Young offenders

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is now an election year, and at this moment, the Sweden Democrats and the government continue to implement the final justice policy reforms, which both do and will make Sweden a safer country. Today we are debating the issue of young offenders, and in this area, much has happened over the last four years.

In 2022, the youth discount for serious crimes was abolished, which means that persons between 18 and 21 years old are now sentenced as adults. During the final part of the parliamentary term, the youth discount will be completely abolished for persons between 18 and 21.

In October 2023, the possibility was introduced to use secret coercive measures, such as secret telephone interception, secret data retrieval, and surveillance of electronic communication for preventive purposes, i.e., without there being a suspicion of a crime or an ongoing investigation into a crime already committed.

The police state that it is one of the most important measures implemented, both in terms of preventing crime and in terms of detecting it, so that the courts can then be able to convict persons for serious crimes.

Two years later, we made it possible to also use these secret coercive measures against persons under 15 years of age. These legislative changes, in combination with the fact that we doubled the minimum sentence for aggravated weapons offenses, have caused the shootings in Sweden to decrease significantly. We have gone from 391 shootings in 2022, the Social Democrats' last year in power, to 158 last year. That is a reduction of 60 percent.

The current year has started well regarding shootings. Despite that we are 21 days into the new year, not a single person has been injured in a shooting in Sweden. Sweden is on its way to healing, but we do not forget that the fatal shootings more than doubled during the Social Democrats' eight years in power – from 27 dead in 2014 to 61 dead in 2022. We do not want that situation back.

This summer we are introducing double sentences for gang criminals, which means that gang criminals convicted of, for example, aggravated weapons offenses will have to spend at least eight years in prison. It is a very large difference compared to just one year in prison, which was the normal penalty just a couple of years ago.

Our next step is to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 14 years and to 13 years for serious crimes. For us, this is not just a measure that will make Sweden safer by allowing dangerous people to be locked up. It is also a matter of justice – that people who are subjected to serious crimes should receive redress for what they have been subjected to.

The question of longer prison sentences and locking up more dangerous people has never, for us, been about dealing with an emerging situation where crime in society has increased. For us, it is about keeping dangerous people away from society. It is about justice and about doing what is morally right. Those responsible for the situation that we have had and still have are those who debated, argued, and enacted the law that has allowed extremely dangerous people to dwell among ordinary people.

From the autumn of 2022, it is the Sweden Democrats and the governing parties that are enacting laws. I will never apologize for wanting to ensure that dangerous people are kept locked up. Nothing is more crime-preventing than that. If we are to be able to protect children, women, men – all ordinary people in this society – this is the only possible alternative.

From the opposition, with the Social Democrats at the forefront, they do not want to proceed with the proposal to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 13 years for serious crimes. I can only regret that the opposition parties have learned nothing from what their lax crime policy led to in practice.

They need to ask themselves: Does a weapon become less dangerous because it is a 13-year-old holding it? Does a rape become less serious because it is a 13-year-old committing it? Do you think it is reasonable that ordinary youths should have to share schools and classrooms with dangerous people? I think that the Socialdemokraterna and the others in the opposition have landed very wrongly.

Despite the fact that many figures are heading in the right direction regarding violent crime, unfortunately, Sverigedemokraterna and the government are left with the legacy of the previous government's failures in a number of different areas. The young people who are recruited into the criminal environment today attended preschool when the Socialdemokraterna ruled Sweden. They attended primary school, visited youth centers, and were cared for by social services when the Socialdemokraterna ruled Sweden. If one seriously means that the crime prevention work has failed, one must also acknowledge one's own failures.

What we are seeing instead is, as previously mentioned, that the gross violence is decreasing significantly in Sweden. But one can also ask: When the shootings in Sweden reached their peak in 2022, we had the most shootings per capita in the EU. There were more shootings than in the entirety of the United Kingdom. There were more in little Södertälje than in the entirety of London. Do people seriously believe that Sweden has worse schools, leisure activities, club activities, and social services than countries like Bulgaria and Romania? Do people believe that the class divides and poverty are greater in Sweden than in the United Kingdom?

The left-wing parties claim that class divisions and poverty are increasing in Sweden with the current government, but at the same time, violent crime is decreasing. Based on the left-wing parties' arguments, it should rather be increasing. The arguments simply do not add up.

The point is that the work that Sverigedemokraterna does together with the government is working. Regarding specifically crime-preventive measures in the justice policy area, I want to emphasize the forfeiture legislation. It is truly crime-preventive to take criminals' assets, which the police have done on an enormous scale since the new forfeiture legislation became a reality. When criminals cannot flash a luxurious lifestyle, it becomes less attractive for young people to choose a criminal path in life.

Not least, it is crime-preventive to lock up dangerous people. They cannot commit new crimes when they are locked up. They also cannot recruit new youths to commit new crimes.

This autumn, the Sweden Democrats and the government parties are seeking renewed confidence to continue taking Sweden in a new direction, a direction that makes Sweden both safer and freer.

I would like to conclude by moving to reject all the motions and to approve the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! Last week, the network No to 13-year-olds in prison organized a demonstration at Mynttorget. There, the bishop of the Stockholm diocese spoke, representatives from the trade unions Vision and Akademikerförbundet ST, as well as representatives from organizations such as Rädda Barnen, Unicef, Bris, and Barnrättsbyrån. They represent both children and those who work with them.

A speaker said that all the professionals who work with the children see the shortcomings in the work. They see children falling between the cracks, but they never say that the solution is to put these children in prison. They hear from the government that something must be done, but at the same time they say that everything has not been tried. As a country, we have not fully tried the preventive work.

I have, however, understood that these organizations may not be ones that SD and the government listen to, so I do not intend to ask the member to comment on the demonstration. But I intended to ask for a comment on the entire justice system's views on the announced proposal – the same justice system that is led by the Ministry of Justice and by the Tidö Government. Police, prosecutors, courts, and the correctional services are, in fact, critical of lowering the age of criminal responsibility. They see major problems, both in principle and purely practically. They fear that even younger people will be drawn into the gangs.

The National Board for Forensic Medicine is an expert agency which, among other things, has the task of making the advanced assessments regarding the new penalty of security detention, which the Riksdag will soon take a position on. The National Board for Forensic Medicine states that, as far as they have experienced, there is no research that supports this change. My question is whether the member and the Sverigedemokrater have confidence in the National Board for Forensic Medicine and other authorities within the justice system.

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

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Madam Speaker! Let me first and foremost clarify that there is probably no one in this chamber, from the right or the left, who wants to place children in prison. But this proposal is a consequence of the crime development that we have seen. We see that ever younger children are being drawn into crime.

Are people old enough to commit this type of serious crime, we also mean that they are old enough to take responsibility for it. I see major problems with situations where people have seen their children being shot and that the person who committed the act then does not receive any punishment.

For me, it is obvious that children who commit this type of serious crime must also take responsibility. They have ended up in this situation because parents have not been able to set boundaries, because the school has not been able to set boundaries, and because social services have not been able to set boundaries. Then society must intervene in a much clearer way and set boundaries for these children, because it has been allowed to go too far.

