Response to interpellation 2024/25:31 on repeated crime against women

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Märta Stenevi has asked me how I and the government have reasoned when we chose to stop the Flerbrottsutredningens proposals on increased penalties, and how I intend to act to provide redress for those who are subjected to men's violence against women, domestic violence, and honor-related violence and oppression for the systematic violations they are subjected to.

This government has made it one of its most important tasks to restore safety in Sweden. That it is a matter of our time's great question of freedom becomes particularly clear when we see the lack of freedom that is the consequence of the violence, hate, threats, and violations that affect far too many women.

The criminal justice system has for a long time been patched and mended, but not reformed as a whole to meet the social problems that we see today in Sweden.

That is why we are now taking a holistic approach and carrying out a historic reorganization of the entire crime policy. The focus is shifted from the perpetrator to the crime victim and the surrounding society's need for protection. The reorganization was needed to meet the system-threatening crime of the criminal gangs. It is also an important component in the work against other crime and not least when it comes to combating men's violence against women.

The reform work is being carried out at a high pace and in several different tracks. In the summer of 2023, the government gave a special investigator a mandate to review the sentencing scales and reform the system of sanctions (dir. 2023:115 and 2023:181). The purpose of the mandate is that the sentencing scales shall, in a significantly better way than today, reflect the seriousness of the crimes and that the sanctions imposed shall appear reasonable and just.

A specific question included in the investigation is precisely the so-called quantity discount. Today, someone can be sentenced for a very large number of serious crimes without the maximum penalty being imposed. It is simply not acceptable. The investigation shall therefore propose changes to the rules for how punishment for multiple crimes is measured. The investigation shall also submit proposals implying that life imprisonment can be considered for certain serious cases of repeated violent and sexual crimes, even if none of the individual crimes have life imprisonment in the sentencing scale.

As I have said in several other contexts, the Multi-crime Investigation's proposals (SOU 2023:1), the previous government's investigation on multi-crime, is a step in the right direction. But those proposals do not correspond to what we want to achieve. They also do not correspond to what women affected by crime have a right to expect. Furthermore, the proposals have received relatively extensive referral criticism, which among other things highlighted that the proposed rules would be difficult to use in practice. After having considered the issue carefully, we have chosen not to proceed with the proposals. Instead, we await the proposals that the large broad investigation on penalties is to present now in the spring. In that way, the issue can also be treated together with other changes within the framework of the comprehensive approach that we are now taking regarding the penalties.

The government is strengthening the work against men's violence against women as well as violence in close relationships, and we are doing so on a broad front. In addition to what I have already mentioned, for example, a review of the legislation regarding restraining orders is underway. Legal changes have also been implemented that have provided strengthened tenancy protection for women subjected to violence. They mean that the perpetrator shall be able to lose their rental apartment while the victim's opportunities to remain in the home are strengthened. During the autumn, the government also intends to appoint an inquiry that, among other things, aims at the economic violence that occurs in connection with property divisions.

In addition, work is ongoing on several measures that we assess can counteract deadly violence in close relationships. Among other things, the government recently decided on a referral to the Council of Legislation concerning an increased flow of information to the law enforcement agencies. There are important proposals in that for relaxations in the legislation regarding secrecy.

It is proposed, among other things, that social services and health and medical care should be able to provide information to the police to a greater extent in cases of violence and sexual offenses against relatives. This is extremely important in order to be able to prevent and stop this serious crime. The Government has also decided on an action program for the years 2024-2026 with the aim of preventing and combating violence against women, violence in close relationships, and honor-related violence and oppression, and additionally prostitution and human trafficking.

For me and this government, it is obvious that violence against women by men shall be combated with the same force as we combat gang crime. In that work, there is no room to lower the level of ambition or to slow down the pace.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!

First of all, I might perhaps start with something unexpected by praising the government. For nearly two years ago, I stood in the chamber and pleaded with the Prime Minister to set party politics aside and expeditiously seek a broad agreement to protect children from contact with a violent parent. Lex Tintin is now about to become a reality, and for that, I want to thank the Minister and the government.

The government has also presented several other proposals that are heading in the right direction regarding the fight against men's violence against women, violence in close relationships, and honor-related violence and oppression. An expanded restraining order is one such important measure that the Miljöpartiet has championed for a long time and which can save lives. This also applies to increased information exchange between authorities. These are good and important measures, and Minister Strömmer should, above all, take all the credit for them.

