Violent crime and crime victims

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we will debate the committee report on Violent Crime and Crime Victims. It concerns issues that matter. If one looks at the Tidö Agreement, it is clear that this is something that is prioritized within the framework of our cooperation.

The basic principle of the cooperation is that we shall do everything we can to try to solve the problems that have more or less exploded in our faces, not least the more serious gang crime, the organized crime and all the misery and suffering that this brings with it.

Of course one can feel an enormous frustration. I feel a huge frustration. It is bad enough that criminals shoot and kill each other. But every time a completely innocent citizen is killed, it hurts extra much. Then the failure is extra great. The completely innocent victims are starting to become many now, which the murder in Skärholmen shows at least, where the father Mikael was shot in the head when he was on his way to the swimming pool with his twelve-year-old son.

I cannot stop thinking about the naivety - that is how I see it - that has characterized Swedish politics for such a long time. I want to take the opportunity once again to remind that Stefan Löfven, during his time as Prime Minister, on several occasions declared that one would crush gang crime. I also want to remind that Morgan Johansson, during his time as Minister for Justice, repeated the same empty phrase, that one was on the way to breaking organized crime. That is how it went. Morgan Johansson even said in all seriousness that there is a small risk that innocent people will be affected.

Violent crime and crime victims

Tell it to Mikael, and tell it to all the other innocent people who have been forced to end their lives in our increasingly violent, divided, segregated and multicultural society.

I do not feel only frustration, however. I also feel anger, even great anger at times, over what the other parties have caused, not least the Socialdemokraterna, and over that they have deliberately, with full knowledge, chosen to destroy – that is how I see it – one of the world's safest and best countries.

If one had listened to the Sweden Democrats from the very beginning – listened to our warnings and our objections to the pursued policy – instead of engaging in mudslinging, mocking, lying, denying, and sweeping the problems under the rug, we would probably not have ended up in this situation. But now, this is a completed fact.

Mr. Speaker! Now we have a new government, and we have a Tidö cooperation. Just as it stands in the Tidö Agreement, the goal is to prevent more young people from being drawn into crime, that more crimes are investigated and lead to prosecution, and that gang crime and serious organized crime are combated, but also that safety increases, that punishments become more just, that crime victims get redress, and so on.

The motions submitted concern everything from honor-related violence and oppression to violence in close relationships and strengthened protection for crime victims. All questions are, naturally, extremely important.

When it comes to issues regarding crime victims, the Tidö parties have chosen to initiate a necessary and much-requested shift in focus from the perpetrator to the crime victim. I want to assert that in the end, everything is about the crime victim. The design of the policy must be based on the crime victim's best interests, not the perpetrator's best interests. In order to regain some of the safety and trust in society, crime victims must receive redress and the full support of society. This can range from increased damages and a review of the restraining order legislation to rules on a greater consideration for the crime victim during permission.

Regarding the issue of restraining orders, the idea, as stated, is that the geographical area for such orders shall be able to be significantly expanded in the event of a particularly serious threat. It shall even be able to apply to entire municipalities. This is in order to increase the protection and freedom of movement for the crime victim. This shift in focus, that is, from the perpetrator to the crime victim, is a central part of our agreement.

It is also central that crime victims have full knowledge of their rights and what opportunities they have for support and help. We also point out the need for targeted interventions for persons in a particularly vulnerable situation. This can be children, young people, the elderly, and persons who are subjected to honor-related oppression.

I want to point out the Crime Victim Authority, which, as we all know, has the task of promoting crime victims' rights and safeguarding their needs and interests. The authority has, not least, the task of functioning as an information and knowledge center for crime victim issues. Now, it has been commissioned to develop a plan for how that role can be developed and also to ensure that the support is equal across the entire country. This is not least about the support for those who are subjected to violence in a close relationship.

The Police Authority has established that the work for particularly vulnerable crime victims shall be intensified. The regulatory letter clearly states that the Police Authority shall report on what development work is being conducted to combat not only violence against women but also honor-related violence and oppression. Competence among employees shall also be strengthened in order to better be able to meet persons with mental illness in cases concerning crimes in close relationships.

When it comes to honor-related violence and oppression, a special investigator has been tasked with analyzing and taking a position on, for example, whether the sentencing scales for certain honor-related crimes should be tightened, which I think, and whether more people can be held criminally liable for child marriages and marriage journeys. This is a prioritized and important work where different authorities are combating such violence and oppression. I want to point out that the Gender Equality Authority has, among other things, been tasked with mapping and analyzing the occurrence of child marriages, forced marriages, and polygamy. The Crime Victim Authority has, among other things, been tasked with carrying out targeted information initiatives for children and young people regarding honor-related oppression, and so on.