Regarding the opinions of the various referral bodies, I can say that in the election campaign we promised our voters to lower the age of criminal responsibility. My responsibility as a politician and elected representative for the Sverigedemokraterna is to follow what the voters consider. I see the voters' trust as more important than the opinions of various referral bodies regarding this.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! I would say that it is not just any referral bodies. These are the expert agencies that are to make assessments for the government and for the public in very important matters. I interpret the member's answer as that the Sweden Democrats do not have confidence in the police, the prosecutors, the courts, the Prison and Probation Service, and in this case also the National Board for Forensic Medicine when it comes to the assessments.

I share the member's image and description: For the one who is affected or for the one who has a relative murdered, the age of the perpetrator plays absolutely no role. It is equally horrifying regardless of age. We are part of that. We are also part of the fact that, as the member describes, it is an adult world that has failed these children. But we cannot punish the children when it is adult society that has failed. Instead, it is a matter of ensuring that we have an adult society that functions.

I have a bit of difficulty with politicians who stand and say: We do not want to do this. All the expert agencies that fall under our department do not want to do this. But we have promised the voters this.

I have promised the voters to solve the problem. I am thinking about whether one submits a proposal or has said something and it turns out that it is not the right way to go. None of the referral bodies under the Ministry of Justice have said that this is a good idea. They say: There is no research that supports the change being proposed. Instead, some say that they are afraid that even younger children will be drawn into this.

My question remains: Does the member have confidence in the authorities under the Ministry of Justice?

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

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Madam Speaker! First and foremost, I want to point out or clarify one thing. We want to carry out the measures that we are carrying out, but we would not have had to carry out those measures if a policy had previously been pursued that ensured the country had not ended up in the situation it is in now.

This is a situation that has been built up over a very long time. For a long time, we have tested the social crime policy. Evidentially, the violent crime increased significantly throughout the entire 2000s; it is only now decreasing. We have tested the policy with the preventive measures that are claimed to work, but they do not work. It is only now that we see that crime is decreasing again.

21 days have passed in the new year. Not a single person has been injured in a shooting. We have seen a 60 percent reduction in shootings since 2022. It is therefore my firm opinion that the policy we are implementing is also yielding results. Then, it is a very unfortunate situation that it needs to go so far that young people are to be punished. But I also see it from a crime victim perspective. It is about the fact that those people who have been subjected to a rape, a shooting, and so on, should receive redress for what they were subjected to.

I think: If one is old enough to take another person's life, as some 13-year-olds have been in this case, one should also have to take their punishment. One should not go unpunished.

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

Heléne Björklund (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating young offenders, but I actually see it as us debating society and society's great failure when it comes to our children and young people.

I want to start by stating that I will not point fingers, shift blame, or say who has done what. I state that it is the failure of society that we are standing here and debating. I can also say directly that we Social Democrats see that we have done very much in this area but obviously not enough. We are the first to admit it. When society has changed so radically and when the failure is so obvious, we are also prepared to admit it and that we must reconsider our policy.

We see a development that is completely horrible. Children are recruited for murder. Children recruit children, and children are recruited for missions that no adult would perform because the risks are so great.

This has not emerged in a vacuum. We have had a societal development over the last 30 years, I would say, where segregation has taken hold. Children have grown up in families and areas that lack resources, and society has in many cases withdrawn. The schools have not succeeded in their compensatory mission. The youth centers have not been there. The labor market has become increasingly insecure.

In this society, we have allowed gangs to grow. In the cracks, the gangs have stepped forward. With money, threats, and promises of a false community, they have recruited our youth.

If we want to achieve a better society, we must also work for it. Then we must build a stronger society where all children get equal opportunities. I refuse to give up faith in our children. I do not believe that one is born a criminal. I do not believe that it is which parents or which zip code one has that determines if a child will succeed. We shall help each other to prove this.

But I also see what everyone else sees: that some children go further, earlier, than we have ever seen in modern times. Some children have no morality or sense of consequence. They are unable to resist when they receive an offer. Therefore, we must now manage to do several things at once. We need to have a repressive policy that is legally secure, accurate, and effective. And we must build a stronger society that reduces the recruitment base, so that the next generation does not end up there. That is where we believe the government has its blind spot: new recruitment.

According to the police's own situational pictures, there are now almost 5,000 children around the gangs. There are no fewer than 127 children under the age of 15 who are currently suspected of involvement in murder cases. This must make the entire society act forcefully. These children are not leaders or strategic actors. They are executors – errand boys, couriers, and children who carry weapons. Some children see it as a summer job.

Madam Speaker! In this report, some good proposals are rejected with reference to ongoing work. I would therefore like to clarify some of our Social Democratic proposals.

We want to see earlier and coordinated interventions between school, social services and the police. We want to see targeted interventions for girls, who are often both exploited and rendered invisible. We want to see faster prosecution of young people, so that society's reaction comes in time.

So, regarding the question of the age of criminal responsibility. The Social Democrats' position is clear. We reject the government's announced proposal for a general lowering of the age of criminal responsibility. But just as the government's own investigator has suggested, we can imagine testing and evaluating a temporary lowering from 15 to 14 years for very serious crimes.

Of course, we do not believe that a temporary reduction stops new recruitment. We do not believe that lowering from 15 to 14 years for certain crimes is a miracle cure. It does not fix the school. It does not fill the youth centers. It does not put together a torn society. But a reduction of the age of criminal responsibility marks that society must be able to react when the most serious crimes are committed by very young people and that crime victims and relatives shall meet a society that takes their reality seriously.

Madam Speaker! Here we Social Democrats want to very clearly emphasize that these children and young people must never be housed together with adults. If the state chooses to go this way, we must also build a completely different execution for the young: youth-adapted institutions with functioning school, treatment and structure and support – all with the goal of breaking the criminal path.

Madam Speaker! Many people are talking about tougher measures. It is easy to be tough in words; the difficult thing is to be accurate. If one truly wants to stop new recruitment, one cannot just talk about 13-, 14-, or 15-year-olds. We must build the strong society again. The children shall not be the gangs' future. The children shall be Sweden's future.

We stand behind all our four reservations, but for the sake of time, we move today for the approval of reservations 1 and 5.

(Applause)

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

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Madam Speaker! Gross violence is decreasing significantly in Sweden. It has now been 21 days into the new year, and so far, not a single person has been injured by shootings. The Commissioner of the Swedish Police states that over half of the explosions that occur are carried out with pyrotechnics, which is something important to point out. The shootings have thus decreased by 60 percent since the Social Democrats' record year in 2022.

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats' explanatory model for why people choose to become criminals is about class divides, that people are poor and that the welfare state is becoming worse. The Social Democrats argue that our economic policy increases both the divides and the poverty. But if the economic divides and poverty are increasing sharply in Sweden, as the Social Democrats claim, why do we then see that gross violence is decreasing sharply in Sweden? According to the Social Democrats, it should be the opposite: If the divides and poverty increase, crime should also increase. That is what the Social Democrats always say.

I want to give the member an opportunity to explain this. If class inequalities and poverty increase but crime decreases, is it then the case that the member's party is lying? Or is it the case that class inequalities and poverty do indeed increase, but that the Sverigedemokraterna's and the government's policy actually works?

The gross violence more than doubled during the Social Democrats' last eight years in power. A final question therefore arises as to whether it was due to the Social Democrats pursuing a policy that increased the inequalities and the poverty in Sweden.

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

Heléne Björklund (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the questions!