Madam Speaker! Gunnar Strömmer had not been a minister for many weeks when he received the Flerbrottsutredningen. In it, changed principles are proposed for the assessment of the penalty value of repeated crime with a clarity that is lacking today regarding the total damage suffered by the crime victim from the repeated crimes.

The so-called quantity discount in Swedish legislation has been debated extensively for many years. At the center of the debate has often stood the discussion regarding the legitimacy of the legislation.

On the one hand, a system that stacks sentences on top of each other risks devaluing the system's credibility. It simply clashes very poorly with the public's sense of justice if, for example, repeated petty thefts were to result in the same penalty as serious violent crimes.

On the other hand, we have for a long time had a situation where repeated serious crimes are given such a significant reduction that, in some cases, the perpetrator has been granted full impunity for crimes committed with a high penalty value in the legislation. It has rightly been perceived as particularly offensive when it concerns crimes directed against an individual's bodily integrity.

Multiple offenses are more the rule than the exception when it comes to violence in close relationships, men's violence against women, and honor-related violence and oppression. In cases where the perpetrator has a close relationship with the crime victim, the crimes have often been committed repeatedly and over a very long period of time.

Many crime victims testify how the repeated crimes cause even greater damage than a single incident when the repeated abuses make the violations of the victim's human dignity and integrity greater and the trauma deeper. Not infrequently, it is aggravated rape, aggravated assault, and attempted murder that the crime victims have been subjected to.

On 24 January 2023, the investigation "Stricter penalties for multiple crimes" submitted its report to the government. There, a number of changes were proposed to stiffen the penalties for multiple crimes. Money was allocated for the implementation in the budget bill for 2024. Now that money is gone in the budget bill for 2025, and the proposals have been thrown in the wastebasket.

Instead, a gigantic investigation has been launched. It aims to increase all penalties in the Swedish justice system across the board. Instead of focusing on effective changes supported by research, the directive makes an enormous shift in focus from prevention and rehabilitation to pure retribution.

The investigation shall submit its proposal on 31 May 2025. I assume that it will also be referred and that the preparatory requirements will be followed, given how large a change is actually being proposed. My question to the Minister is now: Will it be possible at all to implement a change for multiple offenses during this parliamentary term?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me first answer the last question straight out. Yes, it will be possible. That is exactly how we plan our processes regarding the broad but completely necessary reforms that we are now implementing.

I would first like to pay a tribute to Märta Stenevi for a very relevant and empathetic description of what it can mean to be subjected to a crime that occurs time and again, and not infrequently when we speak of men's violence against women with the same perpetrators.

The realization that the crimes and the severity of the crimes must be reflected in a much better way than today in how the individual sentences are designed and how the cumulative effect of multiple crimes affects the sentence for the person who commits the crimes is an incredibly important starting point for the reform work that we are now engaged in.

It is very important that the grip is broad. On very good grounds, we discuss gang crime, organized crime, system-threatening effects, and the importance of proceeding in depth and in breadth against gang-related crime.

My starting point is that the shift we are making is justified much more broadly than "just" organized crime. It is about how one views punishment and how one views the victim's redress. My view is that the legislation as it has been designed for a very long time in Sweden has had an all too one-sided focus on precisely the perpetrator and the circumstances surrounding the perpetrator, and in that way has to an all too high degree rendered invisible the crime victim, the crime victim's experience, the crime victim's legitimate expectation of redress, and the surrounding society's need for protection against serious crime.

It is with these starting points that we now take a broad approach to the penalties. It is not at all about some kind of unnuanced instinct for retribution, but on the contrary, it is about a crime victim perspective also far beyond the devastating consequences we see from the gangs' criminality. This applies in particular to the issues we are now talking about – men's violence against women – where it is quite true that the order we have inherited in no way lives up to the expectations that women affected by crime should be able to have regarding the surrounding society's response and reaction to the violence.

When it comes to exactly the volume discounts – a question where the Moderaterna have pushed forward during the time I have been politically aware, for about 40 years – there were announcements in the Riksdag on the issue from 2015. Unfortunately, it took a very long time before the question was addressed by the previous government; it happened with an investigation that was commissioned in 2021, i.e., at the end of the second term of the previous government's time in power.