Mr. Speaker! As I mentioned initially, these are priority issues. We will do everything in our power to seriously address all the problems that we face and grapple with today.

With this said, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Sanna Backeskog (S)

Mr. Speaker! Saga, Joullnar, Ellinor, Jeanette, Carine, Caroline, Aida, Tally, Tova - all of them are women who have been murdered by a man they are or have had a relationship with. It is bottomless and incomprehensible. These women have received attention, but only when it has been too late. They have already lost their lives, and their relatives and families have lost a loved one. These women are the visible tip of the gigantic, terrifying iceberg consisting of all the women and children who are subjected to violence in their daily lives in Sweden today.

Men's violence against women remains a failure that etches itself into all parts and all layers of our society. It is no news that violence, especially against women, often occurs in close relationships.

The starting point is often psychological violence. The violence stems from a fundamental power structure where the perpetrator uses various methods to maintain control over and break down the victim. It can involve psychological, physical, economic, or sexual violence, but regardless of the expression, it harms the victim and leaves wounds that take time to heal.

After-violence is the term used for violence that the man continues to subject the woman to after she has left the relationship. It is therefore, despite the term, a highly ongoing violence that often escalates and becomes most dangerous just when the woman flees the home.

In Sweden, approximately 14,000 women live with a confidentiality marking or protected civil registration. Women and children living hidden while fleeing from a life-threatening man belong to the most vulnerable of society's members. When the threat is honor-related, the situation can be extra dangerous as it may involve several persons from whom the crime victim needs protection, and all contact with all family members often needs to be broken.

Many women living in hiding testify to a very lonely and difficult existence where society's support fails on several levels. Investigations also report on missed important summons to healthcare due to protected personal data, as well as that which absolutely must not happen—that the personal data is disclosed to the perpetrator—happens to an all too great extent.

Mr. Speaker! A woman living in hiding whom I met told me about how the psychological violence escalated after she managed to get herself and her daughter away from the perpetrator and flee to the women's shelter's protected housing. When he could not get to her directly, he did everything he could to harm her in other ways, such as through a protracted division of property process and repeated visitation disputes, as well as by systematically spreading lies about her to social services, to the child's school, to the social network, and in social media. She said something like this to me: Proving one's innocence in the face of false accusations and being smeared in social media takes time, costs money, and takes a toll on mental health.

Mr. Speaker! On January 31, Socialstyrelsen's investigations into injuries and deaths for 2022 and 2023 were released, and the report highlights major deficiencies in society's safety net and that several of the horrific murders or cases of severe assault could perhaps have been prevented. The majority of victims and perpetrators had contacts with, for example, social services, the police, or health and medical care the year before the crimes took place, and here, about thirty deficiencies have been discovered; for example, guidelines and methodological support have not been followed.

Let me be crystal clear. I want to clearly emphasize that the responsibility for violence always lies with the perpetrator. But as long as there are perpetrators, society must be strong to stop the culprit and provide support and protection to the crime victim. Here, Sweden must be able to do better.

What is new in this year's report from Socialstyrelsen is that a serious connection between physical and psychological violence has been observed. There are several cases where only psychological violence occurred before a murder was committed. The report shows that the risks of psychological violence have been underestimated, and it also appears in the report that the perpetrator is rarely noticed. Information regarding, for example, controlling behavior, stalking, and threats has not been taken fully seriously.

Mr. Speaker! Both the National Board of Health and Welfare and the Gender Equality Authority, as well as women's organizations, testify that society has many tools and methodological support that could reduce violence against women and children. During our time in government, new types of crimes have been added to the criminal catalog, and several sentences have been increased. The Social Democratic-led government developed a national strategy against men's violence against women and honor-related violence and oppression, as well as a 99-point program.

There are guidelines for both social services and health and medical care. There is research to be guided by, and there are evidence-based methods for the preventive work.

But a major problem that many see is the implementation. Guidelines and methodological support must be followed, and risk assessments must be carried out in the correct way. Employees who have to meet both those exposed to violence and perpetrators must have sufficient knowledge to be able to act. Society must become much better at detecting children who are suffering at home, and the work against destructive norms of masculinity must be stepped up. But for this, Mr. Speaker, resources are needed.

