Expanded possibilities for executing prison sentences with electronic monitoring

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are going to debate a proposal that I think is very good. It concerns expanded opportunities to serve prison sentences with electronic monitoring, that is, what is commonly called an ankle monitor.

What is proposed here is that a prison sentence of up to one year and six months shall be able to be served with an electronic ankle monitor instead of the person being locked up. For this to be possible, however, an in-depth suitability assessment will be conducted where it is examined whether it is appropriate for a person to serve their sentence in that manner.

In the suitability assessment, consideration will be taken of, among other things, the nature of the crime, that is to say what it actually is that the person has done, and the risk of recidivism. This is something that has not been done to a very large extent in Sweden previously. One will therefore look at how great the risk is that the person will commit more crimes. This is something we are successively incorporating more of into the Swedish legal system. We believe, in fact, that it is completely decisive when it comes to sentencing and the imposition of penalties.

A third aspect that will be looked at is something that is, to my knowledge, completely new, namely to take into account the victim's perspective and the perspective of the victim's relatives: How will it feel for those people if this person serves their sentence outside of prison?

The purpose of this amendment is not that a rape victim should have to run from their perpetrator or that a person who has been subjected to a serious violent crime should have to run from this person again on streets and squares. On the contrary – that is what we want to avoid. This concerns certain types of crimes where that type of victim perspective or those types of specific reasons against do not exist. Punishment for these crimes should be able to be served with an ankle bracelet, typically crimes where there may be a lack of a physical victim.

That we include the perspectives of the relatives and the crime victim is an expression of the paradigm shift that is taking place within Swedish crime policy, i.e., that we take into account the crime victim to a much greater extent rather than the perpetrator. Previously, it was the perpetrator's, the offender's, perspective that has been looked at. How long someone should sit in prison has been judged based on how serious the crime is, the preventive possibilities, the possibilities for different types of care and measures in the institution, and so on. But one has not, to any greater extent, or not at all, looked at how this is perceived by the victim, by the victim's relatives, and by the general public. What is the signal to the public about how society views a certain type of crime?

This is what we are now entering into in Swedish crime policy, and it is about time. It is exactly what is needed. The most important preventive measure in society is that the general public cracks down on crime, that it is culturally unacceptable to commit crimes, that it is shameful to commit crimes. It is completely central to prevent people from ending up in crime, and to do that we must also view the punishment as a type of act of justice where one somehow restores a balance that has come into imbalance when someone has committed a crime.

This is essential, and this is, I assure you, the first expression of exactly that. For that reason, this is a very big day.

This report is based on an investigation from the Trygghetsberedningen, a parliamentary committee that I previously led and which several members of the Committee on Justice were part of. At that time, we discussed this. All parties were represented in the Trygghetsberedningen, and all stood behind this proposal. It is therefore a unanimous proposal from the Trygghetsberedningen that has now gone through the government and landed in the Committee on Justice.

When the proposal was processed in the Committee on Justice, all parties were given the opportunity to take a position on it again, and then all parties once again chose to stand behind it. This is, therefore, a proposal that has broad anchoring in the Swedish Riksdag and which all parties actually think is good. It is an example, I think, of how one can conduct a crime policy that is tough on criminals and takes the victims' perspective into account, but which also gains broad anchoring and can be implemented with support from virtually the entire Riksdag.

The starting point for the proposal was also recidivism prevention. That is also an important aspect. It can be clearly seen in studies that certain types of people who have certain types of characteristics and have committed certain types of crimes run a lower risk of reoffending if they serve the sentence with an electronic ankle monitor than in prison.

Typically, it concerns people who have an organized life in the sense that they have, for example, an apartment and a job or an occupation. In that case, it can be negative from a recidivism perspective to force people to resign from their jobs or give up their apartments and lock them up for half a year or a year, only to release them to a life where they lack a job and housing. In that case, the risk is many times greater that the individuals will re-offend. If one can instead ensure that people can keep their apartment and their work, it reduces the risk of crime on an overall level.

The purpose of this is therefore not only what I described, that is, to ensure the perspective of justice and crime victims. That is an important part, but another important part is to reduce crime.