I agree on one thing, and that is that it is very positive that the shootings are decreasing. Unlike the member and his party, we see no gain in having a polarization around a negative development in Sweden. On the contrary, we are very happy about the development we are now seeing.

I want to address the Swedish police directly and say thank you for a very good job. We are following this very closely. The member and I sat in on the same briefing with the Commissioner of the Swedish Police yesterday, where we could see how the shootings have decreased. That is something I am very happy and grateful for.

We also see that other crimes are increasing. Explosions have increased by 40 percent, for example. I would, however, never imagine standing here in the speaker's chair and accusing the member for that development, because there are also other aspects to this. Several of the tools that have enabled the police to do an even better job, which the member mentioned in his speech, were introduced and decided upon during the previous government. But as I said in my speech, I will neither point fingers nor stand here and take the credit for anything. I do not believe, after all, that is what is needed to solve the major societal problems in Sweden.

When it comes to the economic development in Sweden, there has been an incredible divergence. We see a segregation that affects an enormous number of families in an enormous number of areas. Many have fared better, but even more have fared very much worse. I am surprised that the member does not see it themselves.

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

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Madam Speaker! I do not share the Social Democrats' view regarding the final point in this issue. I mean that we have strengthened the economy for families in Sweden where the parents work. In that way, we can also ensure that it becomes more just. I do not think it is just that, for example, immigrants who have come to Sweden and who go to work every day should finance the maintenance of persons who never ever go to work. For me, it is a matter of justice.

It is also not true that the paradigm shift we are now seeing occurred during the Social Democrats' time in power. It is something that has occurred during the last four years when the Sweden Democrats and the governing parties have ruled Sweden, even though I am, of course, very happy that the Social Democrats have chosen to join many of the points that we have implemented during that time.

However, it is interesting to ask: the Social Democrats have indeed joined our policy, but how can they continue the concerted effort against crime when, after the next election, they want to cooperate with parties that, for example, want to increase immigration to Sweden, who do not want to toughen sentences and who say no to lowering the age of criminal responsibility?

It would have been interesting to hear how the paradigm shift can continue when one is to conduct crime policy together with, for example, Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet.

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

Heléne Björklund (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to the member!

It surprises me very much that we have Sweden Democrats standing here in the chamber and saying that crime practically no longer exists. I would like to warn against saying that you, together with the government, have solved all of Sweden's problems regarding crime, Pontus Andersson Garpvall. I am afraid that it will be a harsh awakening.

The same applies to the economic policy. The member takes this opportunity to tell about several things that one claims the Sweden Democrats and the government have done. There are also very many things that the Sweden Democrats have said no to: increased child allowance, increased student grant, and the abolition of the care day, which they promised. Unemployment in Sweden is sky-high. Still, the member stands here and beats their chest because even the economic policy has gone the voters' way. It is not true, and I think that the Sweden Democrats will come to experience that.

I also want to say that the sudden awakening is not so sudden. The Social Democrats have reconsidered part of their policy, not all of it. We do not see it at all as us joining the Sweden Democrats – far from it. But many times we see the same reality and perhaps arrive at quite similar conclusions. For me, it is not a problem, rather the opposite. It is a strength that one can demonstrate unity when it comes to how to solve difficult issues.

What we see as a very large societal challenge, which we perhaps also must agree on, is the drugs in Sweden – the party drug use that fuels crime and contributes to both shootings and bombings. We should be able to jointly take a firm stand against party drug use.

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

Charlotte Nordström (M)

Madam Speaker! A twelve-year-old came to a series match with a pistol and a mission: Shoot number 20 in the opposing team! It touched me deeply.

Last year, over 50 children under the age of 15 were involved in legal proceedings concerning murder or murder plots. Most were 13 or 14 years old. These are children who should have been sitting in a classroom. They should have had hobbies and dreams for the future, not been handling weapons or carrying out murder missions. This is a reality that requires more than strong emotions. It requires responsibility and action.

If we are to put a stop to this, we must manage to maintain two tracks simultaneously, with both a powerful crime prevention effort and a justice system that reacts quickly, clearly, and fairly. It is not a question of either or. It is both.

In the consideration, motions are treated in matters that are already being handled or are under preparation.

The Act on Municipalities' Responsibility for Crime Prevention seems to have gained traction, as there are today municipalities that carry out well-developed local work in close cooperation with the police, civil society, and other actors. Social services is a central actor in this work.

Since last summer, the new preventive social services act is finally in place. For the first time, it is no longer voluntary to work preventatively for the children's best interests. Now it is a requirement. Early, clear, and coordinated interventions were needed to prevent children from being drawn into crime. What is in focus is to stop recruitment before crimes are committed. The social services now have a clearer mandate to act early and a clear preventive mission.

It is also about building functioning social safety nets around every child, even in cases where there is no support from the own family. We have a will to support and prevent, but secrecy was a threat to our children and youth. Now, secrecy can no longer be used as an excuse for passivity. We have torn down the obstacles that previously stopped cooperation. Information sharing for crime prevention purposes is now a main rule when children are at risk of crime. This means that social services, school, and police can cooperate more effectively.

The government has continued to mandate the development of support for the work with children and young people who risk committing or commit serious crimes. Brå maps out and develops local projects against new recruitment into crime in order to spread good examples. A guide has been developed within the collaborative form Bob in order to provide support in the work with children and young people in organized crime. Brå has presented the report Girls and women in criminal networks, which has provided important knowledge about the role of women and girls within organized crime. The municipalities now have access to knowledge, support, and structure. The focus must now be on implementation. Focused crime prevention work must be carried out.

Work is underway to ensure faster prosecution of young people. The Government has decided to extend and expand the pilot project with a fast-track procedure in criminal cases for offenders under 18 years of age. The assignment also states that the relevant authority shall submit proposals on how the pilot project can be made permanent.

It has long been said loudly from various sides in debates that children are our future. Many times it has been a talking point in the debate. But what has happened concretely? If words had been enough, we would not have seen 13-year-olds being drawn into murder missions. The difference now is that the Moderate-led government does not stop at rhetoric. We implement, we deliver, and we take responsibility.

Madam Speaker! Let me move on to the question of temporarily lowering the age of criminal responsibility for certain serious crimes. Last year, there were, therefore, over 50 children under the age of 15 involved in murder or murder plots, and most were 13–14 years old. It is these children we are talking about, not children in general. These are children who, to a large extent, have been known to social services for a long time and who have been the subject of society's interventions for a very long time. If we are to protect these children, protect the crime victims, and protect society, we must dare to work in new ways. That is why we are moving towards youth prisons for 15–17-year-olds.

The prevention has failed. Nine out of ten of the 15–17-year-olds sentenced to closed juvenile care relapse into serious, grave crime and have links to gangs. It is not care. It is a system failure. It is obvious that the system Sweden has had to handle young offenders has not been adapted for children who bomb and murder on behalf of criminal networks. One must start from how reality looks right now. No one wants 15–16-year-olds to sit in prison. The word hurts, but reality hurts more. Not to act is not humanism. It is irresponsibility.

It is clear that no one wants children to be in prison. Just the word prison feels uncomfortable and goes straight to the heart. But a Sis-home is in its own way very similar to a prison. However, it does not have Kriminalvården's capacity and ability. The state youth care was built for another time and other problems. Today, there is almost no actor in our society who has the opportunity to focus on children in the risk zone, because now everyone must handle the absolute grossest violence.

