale that concern how we will generally design the penal provisions for children and young people.

We will make a major reform regarding punishment for criminals over 15 years old. The sanction of closed juvenile care, which today is the most serious punishment for those between 15 and 17 years old who commit serious crimes, will transition to prison sentences; we will replace today's system with Sis-homes for the most serious criminals and we have juvenile prisons. In that entirety, we will of course also highlight other issues that are linked to young people between 15 and 17 years old.

My own perception is that we will likely also in the future, in various respects, treat young people between 15 and 17 years old - i.e. non-adult criminals - somewhat differently than adults. Of course, however, these issues must be handled as a whole. The issues that Pontus Andersson Garpvall raises are naturally part of that whole.

We simply have to return to how we intend to proceed with the issues after we have implemented the large and important changes regarding prescription periods that we are now preparing in the department.

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

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Gunnar Strömmer for the answer. It feels like the Minister and I are moving in the same direction, and that is good. That was not the case during the previous parliamentary term when there were interpellation debates with the previous Minister for Justice.

It is positive that we now have a government that, together with the Sweden Democrats, is ready to take these issues seriously. Crime policy is one of the largest parts of the Tidö Agreement. The voters consider it to be the most important political issue right now, while the Sweden Democrats and the Moderates are the two parties that have the highest confidence in these issues.

Much is, as said, in motion. Just in the coming month, we are making it easier to throw criminals out. In June, the new forfeiture legislation enters into force, which will make it easier for our law enforcement agencies to seize criminals' property. Step by step, we are making it less and less attractive to choose a criminal lifestyle.

Regarding the issue being discussed in this debate, I look forward to proceeding with and implementing the Prescription Investigation's proposal to extend the prescription period for murder from 15 to 25 years. I also look forward to the second step - the new investigation which may potentially result in the prescription period for murder being completely removed, even if the suspect was under 18 at the time of the crime.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Pontus Andersson Garpvall again that this issue has been highlighted through the interpellation and that we have been given the opportunity to discuss this today.

Let me conclude by stating what I began by asserting, namely the obvious fact that it is deeply unsatisfactory if serious crimes do not lead to prosecution due to prescription, even though the crime in itself can be solved, perhaps because a perpetrator who previously had not been known has become known to the police through, for example, new technology having made it possible to produce evidence that allows one to convict someone as guilty of a serious crime committed a long time ago.

That is why it is a high priority for us to change the prescription rules with joint forces. A starting point when it concerns serious crime that has life imprisonment in the sentencing scale is to simply remove the prescription because the crimes are so serious and the need for redress for the crime victims is so great, and not least also because technical developments mean that today there are very good conditions to solve more crimes, also after a very long time.

We must face this, and we are doing so. That work is ongoing right now, and we intend to return to the Riksdag with proposals as soon as that work is completed. I also want to emphasize the importance of us continuing to discuss issues concerning young perpetrators, under 18 years old, including the issues we have discussed today, and that we continue to do everything we can to ensure that the police and other law enforcement agencies have the tools they need to be able to solve crimes as quickly as possible so that the question of prescription does not have to be actualized at all.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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