Research suggests that this will make Sweden slightly less criminal than before. Recidivism will decrease. That is good. It is important. It is one of the most important political missions we have right now in this house.

I am very pleased that we can carry this out in broad agreement. I see that there are several here today who participated in the Security Commission, and I want to extend a big thank you to you for your constructive and positive work there. I also want to extend a big thank you to the Committee on Justice, which has stood behind the report, for good and constructive work. This is good politics with broad anchoring that will make Sweden a little better.

Thank you for listening!

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the first contribution here. There was much that could be agreed upon. In this matter, we are in agreement here in the chamber when we press the button this afternoon, and it is an important matter.

We are debating expanded possibilities for serving prison sentences with electronic surveillance. To ensure more people understand, I translate this to mean that more people should be able to serve sentences with an electronic ankle monitor – that might be a bit more comprehensible.

These are changes that we in the committee agree on. We believe that it will create better conditions for more people who have committed crimes to actually come out better. That must be the point: that we pursue a policy in here that ensures more people come out better but, above all, that fewer commit serious crimes.

Sometimes in crime policy, one gets the impression that the one who succeeds in being the toughest or paints the blackest picture of reality will win. As a Social Democrat, I would however like to say that the one who wins is perhaps the one who sees reality and then presents proposals and advocates for a policy that addresses the problems we identify and offers concrete solutions that work.

We see how the crime development in recent years, particularly in gang environments and serious organized crime, continues to affect Sweden. This development has primarily affected everyone who is not part of the criminal groups and who is affected by the violence occurring in society. But it also puts pressure on the Prison and Probation Service that more and more people are actually being convicted and serving time.

We know that the pressure on the Prison and Probation Service right now is enormous, with double occupancy and poorer opportunities to offer program activities. It is tougher for the Prison and Probation Service to fulfill its mission, which is that everyone who is in the prisons should come out better.

For us Social Democrats, it is extremely crucial and central that those who are imprisoned and expected to be released – especially those we are talking about today who are serving relatively short sentences – are given the opportunity to actually come out better. Otherwise, we have in some way just built a bigger problem, haven't we?

For us, this is exactly what this report and this change is about: to meet the acute needs that exist in the Prison and Probation Service but also to strengthen the path out of crime.

Madam Speaker! I would like to raise three perspectives that are important for us.

Firstly, it is about freeing up capacity without compromising safety. We know that the Prison and Probation Service has faced enormous challenges for several years. Occupancy is at a record high. We have queues for people to be able to have their sentences served. We also know that the staff is under enormous pressure. In that situation, the state needs more options than traditional prison placement. By expanding the possibility of electronic monitoring, both in the convicted person's residence and in controlled housing, we free up prison places and increase the capacity in the system.

It is important to emphasize that it is not about easing the sentences. It is about finding responsible alternatives where the state continues to have control but where the punishment can be carried out in a way that works in the long run. We believe that it is a line that unites safety and common sense. It is also the Social Democratic line: We shall have order and tidiness, but we must have solutions that give people a practical opportunity for change.

Secondly, it is about legal certainty, quality, and the victim's perspective. Expanding the possibility of electronic surveillance naturally requires that we safeguard quality and legal certainty. The consideration is clear in that part: When it concerns more serious crimes with longer prison sentences, up to 18 months, a special suitability assessment will be made before electronic surveillance can be considered. This is extremely important, which the previous speaker also emphasized.

We mean that it is important that the Prison and Probation Service makes individual assessments where the nature of the crime and the risk of recidivism are weighed, as well as how the execution of the sentence affects the crime victims and relatives. For us, it is clear that the security policy has its starting point in the victim's situation. Among other things, that is why we Social Democrats have proposed here in the Swedish Riksdag for a number of years a crime victim law that clearly strengthens the crime victim perspective and provides the right to protection, support, compensation, and information.

For the third point, it is about rehabilitation. We know that people who receive support to change their lives and who can maintain work, housing, and contact with family have a much greater chance of leaving crime behind. That was precisely what the Safety Commission established in its extensive work and in the report that forms the basis for the bill. It is stated there that the execution of prison sentences through intensive electronic surveillance and control has a good effect on reducing recidivism. The statistics are striking. Within three years, 63 percent of all those who have been in prison reoffend, but with electronic surveillance, the figure drops to 32 percent. It is therefore a halving of the tendency to reoffend.