Today, a different and clearer division of labor with different focuses and competencies is required, so that it becomes the right intervention for the right child, in order to succeed in the task of ensuring that children do not end up in serious crime. We are now establishing youth prisons and simultaneously reviewing the entire mandate and organization of state youth care.

No one wants 13- or 14-year-olds to sit in prison, but one thing is certain: The situation is acute. We cannot simply let this continue without acting. The Government is now carefully analyzing all referral responses and will return with the way forward. The purpose is to protect children and young people from the gangs' claws, protect society from life-threatening violence, and create a safer Sweden.

The work does not stop there. The penalty for recruiting children shall be increased. The police shall be able to take down the gangs' recruitment advertisements on social media. This makes it possible to remove content online that aims to recruit young people to commit crimes.

Madam Speaker! At its core, this is about common sense, courage, early intervention, and caring for one another – the best positive factors in everyday life. If any child or any young person is harmed, one must act quickly and provide help.

Around every child and youth, there are protective factors that reduce the risk of ending up in crime, substance abuse, and other difficulties. It should be a matter of course to grow up in a loving family with clear rules and present adults who provide affirmation, and to enjoy school, feel a sense of belonging, and be noticed for positive actions. It is crucial that children and young people are offered communities that are stronger than the criminal gangs. This is not solely a question of crime policy but also of social policy, school policy, integration, and a strong work line. More people must do more and do it better.

Children and young people have the right to a life without crime and violence. Children and young people have the right to a safe and hopeful future, because children should be allowed to be children. We have a collective responsibility to reverse the current trend.

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of the committee's proposal that the Riksdag rejects all motions.

(Applause)

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! There was much in Charlotte Nordström's speech that I want to comment on, but some things stung more than others.

It concerns, among other things, views that I share, for example that more must be invested in preventive work. This concerns social services and school, and that a new Social Services Act has been received. But this must be resourced; otherwise, one only places the responsibility at a low level in society where there are not sufficient tools. There is not enough even to launch the important crime prevention projects that are underway and which aim at wanting to take care of children at an early stage so that they do not end up in any form of criminality.

I am also reflecting on something else that was raised but which is not quite in focus now, namely the difference between Sis institutions and what I call children's prisons, which they want to establish now. Sis has had problems, but much has been reformed, and we are on the right track. What Sis has that children's prisons and the Prison and Probation Service do not have is the possibility of school and good treatment. This is also said by the Prison and Probation Service itself. We are facing an acute situation, and we must act very quickly. We are in complete agreement on that. But one must look more realistically at what solutions exist in this problem.

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

Charlotte Nordström (M)

Madam Speaker! We have deliberated on the question of economy before, member. In my experience, it is not all about economy. It is about having support, knowledge, forms, and structure for the work in the municipalities. We have now ensured that this is in place through the support functions and reports produced by the Crime Prevention Council. At the same time, we are making a historic investment of 10 billion kronor over five years on preventive work through the new Social Services Act.

Then the focus is on the question of lowering the age of criminal responsibility. We believe that it is realistic and wise to act here and now. Children should carry dreams, not weapons. That is why we are acting. The Sis-hem homes cannot cope with this. This is time-limited – five years – to give the rest of society a chance to build up robust tools and relieve the pressure in the meantime so that we get a substantial change regarding crime prevention work out in the municipalities and get a better organization out at the Sis-hem homes.

The prisons are not equipped for this type of crime. Lowering the age of criminal responsibility is not just about youth prisons but also about youth supervision. There is a breadth to the proposal.

Now we will have to see what the government comes up with. We shall not precede that debate. But what is interesting is what the Left wants to do concretely instead. Are we to place all these children in Sis homes?

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! I assume that we can find ways to develop Sis. We can use the victim's statement, which is also an important tool and which marks the crime victim's right to have the question of guilt clarified. Through that path, one can also obtain additional rights as a crime victim, something that could be further developed.

I do not see imprisonment as the only option, and even less that the age of criminal responsibility should be lowered, which I will soon argue for from the rostrum.

The government parties' approach to the repressive measures is too one-sided. We need to have measures to signal that this is not okay but criminal and that it should be punishable in one way or another. But it does not have to be prisons; even forms of care can work. We should be able to further develop the process that has already been started in the Sis-homes and achieve much better results than what the Prison and Probation Service itself says can be achieved.

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

Charlotte Nordström (M)

Madam Speaker! The Moderate-led government has truly made major investments and major reforms in crime prevention work. It is not just words. It is decisions and reality, something that supports the municipalities in their operations so that they have tools to put the children in focus and intervene at an early stage. I think it came across quite well in my speech from the rostrum.

In the proposal, it is not only about youth prisons but also about youth supervision. The penalty shall be adapted according to the best interests of the child and according to the individual. But we want the full extent. When children murder on assignment, it is no longer an ideological question, member, but a question of responsibility. The Moderate-led government is prepared to take that responsibility.

(Applause)

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! I will argue for an approval of reservation 6, which concerns that we shall oppose the proposal on the age of criminal responsibility. Vänsterpartiet also stands behind the reservations on new recruitment and the girls' situation. Of course we do, but we highlight above all reservation 6.

This debate will continue in several rounds, which may confuse the public. The debate we have now concerns what has come in during the general motion period. Later in our session, a government proposition on the age of criminal responsibility will be presented.

I have worked as a lawyer since my graduation in January 1970, which is for more than 55 years. I have read amounts of investigations and propositions, but I have never read a proposal for legislation that has been nearly as deficient as this. I am horrified. I have been and am upset. There is devastating criticism from heavy authorities, agencies, researchers and civil society. Serious debate articles have been written, among others by 138 prosecutors. We have not seen anything similar before. But the government does not let itself be influenced. It is obvious that criticism from experts and interest organizations means nothing.

The criticism is, among other things, about the fact that the issue of lowering the age of criminal responsibility completely lacks support in research and proven experience. It also conflicts with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Instrument of Government. The criticism also concerns the fact that the proposal has been forced through, despite a lack of preparation or no preparation at all at the end, and stands in conflict with the constitution.

The early assignments to Kriminalvården to prepare a reception of children for prison stays and to adhere to a reduced number of detainees are also problematic before we have managed to make any democratic decision via a parliamentary decision that the reform shall be implemented.

There was criticism in the investigation. Seven of nine specially appointed experts flagged and opposed the proposal to lower the age of criminal responsibility – to 14 years. These included representatives from, among others, the Prosecution Authority, Sweden's Courts, the National Board of Health and Welfare, and the Children's Ombudsman. Nevertheless, a reduction of the age of criminal responsibility to 14 years was proposed. The criticism of the investigation was massive and unanimous. Of the 90 referral bodies, only 3 supported the proposal.

Despite this straight-through devastating and repeated criticism, the government has referred a draft for a Council on Legislation referral. Here, one is not only proceeding with the heavily criticized original proposal, but one goes a step further and wants to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 13 years – this without having made any preparation regarding just this age limit.

Many, including myself and Vänsterpartiet, fear that this will have the opposite effect and reinforce the criminal identity among young people. In countries where this has been tried, such as Denmark, it could be seen that there were more relapses, poorer school results, and a risk of recruitment of even younger children, whom the criminal gangs then turn to.