Mr. Speaker! Unequal wages and pensions, in combination with today's housing situation, make it difficult for vulnerable women to leave a perpetrator of violence. Many women are hit hard financially during a separation or may not be able to separate from their partner at all due to economic factors. Working against increasing class inequalities and for economic equality is therefore also necessary from a violence perspective.

Mr. Speaker! Violence against women is, for us Social Democrats, the ultimate expression of inequality between men and women. We see that in order to meet the violence, it is of great importance to increase equality in society. We are a feminist party, and by that we mean that women and men shall have the same rights and opportunities. Women shall have the same right to their own work and their own livelihood and have power over their own lives.

Mr. Speaker! Many victims of violence can testify to what fantastic support women's shelters and Brottsofferjouren can provide. There is a very special power in civil society, and these organizations are truly needed here among us. They can offer support to the individual, they can engage and educate, and they are a very important voice in the social debate.

Civil society is an important part of our fundamental democracy, but it needs long-term and secure funding. Now, several vital organizations face significantly reduced grants or worsened conditions to carry out their important activities. I actually become both angry and saddened when I see a sense of resignation and a worry over the developments within civil society, where the issue of violence against women gets less space in the debate and one experiences a worry that trust in democracy risks being undermined.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I want to say something about some of our reservations. We Social Democrats see that far too much responsibility is placed on the vulnerable: She must dare to leave the perpetrator of violence. She must gather evidence and report. She must protect her children, and she must live in hiding. Society's safety net must be stronger than that.

The investments in the police and their specialist expertise and cooperation with other actors must be developed, not phased out. The police must handle violence against women in the same way as all other serious and grave crimes. The working method used by, for example, Trygghetens hus in Bollnäs or that which was used by Stockholmspolisens verksamhet Igor shall not be discontinued but spread to all parts of the country.

The Social Democrats want contact prohibitions to be granted to a greater extent and more often combined with ankle bracelets. The legislation on contact prohibitions was tightened during the previous parliamentary term. But we have also heard about deficiencies in how it is applied and that we need to tighten the legislation and develop it in several areas so that more women and children exposed to violence can live in safety and freedom.

The important investigation, which we Social Democrats commissioned in government, has been presented, and the consultation period is underway. We look forward to the government submitting a bill in this area.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats know that society is at its best when we stick together. All too often, crime victims feel loneliness and that society does not stand sufficiently on their side. The victim's position and rights must be strengthened. A new crime victim act could gather and strengthen crime victims' rights. All of society's resources must be there for the vulnerable. For us Social Democrats, it is a matter of redress, respect, and justice.

Mr. Speaker! I see that I have exceeded my estimated speaking time slightly. I apologize for that.

I stand behind all the Social Democrats' reservations and move for approval of reservation 16 regarding a crime victim law.

Mr. Speaker! We need a powerful women's peace policy and a children's rights policy that permeates the entire society - the school, social services, healthcare, the working life, and the justice system. The work against men's violence against women and honor-related violence and oppression must not be sidelined. It must not take a break. It must be conducted in the entire society at all levels and in the entire country. Anything else would be to betray Sweden's women and children.

(Applause)

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

Charlotte Nordström (M)

Mr. Speaker! The event has etched itself into memory: A twelve-year-old boy saw his father being murdered, shot to death, because the father dared to speak out to a criminal gang. The father showed civil courage. He spoke out but had to pay a brutal and terrifying price: his life.

Our thoughts go to the brave twelve-year-old son, who himself had to call 112 in this horrific situation and report: Someone has shot my father. No child should have to endure such an event and then have to carry it with them for the rest of their life.

So many are affected by what has happened. There is sorrow and shock. The violence has become more brutal and much more ruthless. It does not seem to be any consideration or respect for the lives of the innocent.

Many stop and wonder how it could have become like this and express that it must never happen again. Fear, anxiety, and agitation are transformed into the power to change. We simply do not accept that such an event occurs in our society.

I belong to those who have always urged my surroundings, especially my own youth, to show civil courage – to dare to speak out to both young and adult people if one sees someone behaving illegally or incorrectly. The risk is great that more people now will not dare. But fear must not take over. Then the criminals win. We shall not give up. We shall win over the gangs. The rule of law shall act more.

Some express: You politicians have talked about this for so long - why has nothing happened? You must take action on this now! The criticism that the government's decisions are moving too fast pales in comparison. For the crime victims, it is not moving fast enough.