It is easy to get caught up in statistics and figures when standing here at the rostrum and speaking, but behind the figures there are people. It can, for example, be young people or parents. They are individuals who get a chance to rebuild their lives and do not end up in a criminal dead end.

The Security Preparation Board emphasizes that the new form of execution makes it possible for the convicted person to retain employment and connections to the family and thus avoid the negative aspects of a prison stay. These are factors that protect against crime. We know from research that this is crucial.

For me, this reform is about us making a decision today that will do great good. Policy should build upon what we know, thanks to research, works and in practice yields good results. When intensive monitoring programs are carried out with careful control and clear structure, they work.

It is important to say that if misconduct occurs, the system will, of course, react immediately. We mean that it also happens. This means that the execution of the supervision can be interrupted immediately and the person returned to the institution.

Madam Speaker! It is easy to call for tougher measures and difficult to stand up for what works. I began this debate by pointing out that serious crime continues to hit Sweden hard. We know that much has been done, and we know that we need to do more of what works.

We Social Democrats note that the Tidö government, now in the final year of the mandate period and in the run-up to the election year, has not succeeded in breaking the new recruitment to the gangs. The number of young people involved in murder cases has grown by 500 percent since 2022. We also see how crime is changing. When we add the year 2025 to the records, it will be attributed a record in explosions.

We know that organized crime is eating its way into more and more sectors and turning over hundreds of billions of Swedish tax kronor. It is a creative crime that finds new ways for its activities. We therefore need to do more, and we need to do it right.

Today we show here in the Swedish Riksdag that we are willing to join forces and do things together. The Social Democrats argue that it is incredibly important that we show that we are ready here to move forward together against the heavy organized crime and break new recruitment and other things. I wish that we could do it more often.

We Social Democrats have presented a number of proposals, and I hope that we in the Riksdag can return in more debates and do things together to break the new recruitment, not least to reach the gang leaders who today are allowed to remotely control serious organized crime and criminality.

We want to see a Swedish mafia law in place.

I hereby move for approval of the proposals in the report.

(Applause)

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden stands in the midst of a historical legal-political change. The Government has launched the largest offensive against crime in modern times. It is not just about tougher measures, but about building a legal society that functions at every level. We are strengthening the entire justice chain, from the police's possibilities to investigate crimes and the courts' ability to pass judgment to the Prison and Probation Service's capacity to execute sentences in a legally secure, effective, and society-building manner.

Madam Speaker! The government has clearly shifted the focus in crime policy from the perpetrator to the crime victim. The victim's perspective is put front and center, the sentences shall reflect the gravity of the crime, and those who relapse into crime shall face clearer consequences. Those who choose to participate in gang criminal environments, for example, we want to be able to sentence to double penalties. With our policy, more will sit in prison for a longer period.

Just as important as clear consequences is that the punishment should lead to something, be meaningful and contain what is required to break and prevent the risk of new crimes. A prison sentence is ultimately about protecting society and providing redress for crime victims, but also about giving the convicted person the opportunity to leave crime behind. It requires a correctional service that has the capacity, tools, and opportunity to work with the inmates, ensure the recidivism prevention work, prepare for the time after the sentence has been served, and ensure that there are opportunities for this.

As a result of how crime has developed in the country, as a result of increased penalties and as a result of the police's new tools to act and solve crimes, the pressure on Swedish criminal justice services has grown to a historically high level. New facilities are now being built in over 50 locations in the country. They are being built in Kalmar and Kristianstad, where I myself had the privilege of participating when the first spade was turned two weeks ago. They are being built in several places around the country, because this expansion is necessary. Even though new facilities are being built and resources are increasing, the pressure will be very high for a very long time. Therefore, we must use the Criminal Justice Services in an effective and wise manner.

This bill provides an expanded opportunity to carry out prison sentences with electronic surveillance. The proposals strengthen the Prison and Probation Service and the work of preventing recidivism, and ensure that we can prevent people from reoffending without compromising the core of the sentence, namely to provide redress to crime victims and protect society. It is not about mitigating punishment. It is about using sentenced prison terms in a sensible way to protect society, support reintegration, and safeguard trust.