Punishing children in their early teens is to place the responsibility on children whom society has failed to protect. The children are often more victims than perpetrators. Where is the Tidö government's victim perspective now? The system can also be perceived as unreasonable when children without sufficient maturity are convicted of crimes that one or more adults have tricked, drugged, or forced children to commit.

Research also shows that children who commit crimes are usually in a context characterized by a lack of care, trauma, social problems in the family, and mental ill-health. Such circumstances require that the children be met as individuals in need of support and protection rather than as legal subjects within the repressive system.

Socialstyrelsen also has views and argues that the development with an increased number of violent crimes is primarily a societal failure and thus society's responsibility, not that of the individual child.

The Prison and Probation Service, which is expected to meet these children, says that the children are in a process of maturation and do not have as developed abilities as older people regarding, for example, impulse control and consequential thinking. This affects the fact that children commit crimes, and the children who commit crimes are often socially vulnerable and have a particular need for support. Society's reaction to crimes committed by children should therefore be aimed at rehabilitation.

The Prison and Probation Service also states that it has previously indicated that it is neither prepared nor equipped to care for children as young as 14 years old. The assessment is that the Prison and Probation Service is also not fully prepared or equipped now to care for children as young as 14 years old – and even less 13 years old. The Prison and Probation Service therefore advocates that children as young as 13 years old be cared for in other ways, which do not compromise individual prevention or public safety but can better counteract the harmful effects that risk arising when such young children are deprived of liberty within the justice system.

To ignore such massive and unanimous criticism from referral bodies with expert knowledge, to misinterpret international conventions, and to assign the preparation of an implementation before the proposal has even been adopted by the Riksdag undermines the legislative process and is not compatible with Sweden's rule of law traditions.

Finally, a substantial amount of research shows that a lowering of the age of criminal responsibility will not affect the crime it is intended to affect, at least not in a positive direction.

I have mentioned that this violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which we should take very seriously. Furthermore, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child clearly expresses in its recommendations that a state should under no circumstances lower the age of criminal responsibility, and in 2023 Sweden received a clear recommendation from the Committee on the Rights of the Child to let the age of criminal responsibility remain at 15 years.

The criminal gangs are ruthless towards the children. Society should not be as well. The so-called reform must be stopped.

I move for approval of reservation number 6.

(Applause)

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! As has already been mentioned, crime in recent years has largely been characterized by serious violent crimes in the form of shootings and explosions. However, the clearance rate has increased significantly, and several planned crimes have been aborted at the preparation or attempt stage. The number of shootings has decreased, as have the deaths linked to shootings. This is good news, and we hope that the trend continues downward. Unfortunately, we have not seen quite the same effect when it comes to the explosions.

A common pattern is that many of those involved are very young. We have seen a marked increase in young perpetrators as both perpetrators of and even recruiters for serious violent crimes. It concerns children, mostly young boys, who actually should have been in school but are instead sent out onto the streets to carry out bombings and contract killings. In this regard, Sweden is exceptional; no other European country has had a similar development.

Despite great efforts, well-executed police work, tightened legislation, and increased clearance rates, recruitment continues – now almost exclusively on digital platforms. It seems that young people are more or less lining up to take on these murder assignments. The Government views this with great seriousness and is taking initiatives to increase the requirements for social media actors to take greater responsibility for the content on their platforms.

After having read prosecutor Lisa dos Santos's book Gängens hus, I can state that a smartphone is now to be regarded as a crime tool in the criminal world. With smartphones, one recruits, uses encrypted apps to hinder the police, and informs 13- and 14-year-olds about what they should do and where they should fetch weapons and so on. There is, therefore, much to be done here.

Madam Speaker! In the twilight, we also have young people committing other crimes of less serious character, primarily theft and robbery. In those cases, we can observe that the clearance rate is somewhat more modest. Svensk Handel testifies to an uneven struggle where many cases are written off without action. A growing proportion of stores now choose not to report the crimes as they know in advance that they do not yield any investigation or sanction.

In my world, these crimes should receive increased priority, as they can be the first signal that a young person is heading into heavier crime. In that context, I would like to advocate for a project called Rätt kurva. In short, it is a collaboration between the police, social services, and the business sector that has shown good results. It is about catching young people and offering them meaningful employment. It is good crime prevention work that should be adopted by more.

Madam Speaker! How did we actually end up here? Why do we see children who are prepared to undertake murder assignments for compensation?

There is talk about a lack of integration, about the school, about social services and about more police. All of this is, of course, important parts, but the parents or guardians, who should be closest to the children, have for a long time been almost forgotten in the political debate in Sweden. I believe this is a serious mistake.

What we see today is the consequence of Swedish politics having turned a blind eye for far too long to that which is the very foundation of a secure society: the family and values. This situation has been created through parallel social structures that challenge Swedish values, with children and young people who cannot navigate between right and wrong.

The problems do not start in school, not with social services and not with the police, which is the ultimate instrument in society to curb crime, but they start at home – in the family. There is no authority, school counselor or social worker, or even any laws that can replace a present mother or father. There are no socioeconomic factors that can compensate for loving and present parents who set clear boundaries. It is in the home that the foundation is laid, and without this foundation, we will have to continue trying to pick up the pieces when it is too late.

Madam Speaker! Within research, it is established that socioeconomic background in itself is not a decisive cause of crime. This is pointed out, among other things, by the Crime Prevention Council's report Socioeconomic background and crime. Instead, it is good norms and values that play the decisive role. It is a question of upbringing and values regarding whether the person can justify the action for themselves and their surroundings.

The common denominator for many of the young offenders recruited by the gangs is that they often come from difficult and vulnerable family circumstances. It is about absent fathers, weak family ties, and a lack of boundaries and guidance. Not infrequently, it is also about mental ill-health and a sense of alienation from society. In this situation, when the family fails, the gangs step in and offer a false sense of community and a different loyalty.

Madam Speaker! It will take time to clean up these enormous societal problems. The situation is serious and has been for a long time, with children and young people being exploited by ruthless, cold-blooded gang leaders. Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer has rightly called the situation domestic terrorism. That is what it is, and the children are many times in the line of fire.

It is crucial now to implement the Tidö Agreement's reform agenda. We Christian Democrats and the government continue the restructuring of the crime policy to build up the security that many are calling for. It is about a reformed criminal law, harsher penalties, more tools for the police, and a focus on the crime victim. This also includes a new direction for crime prevention work.

In the document Barriers to Crime – a social preventive strategy against criminal networks and other crime, the government presents the crime prevention work moving forward. This work takes place in a number of areas. There, the foundation is laid for long-term measures where school, social services and police cooperate better to catch children and young people in the risk zone. We continue to invest in parenting support across the country with special assignments to the Agency for Family Law and Parenting Support.

This is completely central, but we Christian Democrats are not satisfied. Not least regarding parental responsibility, much more is required. Parents must be given support to take their full responsibility, and we must realize that secure families are a completely decisive part of the solution.

Madam Speaker! A change of government was required to produce the legislation in the field of justice that we are now in such acute need of. The Christian Democrats were needed to put a stop to the policy that for all too long has undermined the role of the family and the importance of values in society. We are the value-based party, and we have always highlighted the family as the cornerstone in crime prevention work. It is there that good values and a sense of right and wrong are built up in Swedish society.