It is quite true that I received the result of it. The reason we allocated budget funds was that we have constantly had the instinct that if there are good things on the table, we should do something about them. But a closer analysis of the investigation result and not least the very extensive criticism that came from the referral bodies—that this is a restrictive and complicated system that will be very difficult to use in practice—made us instead choose to handle the issue in the broader reform package, all with the aim of achieving a real redress for the women who are affected by this violence and to truly protect the surrounding society from serious crime.

I am convinced that we will receive such proposals as early as this spring, and then we shall expeditiously implement them in order to create both a protection for vulnerable women and an opportunity for proper redress for those who are subjected to repeated crime.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! I can begin by stating that if, due to the views of the referral bodies, one can throw the entire investigation in the wastebasket, it is, to say the least, bold to dare to promise that one will be able to manage to process such a large investigation in less than a year in order to create a change.

I must also admit, Madam Speaker, that I am somewhat disappointed and also quite worried. The Minister has many times and on many occasions spoken about the government's focus on men's violence against women, and one is making, as said, certain valuable efforts for which one should receive all the credit. But that the issue should have the same weight inside the Government Offices as, for example, gang crime, I simply cannot see in practice.

The investigation that has been commissioned is, as stated, enormous, and if the government proceeds with what it has ordered, it will in practice mean that all sentencing scales will move upwards dramatically. Harsher penalties in themselves have no deterrent effect; this has been researched for decades, as long as the Minister for Justice has been politically aware, which he naturally knows.

On the other hand, such a large change would have the consequence that the costs for the criminal justice system and the judiciary increase exponentially, while the opportunities for effective care and rehabilitation decrease. Already today, Sis and the prison and probation service are changing at a rapid pace from a system that previously worked effectively against recidivism into nurseries for new professional criminals. The money that goes into an inefficient, Americanized retributive system is simultaneously money that cannot be spent on preventive work or on protection for those exposed to violence. While the government pours money into a system that does not do the job, they are tightening the belt for the women who are forced to flee.

To speak plainly: Ten years of constant sentencing increases have not done much good, as they have not been followed up with preventive work. Cutting back on school and care to put the money on longer sentences is short-sighted and a pure mockery of those affected by crime. Even more provoking is this when the government lowers the tax for high-income earners while simultaneously cutting the housing allowance for those with the lowest incomes and threatening to lower the national standard for social assistance for those who cannot work, for example due to protected information and threats.

For many of the women affected by violence, the consequences are enormous. Leaving a destructive relationship means that for the vast majority, their finances are destroyed. But the government's budget contains no support for those affected and no reinforcement of trauma care worth mentioning. There are small, symbolic investments in BUP that disappear in the large needs in the regions. There is no compensation for skyrocketing rents, and the tax cut for a single mother working in home care is perhaps a hundred kronor. What is instead spent tens of billions on are the men who already earn the most.

Madam Speaker! I want to ask the Minister when the government will instead put money into supporting women and their children who are victims of violence, invest money in their care, and begin financing preventive work worth of the name. When will the government begin to listen to its authorities, to the research, to crime victims, and to crime victims' families and begin allocating resources to stop the violence before it happens instead of after?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! As long as Märta Stenevi stuck to the topic of the day, namely the entry point for why it is important to do something about the volume discount, I felt both great respect and great sympathy for Märta Stenevi's contribution. But if we are now to broaden the debate and possibly engage in a mutual accountability, I will very gladly take on that discussion as well.

The truth is that now everything is happening in this area. It is the restraining orders, and it is the strong tenancy protection for the women exposed to violence. It is real criminal justice reforms, for example, the possibility to impose life sentences for those who repeatedly engage in aggravated sexual assault, even if the individual crime does not prescribe life imprisonment.

We do all this, and we have not even reached the area of civil law.

We initially mentioned the importance of ensuring that children do not have to have contact with a parent who hits – that usually relates to violence affecting vulnerable women. We have the property divisions that have been talked about for decades but nothing has happened with, not even during the eight years that Märta Stenevi exercised influence over the government power. There we will finally appoint an inquiry. It is something that civil society has fought for for decades, and now it is coming.

One could possibly say that the gap between rhetoric and practice has rarely been as large as it has been regarding the S-MP government during the preceding eight years. Perhaps we are a bit more low-key rhetorically, but when it comes to practical action, there is no doubt that there is finally a government that can credibly ensure that the fight against men's violence against women will, in any case, come close to the fight that has been waged politically against organized crime in recent years, even if that fight has also been far too insufficient, and therefore we are also rectifying that.