The proposition contains three central parts.

The first part is an extended possibility for execution in housing with electronic surveillance, from today's six months to one year and six months. For the longer sentences – over six months – an in-depth suitability assessment shall be made where the nature of the crime, the risk of recidivism, and the victim's situation shall be weighed to ensure that this is used where it is appropriate, accurate, and safe.

The second part is the introduction of a new form of execution: a controlled residence with electronic surveillance which is an intermediate step between an institution and serving the sentence in one's own home. The convicted person lives in a special residence where the Prison and Probation Service has responsibility and full control over the inmate's days. Freedom of movement is strongly restricted, but work, treatment, and other special measures can be permitted. One has clear control and can work with recidivism prevention measures.

The third part is that we gather this into a new law that replaces today's legislation on intensive surveillance.

Madam Speaker! This is fundamentally nothing new in Sweden. We are aiming for something that has existed for a long time and that has functioned very well. The possibility of serving a sentence in controlled housing is admittedly a completely new reform, but still something we have worked with for a long time, just like electronic surveillance.

We know that persons who serve their sentence with electronic monitoring run a lower risk of reoffending than those who serve shorter sentences in prison. Studies show that inmates who serve their sentence through electronic monitoring have a greater opportunity to establish themselves in the labor market and receive greater support. Furthermore, the risk of reoffending is reduced.

This is no coincidence. When the execution takes place close to everyday life under supervision and with requirements for work, treatment, and structure in everyday life, the risk of falling back decreases. That makes this reform important.

The possibility of being able to serve one's sentence in a special residence is also something that already exists today. However, it does not apply to the entire sentence, but as a part when one completes their sentence. After having served half of the sentence, one can be moved to a so-called halfway house. We see that it has a good effect in reducing recidivism when one is successively readapted to society.

This is something that the bill builds upon. We see what works and do more of it. This is good for the reintegration and for ensuring that recidivism decreases.

Madam Speaker! Recidivism prevention is not a side issue for the correctional services; it is a core task. For every person who reoffends, new crime victims are created, new insecurity, and new costs, both human and economic. Therefore, it is important that we can break this.

By enabling more people, who have stable social conditions with a job and a home, to serve their sentence in this controlled manner when appropriate, places and capacity are freed up for Kriminalvården to work more effectively, structurally, and actively towards those who are in detention centers. This creates greater opportunities even for them. This is a concrete proposal that moves the policy forward.

Madam Speaker! I would like to conclude by moving for the approval of the proposal in the report.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I and the Left Party welcome the current bill on expanded possibilities for execution with electronic surveillance in the convict's residence, and I also welcome the proposal for a new form of execution for prison sentences, electronic surveillance in controlled housing, which can be applied to prison sentences of at most one year and six months. These are good and wise proposals for several different reasons, and they are furthermore socio-economically profitable. The Left Party has for a long series of years motioned for expanded possibilities to use electronic surveillance, and we are therefore glad that it now looks like it will become a reality.

Electronic surveillance – electronic ankle bracelet, as we commonly call it in everyday speech – is an advantage for both the convicted person and for society. It is a more proportionate penalty for certain less serious crimes. While it is a clear punishment that limits the convicted person's opportunities to move freely in society, it also means that the convicted person can continue to maintain ties to family, friends, and the labor market.

It increases the possibility of rehabilitation through studies or a new job. It facilitates the reintegration of the convicted person into society after serving the sentence. It also means that one avoids the negative effects of a prison environment, and research shows that the risk of recidivism decreases significantly. Research shows that the use of an electronic ankle monitor means that crime and also the costs to society decrease significantly.

The social costs for an ankle bracelet are significantly lower than for prison. A client serving their sentence in an institution costs approximately 1 million kronor per year. A client who instead serves their sentence within the probation service costs, for comparison, approximately 100,000 kronor per year today.

Even though the ankle monitor is a milder alternative to imprisonment, it still involves 24-hour surveillance and strict rules regarding what the convicted person is and is not allowed to do. It is important to emphasize that an ankle monitor is not a suitable alternative for all crimes, especially not for the more serious crimes.