This is now more urgent than ever. Sweden must not be a country where 13–14-year-olds blow up stairwells, carry out contract killings, and seek status in the criminal world. If Sweden is to become safe again, we must talk about the obvious: safe families, responsible parents, and clear values.

With this said, Madam Speaker, 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)

Madam Speaker! The deadly shootings and explosions continue to strike our country indiscriminately, even though it sounds like from the government's representatives that the danger is over. The Center Party does not think so. We see that both old and young are being exposed to crime.

For the one who is severely injured or whose relative is murdered, it absolutely does not matter how old the perpetrator is – whether they are older or younger than 15 years. The crimes are equally horrific and hit just as hard. Unfortunately, we see children who are 12, 13 or 14 years old shooting, murdering and exploding to an extent never seen before.

Centerpartiet has therefore said yes to most proposals within the field of justice when we have found that the measures have been effective, legally sound, and evidence-based.

Centerpartiet has therefore, in the Riksdag during this parliamentary term, voted yes to the requirement of a trial for children younger than 15 years who commit serious crimes. This means that a preliminary investigation and trial are carried out just as usual to clarify and determine what happened, in order to provide clarity for those affected.

We in the Center Party have also supported the proposal that secret and preventive measures can also be used for children under 15 years of age, in order to better prevent and investigate crimes and give crime victims clarity, but also to be able to find and punish those who recruit children to commit crimes.

We have said yes to this and others because we consider it to be effective, and it has been a good tool for combating these serious crimes and restoring safety. The proposed proposal to lower the age of criminal responsibility is not one of them. Centerpartiet will say no to lowering the age of criminal responsibility from 15 years. We say no to 13 years, and we say no to 14 years.

The announced proposal to lower the age of criminal responsibility has met with unparalleled opposition from academia, from authorities, and from civil society organizations. They often say that they said no to 14 years in the referral responses and that they say an even sharper no to 13 years.

Among those who have reacted negatively to the proposals are the police, the prosecutors, the courts, the Prison and Probation Service, and the National Board of Forensic Medicine. Many referral bodies have reacted to the proposal for both its consequences and its lack of legal certainty. Among others, 26 experienced and seasoned prosecutors with long experience have come out and protested and highlighted all the problems that exist with the proposal in their work from their professional perspective – and these are people who work with and have the task of prosecuting and convicting people. All of these are prepared to take the responsibility that the government says it takes, but they want to do it in a way that works and not in a way that just becomes poster politics.

Madam Speaker! We in the Center Party see that we instead need to change perspectives in Sweden to address the serious crime that forces children and young people into these horrific acts. But it is not about harsher punishments or about locking up children in grade 6 or 7. Instead, interventions need to be made much earlier, which the new Social Services Act – which we welcomed – provides the opportunity for. At the same time, these children need to be given better care and a transition that is worthy of the name.

In the same effective way as the criminal gangs recruit children and young people, we need, from the good side, from the law-abiding society, to recruit these children to a reality where there are prospects for the future, safe adults, and a society that can be trusted.

Naturally, children need to gradually and step-by-step take greater responsibility. But we have said that one needs to be approximately 15 years old to have sex legally and to buy energy drinks. We have said that one needs to be 18 years old to drive a car and to vote. This is based on the fact that children do not have an adult's sense of consequences, maturity, or experience. Those are the reasons why we do so so that they can take responsibility gradually. Those are also the reasons why it is not primarily punishment that deters 13-year-olds from committing crimes. They do not have that sense of consequences.

The government says: We must do something. I say: Then do something effective! Do something that not all experts say no to!

Centerpartiet says that what we should do is to have a school that can devote itself to giving children and young people an education by having the social services be near families already at the maternal health center and the child health center. We need to have a functioning psychiatry for both children and adults. It is about a close cooperation with those who meet children. We have stood behind the confidentiality laws that now enable this. The police, the health and medical care, the social services, the preschool and the school need to pull up chairs together.

It is also about growing up free from violence and threats. We see that it is a marker for ending up in crime to have experienced or been subjected to violence as a child. This is a core task for Swedish society.

It is also about a functioning schooling and legal support upon diagnosis. These are enormous protective factors.

Every decent society must strive for all children to be given the right conditions and a bright future, not a prison cell. We cannot punish the children when it is adult society that has failed. Here, we adults and society must take the children's side and ensure that they receive support and help for a life without crime. We must give them the conditions to become responsible citizens who then, in turn, contribute to the common good to the best of their ability.

I move for approval of reservation 6.

(Applause)

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I must agree with Ulrika Liljeberg. We are probably in agreement on most things here. But there is something I miss a little bit.

We are to have crime-preventive measures and ensure that children get to go to school and are raised to be good citizens and so on. But what do we do when society fails in that part and we have a 13–14-year-old murderer who is very proud and elated over his deed? He breaks into a family's villa and manages to shoot both one and two people with an automatic weapon. He murders the father and shoots the mother. The child survives relatively unscathed. But what do we do?

Is it the institution itself that is the great obstacle – that it is Kriminalvården? It actually says "vården" at the end of the agency's name; do not forget that. Is it the logo of the agency that is decisive for how one should handle this murderer, who is 13–14 years old? I am imagining, or believe in any case, that Ulrika Liljeberg also thinks that this is a dangerous person who must be handled in a reasonable and good way.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! I share the member's view that crime prevention work is incredibly important and that those who commit crimes should be punished. We in the Center Party have, as mentioned, stood behind the sentencing increases that have been made and the increased resources for it. What this concerns is that we see that these are children without a sense of consequences.

We have other legislation where there is a possibility to have different measures for those who are said to be unable to take responsibility for their actions. We have this in forensic psychiatric care. We also have the possibility not to prosecute when someone belongs to the group of persons according to LSS. We do this because we consider that these persons cannot fully take responsibility for their actions. On the other hand, they need care. We have said in other debates that these children need care but not criminal care.

We know that the years between 10 and 15 are very formative. It may have even sunk a bit lower in age now than when we grew up. Being convicted of something, ending up in prison and acquiring a criminal identity is incredibly difficult to get out of, research shows.

We have, from the Center Party's side, said yes to juvenile prisons, because we believe that the Prison and Probation Service, under the right conditions, has a good operation. That is not it. But the Center Party and in large part all referral bodies say that children under 15 do not have the consequence-thinking that allows them to take responsibility for their actions. They need care, and that is what I highlighted in my speech. That which exists – BVC and MVC, preschool and school – must do the job better.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is quite clear that we must have a good preschool. We must have a good upbringing for the children. The problem arises when things and events still happen that should not happen. We spoke about a 13–14-year-old murderer who is witnessed as dangerous. One cannot release that person onto the street just like that.

I also agree that the deprivation of liberty measure must be focused on care and treatment in order to ensure that recidivism does not occur. It was stated in a previous speech that the recidivism rate at the Sis homes is 90 percent or something like that.

We have not yet seen the proposal from the government's side regarding how Kriminalvården is to build this. From what I understand, both the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other legislation must be taken into account to ensure that the children receive education, which they are actually entitled to, and that they also receive treatment. But I do not think that Kriminalvården should be disqualified in advance as the principal for the treatment that is to be implemented.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! One becomes afraid when one's words can be spliced together however they please. In the event that the Center Party were in favor of lowering the age of criminal responsibility, we would not mind if the Prison and Probation Service took responsibility for it. They have a good operation under the right conditions.