When it comes to these important issues, one can start by saying that it is not entirely logical to demand higher and longer sentences for men who hit and at the same time say that punishment has no other effect than retribution. The punishment is an extraordinarily important part both of the restitution for the crime victim and for the protection of the surrounding society. It is clear that it has a preventive effect when we say that men who, for example, commit severe violence against women on repeated occasions shall be imprisoned for life or receive the indeterminate detention sentence for which we have now received investigation proposals.

Public safety is the entire motive for that type of change in the sentences, because we know that if we lock up truly dangerous persons, they will not have the opportunity to commit new violent crimes and sexual crimes against women and others who have been affected by this. It is therefore obvious that it has a preventive effect, and I believed, in addition to the compensation for crime victims, that it was an important starting point in the entire discussion about the importance of addressing the unjust and very inefficient bulk discount that has characterized the system so far.

When it comes to the broad scope, I want to say in conclusion that it is as if we can only take one issue at a time in this country. It is organized crime, and then we are now adding, on very good grounds, violence against women.

When I have received the very sweeping criticism from the left, including Miljöpartiet, that we would engage in some kind of general repression without coming up with precise changes to the penalties, it has often come from the Socialdemokraterna who have said that we should only focus on the gangs. Then I have wondered what about the women who are victims of violence. Should we not work for their redress? Now we are talking about them, and that I welcome very much.

But what about the young people who are subjected to the violent and degrading robberies? What about other forms of assault or property damage, trespassing into people's most sacred space, that is, the home? Is that not crime that deserves a redress for the crime victims? Of course. And that is what justifies our broader approach to the penalties.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! These are relevant questions that the Minister raises, and it is interesting to consider what the investigation directive looks like. In the directives to the investigation that the Minister refers to, certain criminal policy starting points are established for that assignment. It is a three-page text where the text on gang crime, robbery, and welfare crime is laid out.

Madam Speaker! Let me highlight the passage concerning men's violence against women in the criminal policy starting points for the major investigation: Men's violence against women is also a major societal problem.

Violence by men against women is also a major societal problem.

There is so much space that the structural violence against women gets in the investigation. It is nine words. And it also seems to be how the government views men's violence against women, that is to say something that is also important. Thanks for that!

In the government's budget, women who have fled violence are punished financially, while rich men receive billions. In the government's budget, there are no resources for healthcare, schools, or support for crime victims. In the government's budget, women with low incomes are not worth any reform space, and in the government's crime policy, violence against women is a late addition.

Madam Speaker! The question I must ask myself after this debate is, unfortunately, still what a woman's life is actually worth in the Tidö Government's Sweden.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Märta Stenevi for the opportunity to discuss the important issues today.

I truly welcomed the start of the debate, and I thought, honestly, that the entry into the discussion was an atypical generosity. I thought that it was possibly an expression of the importance of the questions and the importance of finding broad agreements on things that are truly critical for individuals and for our society as a whole. Then it only took a few remarks, so I feel I rather recognize the setup of the debates.

The point is that instead of counting directives, it can also be worth to look at output and results. It is a reality. In one and a half years, we have delivered more in the area than the government that Märta Stenevi joined delivered during those eight years.

Now the restraining orders are coming. Now, therefore, the strong housing law protection for the women exposed to violence is coming. The woman shall stay, and the man who hits shall be evicted. Now a real change of the penalties is coming, so that they reflect the seriousness of the crime in the sentencing. Now a real change of the discounts is coming. Now rules are coming which mean that the person who commits repeated serious acts of violence and sexual offenses, the person who is dangerous, will be locked up for life, even if the sentence for a crime in the individual case does not prescribe life imprisonment.

In the area of civil law, it can be added that children should not have to grow up with a parent who hits or has hit the other parent. The issue of division of property is included.

In the question regarding psychological violence, we also took over a proposal from an investigation with a genuine intention, but it received stinging referral criticism for not working in practice. Now we are taking care of that as well.

Let the actors decide who delivers in this area. I then dare to assert that if we can maintain the same pace forward as we have during the first 18 months, women subjected to violence will be in a significantly better position if we see each other again in half a year, 12 months, or 2 years.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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