By replacing prison sentences for minor crimes, electronic monitoring can reduce overcrowding in prisons, which frees up places for those who have committed more serious crimes. This is good in light of the high pressure that we can see on the institutions today.

The use of an ankle bracelet can affect the family. Everyday life is affected for those who are relatives of someone who has an ankle bracelet. Probation services can make unannounced visits at any time of the day, and as a relative, one has to take greater responsibility for what happens outside the home. It is therefore important that the person living with someone who is sentenced to electronic surveillance receives the correct information and gives their consent.

Unfortunately, it has come to our attention that there are deficiencies in the technology for electronic surveillance, which means that the measure is not always used as intended. Prosecutors have not ordered ankle bracelets because, in some cases, these lack GPS functionality, which is of course completely necessary for the surveillance to function. From what I understand, the technology is available today, but the availability of ankle bracelets with GPS technology can vary across the country. There can also sometimes be problems with the application.

This should be quite easily fixed, and I expect that it will be. We will therefore closely follow these issues and, if necessary, return with proposals for measures. We have written about this in our specific statement. We stand, however, as said, fully and completely behind the bill, and I am pleased that a unanimous committee does so.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! Today's report and proposal concern expanded possibilities to carry out prison sentences with electronic surveillance. This means expanded possibilities that, instead of sitting in prison, the convicted person can live at home or in a controlled residence with an ankle bracelet. From being possible for prison sentences up to six months, this is now raised to a maximum of one year and six months. For prison sentences exceeding six months, an in-depth suitability assessment shall additionally be conducted.

This is important. Some reasons for this are that it would free up places within the correctional services, which are in an extremely strained situation right now with double and triple occupancy, which results in criticism from those who have conventions that we must fulfill. The proposal also shortens the queues to serve sentences, and it is cost-effective. Furthermore, consideration is given to crime victims, vulnerable individuals, and relatives in the assessment of whether it is appropriate with an ankle bracelet. Centerpartiet therefore demands approval of the proposal in today's report.

Actually, today's debate concerns two issues that often occur in the public debate. The first is: Is it effective to lock people up in prisons? The second is: Can all parties agree on something as important as crime policy?

Let me begin with the prison sentences. They have several functions. They have a deterrent effect. They are intended to keep people who have committed crimes locked up so that they cannot commit new crimes. They are also a kind of retribution for crime victims and the vulnerable. One can also receive a part of qualified correctional care to reduce the risk of recidivism.

Prisons are therefore important and function very well in many cases, but we also know that prison sentences all too often are stigmatizing and reinforce or escalate a criminal identity and lifestyle. This is one of the reasons why the Center Party will say no to a lowered age of criminal responsibility that would mean children under 15 years old will be imprisoned. This, however, is supported by both the Tidö parties and the Social Democrats.

It is therefore gratifying that the main reason stated for today's proposal is that there are good conditions for house arrest to reduce recidivism. One can maintain a life with work or studies and a relatively normal life, which we know are protective factors against crime. This is a good proposal.

Madam Speaker! To come to this point regarding the political consensus, the Center Party is not alone in saying yes to the proposal in today's report. All eight parliamentary parties participated in the investigation that forms the basis and in the committee work, and we were in agreement. I want to acknowledge the thanks that have been expressed here previously for the work that has been done. This is worth highlighting, when disagreement always receives more attention and more clicks than agreement.

I heard on Ekot this morning before I came here. It was about an opinion poll which showed that seven out of ten Swedes do not think the political conversation is respectful or characterized by a will to cooperate. Therefore, there is an extra point in highlighting that we agree on this, within an important area. Otherwise, here in the chamber, there is always someone who wins the battle of the day, but we lose the war together. The war is about democracy – more and more people do not think that what we do here, in democracy, is the best solution. We also need to win that war together, with peaceful debates both when we agree and when we do not agree. I would like to thank all parties for that here today.

This is good legislation and good democracy, which I hereby submit to the chamber.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would first like to move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision – an approval of the bill on expanded possibilities to use electronic surveillance, that is, ankle bracelets, as an alternative to imprisonment.