We believe that children under 15 years of age should not be punished and should not be brought into that system. The referral bodies speak of "research's clear conclusions that repressive measures are not an effective method to counter crime among young people." It is not an effective thing to do, even if it obviously feels good for many to lock up.

I usually speak about that we have a responsibility to ensure that crime victims receive clarity. Of course, every crime victim is unique, but what emerges is that one absolutely does not want anyone else to be subjected to the same thing. One wants the perpetrator's criminal path to be stopped. If it is children who have been perpetrators – we even have 12-year-olds, who are not even covered by the proposed proposal – we do need to implement measures to ensure that this does not happen again. That is the best way to avoid creating more crime victims.

Research says that, when it comes to children under 15 years of age, it should be other interventions than criminal justice. I say it again: We as a society have not managed to do this.

To then say that we shall do this for lack of anything else or say "what shall we do" is an easy way out, when we should do the work that research shows is effective in a proper and good way. It is an easy way out not to do the job by placing this proposal on the Riksdag's table.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! I thought I would start by speaking briefly about youth prisons and my view on such. To begin with, we must make it clear that no normal person wants to see 15-year-olds – or 13- or 14-year-olds – locked up, regardless of in what form or in what place it occurs. But no normal person wants to see their child shot by a 15-year-old or 13-year-old either.

Then we are faced with two alternatives. Either we do not lock up the dangerous youth, and risk that other children are killed, or we lock up the dangerous youth and in that way limit the risk that other children are killed. Now I am talking about those children who commit the most serious crimes, such as murder.

Today we actually do this, that is, we lock up the children who are dangerous. This is done at the so-called Sis-homes, which are locked buildings with high fences. The children are locked in against their will. It is therefore coercion at the Sis-homes, and we must not forget that when we talk about Sis-homes.

The problem with the Sis-homes today is that 90 percent of those locked up there reoffend after they are released. It is, of course, a catastrophe, and from those figures, at least I read that there is something with Sis that is not working.

I just want to briefly mention that I have met fantastic guys and girls who work within Sis. They are exactly the right people in the right place. I just want to have that said.

I also want to point out that the government is now actually making investments in the Sis-homes so that they can become better at taking care of other children than just those who murder – other children who, for various reasons, need to be placed in Sis-homes.

Youth who have not killed anyone, but who are in the risk zone of doing so, can also be placed in, for example, an HVB home. Unlike Sis, the HVB homes are based more on voluntariness. It has, however, been shown that the quality of the HVB homes is very uneven. There are homes that function very well, with good staff and good results, and homes that are extremely bad. There are homes owned by criminals or that have staff who have connections to crime.

Unfortunately, HVB homes are not infrequently very easy to escape from. In several cases, we have seen that a youth who has been placed in an HVB home has escaped and subsequently committed murder. There is therefore much to be done even with today's HVB homes.

We must also be honest and talk about something that perhaps not so many talk about, namely that the gangs in today's system still have their grip on the children when they are in an HVB home or in a Sis home. The gangs know where the children are and how they can reach them. They can continue to direct, intimidate, and control these children. The children are locked in, but they are not protected.

When the Prison and Probation Service takes over the responsibility, the chance that the contact with the gangs is completely broken increases. This will give the children a chance to breathe, think anew and perhaps break with that which destroyed their lives.

Madam Speaker! Much has been said about youth prisons and the age of criminal responsibility in today's debate. Establishing youth prisons and reviewing the age of criminal responsibility is an urgent emergency measure. Today we have children who murder. We have children who rob, who kidnap, who smuggle drugs and who handle automatic weapons. We have children who throw hand grenades into residential buildings. These are children completely without consideration for consequences.

It is gross crimes we are talking about. This must be stopped; that we all agree on. I am fully aware that we will not get a stop on this just because we lock up the children who have already crossed the line and become criminals. I know that there is new recruitment and that it is being replenished all the time. But this is not about that.

This is about what we do with the children whom society has failed and who have been warned about from various sides and for whom reports of concern have been written by the police, the school, youth centers, and social services. It is about children who have already received all interventions, but where it still was not possible to stop the young person from becoming a criminal.

There will always be young people for whom the preventive measures do not work. We must have a plan for how we are to handle these young people. They are the children and the young people we are talking about when we talk about lowering the age of criminal responsibility and youth prisons. It is about children whom society and the authorities have done everything in their power to prevent from becoming murderers, but where it still has not worked. It is those children we are talking about.

How often do we not read about 15-year-olds who have shot a person? It is 15-year-olds who for many years have been the subject of interventions through the social services, but where these have obviously not functioned. Sometimes it is because the interventions have been too poor and sometimes because the interventions have not functioned for that specific child.

Madam Speaker! It is important that youth prisons do not just become a place of detention. The child or youth may have to sit locked up for four, five, or eight years. It is then important that those become years where one can work with attitudes and values and somehow try to reach this youth.

In some cases it will not work, that is how it is, but I actually believe that substantial efforts with the right staff – in combination with the fact that these youths will also attend school while they are locked up – will make a difference.

I have visited one of the youth prisons that will receive these children. It is located outside Gothenburg. I actually got a positive impression of how the school specifically will be managed. I met the principal for the school activities that the children will participate in. The principal told me that everything will be managed by qualified teachers. It will also be ensured that the number of school hours will be more than they are today at Sis. The quality of the teaching will also be quite high.

It is not about the children ending up in school classes of 25 pupils. There will be small groups of perhaps three or four children and youths, which is exactly what these youths need. Do not forget that these are children and youths who probably would not have set foot in a classroom if they had been out in freedom! They are youths who also have enormous knowledge gaps. In the youth prisons, they will be able to receive individual instruction tailored to their specific level.

When it comes to the youth prisons, it will not be like when a youth today is released from Sis, meaning that there is no plan, no follow-up, and no one who meets up. Now, both the probation service and the social services and, in some cases, also the school will ensure that, through various forms of interventions, work continues with the youth even after release from the youth prisons. They are not let go.

There are those who are critical of this. However, I have never heard any of these critics tell me how they instead want this to be done and how they instead want us to take care of a 15-year-old or 13-year-old who murders. Much is said about care, but care is a word and not an action.

Now we let the Prison and Probation Service take over the responsibility and then we will see in five years how it turned out and whether it worked or not – because the law is intended to apply for five years.

Madam Speaker! I am also happy to debate how we should work to prevent today's three-year-olds from standing with automatic weapons and shooting through a door in ten or twelve years. It is a completely different debate from the one we are talking about today, namely what we should do with the children who are already criminals. It is called the law on young offenders, i.e., young people who have already broken the law and youths who are already murderers. One must be able to see the difference between these two problems and the two different debates.

It is also interesting how different parties view the problem of children being drawn into crime. Let me take Vänstern as an example. One day, one stands and says that the gaps in society would decrease and that children would not be drawn into crime if only the adults in marginalized areas had jobs. The next day, one says that it is not only children in marginalized areas who are drawn into crime, but it certainly also happens in more affluent areas. In that case, it is about children of adults who have jobs and who are well-off financially. It becomes a bit six and seven. The explanations for why children become criminals clash in Vänstern's own reasoning.

I mean that for about ten years now, it has been tough to be a criminal within the circles of criminal networks, regardless of what background a person has or where they live. It can be about children who are lost souls or about children who have a hard time at home, which also applies to children in affluent areas. It can be about children who are not doing so well in school, children who do not receive adequate help in school, or children who seek role models, community, or someone who sees them. They are easy victims for organized crime and for the gangs.

These gangs need people who can do the dirty jobs, and that is why they recruit children. Children have no sense of consequence. Some children do it, of course, for money. Others do it to get respect and to become someone – because it is tough. Those children are very easy to recruit.

I said that I saw a pattern ten years ago. I believe it may have to do with social media spreading more and more, and that the criminal networks discovered that it was easier and more effective to recruit online than to stand in the schoolyard or at the youth center.

Then we have the gangster rap. The criminal gangs used the music to mark territory, brag about successes, threaten opponents, or build myths. Today we can only look back on how naive many were when they did not understand what the purpose of the gangster rap was. Some naive people even handed out awards for gangster rap, which fortunately ceased when it turned out that people around the music shot the heads off other children and threw hand grenades into innocent families with children.

Just this naivety and ignorance also applied to Guccikepsen. Do you remember it? Think of how many who did not know how gang criminals dressed! It also applied in this house – I am talking about journalists and other experts.

It is not so strange, however. To obtain certain knowledge, it is actually required that one visits reality sometimes.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Dear colleagues who are still remaining in the room! I appreciate that we in the committee stay and listen to the bitter end and hear everyone's remarks. Thanks to those of you who are still here!

Just as the representative from the Left Party did in their speech, I will focus on what underlies reservation 6. It concerns the lowering of the age of criminal responsibility. In some speeches, a number of other different issues have been raised; we may have the opportunity to debate these during the remainder of the mandate period.

I want to once again highlight some of the criticism that has been raised as to why the age of criminal responsibility should not be lowered. Much of this has been mentioned previously, but I will still go into it.

In 2023, Sweden was reviewed by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. It made very clear that a lowering of the age of criminal responsibility contravenes the Convention on the Rights of the Child and wrote, among other things, as follows: The Committee is deeply concerned by the steps currently being taken to lower the age of criminal responsibility. The Committee is also concerned by the increasing involvement of children in organized crime, the lack of special courts and appropriately trained judges for children, the isolation of detained children, and the recently adopted legislative changes to introduce harsher penalties and privacy-infringing measures from law enforcement agencies.

The Committee recalled its general comment, number 24, from 2019. It encouraged Sweden to keep the age of criminal responsibility at 15 years and to develop a strategy to prevent juvenile delinquency based on research and analysis of the underlying causes of children's involvement in crime – particularly organized crime – as well as to ensure that this strategy includes both early interventions targeting children in risk zones or in vulnerable situations and support for their families. Furthermore, it encouraged Sweden to actively promote the use of measures other than imprisonment, such as supervised probation or community service, and to ensure that imprisonment is only used as a last resort and for the shortest possible time.

These recommendations were therefore submitted in 2023. Now, in 2026, it is clear that the government will propose that the age of criminal responsibility be lowered to 13 years, even though we have not yet seen the final bill. An investigation proposed 14 years for certain crimes, but the government has now therefore gone further and proposed 13 years for certain crimes.

When this investigation was presented, the criticism was massive, as some of the previous speakers have mentioned. I can list some of the civil society organizations and other actors who were very critical: Barnombudsmannen, Barnrättsbyrån, Bris, Brå, Brottsofferjouren, Civil Rights Defenders, Diskrimineringsombudsmannen, Domstolsverket, Fackförbundet ST, Funktionsrätt Sverige, Institutet för mänskliga rättigheter, Rädda Barnen, Seko, Akademikerförbundet SSR, Socialstyrelsen, Sis, Skolverket, Fryshuset, Stiftelsen Allmänna Barnhuset, Sveriges advokatsamfund and Unicef Sverige.

Several of these referral bodies remind that a reduction is incompatible with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Brå points out that there is a lack of evidence that a reduction has any crime-preventive effect and that a differentiated age of criminal responsibility – i.e., making a distinction between different crimes – can lead to problems regarding legitimacy and application.

The Children's Ombudsman considers it noteworthy that the investigation proposes such far-reaching changes as lowering the age of criminal responsibility, despite itself stating that there is a lack of evidence that such a measure reduces crime.

The Institute for Human Rights calls the proposal a radical breach of a long Swedish tradition of working long-term, based on knowledge of children's development, with proposals anchored in children's rights and knowledge of what are effective measures.

Even among referral bodies that do not directly reject the proposal, many are clear that the proposal to lower the age of criminal responsibility should not be implemented.

The Swedish Police Authority considers that a differentiated age of criminal responsibility would cause significant practical difficulties in the police's operations. A risk is also seen that even younger children than today would be involved in crime.

The Prison and Probation Service states that they are not equipped to care for children as young as 14 years old, which will now therefore be 13 years old, and that a further reduction would worsen the practical conditions for establishing youth prisons.

The Chancellor of Justice writes that the proposal cannot be approved because it raises significant concerns both in principle and in practice. It is considered that there are reasons to wait and evaluate the outcome of already implemented reforms before new measures are introduced.

Nor neither the Parliamentary Ombudsman wants to support the proposal, partly against the background that almost none of the investigation's experts stand behind the proposal to lower the age of criminal responsibility.

Madam Speaker! Last week, I and some other members, from Miljöpartiet, Vänsterpartiet, and Centerpartiet, participated in a demonstration against lowering the age of criminal responsibility. Mynttorget was full. Children's rights organizations, the Swedish Christian Council, and trade unions spoke. Several speakers emphasized that by ignoring the referral bodies, the government is eroding the Swedish tradition of investigation and referral procedures, which aim for us to make wise decisions through collective efforts. I agree.

Among other things on social media, I have received questions about what we in Miljöpartiet want to do instead of lowering the age of criminal responsibility. Sometimes it sounds like the questioners believe that our opposition to lowering the age of criminal responsibility means that we mean that nothing at all should be done when a child commits a serious crime. That is, of course, not the case, and that is not how it looks today either. Sis has been mentioned here. It is the institution that today receives children who have committed serious crimes.

It is also not true that the proposal to lower the age of criminal responsibility is something we must implement because we have tried everything else. We have not done that. Various projects were mentioned previously, including the project Rätt kurva, which aims to reduce the new recruitment of young people into crime. However, they do not reach all the young people who need to be reached. That is what we could invest in if the goal now is to reduce crime.

Furthermore, we of course need to improve the measures for those children who have already committed crimes. It is clear that there is also great potential for improvement here.

I want to conclude by repeating what Rädda Barnen writes in response to the question of what we should do instead regarding the children who have already committed crimes.

Save the Children writes that we should invest in a safe, secure and evidence-based care and that it is important that criminal acts have consequences. For children in crime, it means the right interventions and that crime victims and society are protected against continued crime.

Save the Children believes that children who commit serious crimes should receive safe and secure care based on what research says works. The goal is rehabilitation so that the person can live a good life and not commit new crimes. Punishing children as adults and putting them in prison will not produce this effect.

I move for approval of reservation 6.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 11.)

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