Sweden is in a serious situation. Serious crime, gang violence, and the constant recidivism constitute a threat to our society's fundamental security. While the police and prosecutors stand on the front line, the Prison and Probation Service should be our primary measure against the recurrence of crime. The Prison and Probation Service has a dual and important mission: to protect society by keeping deprived persons under control, but also to contribute to ensuring that those who commit and have committed crimes get a real opportunity to change their lives and thereby reduce the risk of recidivism.

Madam Speaker! The Prison and Probation Service has, however, faced major challenges for a long time. The previous government bears a heavy responsibility for the situation that has arisen with growing overcrowding, a lack of places, and a hindered work on preventing recidivism. Serious organized crime has emerged, in combination with too few resources for the Prison and Probation Service. The consequences are clear. It is about overcrowding and a strained work environment, and important rehabilitative programs such as the twelve-step program and the monastery activities have been forced to shut down.

But we Christian Democrats, together with our coalition partners, have taken responsibility. During this parliamentary term, the Prison and Probation Service has received significantly increased resources, and the work of building more prisons has been accelerated. As mentioned earlier, about fifty construction projects are underway around the country, and the number of places is expected to triple over a ten-year period. Additionally, the government has both investigated and now also proposed renting prison places abroad, something that we Christian Democrats have requested since 2019.

Madam Speaker! It is, however, an important complement to these initiatives that we are debating today, when we propose that the possibility of serving prison sentences with electronic monitoring be developed. As stated in the bill, the experiences of electronic monitoring are positive, both in Sweden and internationally. There is strong evidence that this form of execution can contribute to reducing recidivism, while simultaneously being socio-economically advantageous and can alleviate the Kriminalvården's very strained occupancy situation.

The Council of the European Union has also recommended that Member States develop alternatives to custodial sentences. Sweden continues to follow that line, which many other countries have already pioneered. It is a line that both strengthens legal certainty and streamlines enforcement.

Madam Speaker! In the bill, it is proposed that prison sentences longer than six months, up to one year and six months, shall also be served through electronic monitoring. For the longer sentences, an in-depth suitability assessment shall be conducted. This assessment is important to determine whether it is possible to serve a sentence with electronic monitoring. Naturally, the assessment is conducted from a crime victim's perspective, but it also needs to be conducted from a safety perspective regarding what crime the sentence applies to and the risk of recidivism.

A new form of execution is proposed, electronic surveillance in controlled housing, which constitutes an intermediate step between prison and home execution. Under this form, the convicted person may only leave the housing at specified times and for specific purposes. The Prison and Probation Service shall be responsible for the execution and for the operation of the controlled housings. It is important that the convicted person, in the event of misconduct that is not of minor significance, shall be taken into a prison facility to serve the remaining part of the sentence there.

Madam Speaker! As has been mentioned in several posts, it is positive that all parties have stood behind the proposal; there is consensus in the committee. We are implementing this change with great support in this chamber. We Christian Democrats also share both the committee's and the government's assessment. We see that expanded opportunities for enforcement with electronic surveillance can contribute to a reduced risk of recidivism, more effective correctional care, and better resource utilization. All measures that can break a destructive lifestyle and facilitate the path away from crime are positive. That is what we see, and that is what we must strengthen.

This is also a reform that strengthens the justice system's capacity without compromising legal certainty. It is responsible, well-considered, and in line with international recommendations.

Madam Speaker! In summary, I stand as before behind the government's bill. It is an important step in the work of strengthening safety in our society and ensuring that the Prison and Probation Service has both the resources and the tools required to meet the increased needs in our society. With this, I motion, as I have said, for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and the government's proposition.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! There isn't actually that much to add to today's debate since we all in here and all parties are in agreement on the substantive issue. The substantive issue is that we want to expand the possibilities to carry out prison sentences with electronic surveillance, commonly called an ankle monitor, instead of through incarceration in a facility. We agree that a new law is needed to regulate how this is handled, and we agree to increase the period of time for which electronic surveillance can be applicable from today's six months to eighteen months.

We agree that a thorough and in-depth suitability assessment shall take place before the decision on electronic surveillance is made, and we agree that the sentence shall be converted to imprisonment in a detention center if one misbehaves. We also agree on the new sentence of electronic surveillance in controlled housing.

Madam Speaker! To summarize today's debate, I can only say that we all agree.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

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