A crime affects so many - not only the person who is subjected to the crime but also the family and friends of the victim. Swedish crime policy has, despite this, often had the perpetrator in focus for society's various interventions, rather than the safety and respect for the crime victims.

Violence and insecurity restrict the freedom and everyday life of more and more people. Now we are changing that. The government's policy implies a shift in perspective. Now the needs of crime victims are being put into focus.

So I come to the consideration, with motions that are based on many of the terrible situations prevailing in our society and which have escalated year after year. They show the importance of concrete measures coming to support, help, and protect. Therefore, I am pleased that all the most pressing motion proposals here have been, or are being, handled by the government, ranging from submitted propositions to ongoing investigation and preparatory work.

But I still want to highlight something: violence in close relationships. Today, far too many people feel insecure, not least as a result of gang-related crime. But violence against women and girls is a social problem just as important as gang-related crime and must be combated with the same force.

I recently read that VKV - Västra Götalandsregionens kompetenscentrum om våld i nära relationer - has conducted a study on fatal partner violence in my region. Between 2000 and 2016, 48 women and 11 men were killed by a current or former partner. All known cases have been reviewed. It concerns 48 men and 10 women who were perpetrators. In one case, a man killed two women. Many of these women and men had sought healthcare for a long time before, but also in close proximity to the act.

The purpose of the study was, among other things, to identify risk factors in order to contribute to preventing and deterring fatal violence in close relationships. It was also intended to identify any deficiencies in cooperation and reporting between authorities and organizations.

In most cases of fatal violence, it is the father who kills the mother. This affects the child's entire life situation in both the short and long term. The fatal violence affects and changes life significantly even for other relatives. All social actors have a responsibility to prevent fatal violence.

The ruthless violence must come to an end. The government has been clear since it took office that the issue of preventing and combating men's violence against women is a priority. It is important that the gravity of the crime is also reflected in the punishment for the crime. It is about the victim receiving justice, but also about preventing recidivism.

The Government is reviewing whether conditional release should only be granted if there are special reasons for it. Men with a high risk of reoffending in violent and sexual crimes shall not be released conditionally. The assignment shall be reported by July 1, 2024, at the latest.

Proposals are put forward so that women who are victims of violence shall have a strengthened right to a complainant's counsel in the Court of Appeal for a safe and secure legal process.

Men who hit women shall receive harsher punishment, and repeated sexual offenses shall be able to result in life imprisonment.

So, regarding Igor, the authority-transcending cooperation project against domestic violence with a targeted working group. The goal was to prevent repeated partner violence and prevent new acts from occurring in ongoing or ended relationships that are already known to the police or social services. This project ensured that it made a difference. Igor has been evaluated as successful with support from Brå and statements from researchers that it worked in practice.

I understand the motion that Igor's way of working should be able to be used throughout the country. But it is the Police Authority itself that shall assess what is needed in its work. I assume that good examples of ways of working are taken into account and that the ways of working are implemented and permeate where they are best needed. Anything else would be crazy and unfortunate.

A large number of authorities have been tasked with working to prevent and combat men's violence against women. The Government will conduct a review of the need for tightened governance and follow-up of the authorities' work against men's violence against women. The Government has also begun the work of developing a new national strategy and a new action program against men's violence against women and honor-related violence and oppression.

There is a motion on domestic violence being addressed in the committee report. The Government has now submitted a bill to the Riksdag regarding strengthened tenancy law protection for women subjected to violence. It concerns improving the conditions for a tenant who has been subjected to violence by a close relative to retain the apartment upon notice of termination, and for strengthening the possibilities for someone who has been subjected to violence by a close relative to take over the lease. The legislative changes are proposed to enter into force on July 1, 2024.

The rules for the division of property shall also be reviewed in order to simplify the situation for women when it comes to being able to leave violent relationships.

Then it concerns contact prohibitions and electronic surveillance. For the Moderaterna, it is important that women who are subjected to violence receive the protection they need. Moderaterna therefore want that contact prohibitions should be used in more cases and that electronic surveillance with the help of an ankle bracelet should be able to be used to a greater extent to ensure that contact prohibitions are followed. We want that the area for contact prohibitions in some cases should be able to cover entire municipalities when the threat situation is particularly serious.

The Government received the investigation report *En effektivare kontaktförbudslagstiftning* in February 2024, in which these measures, among others, are proposed. The legislative changes are proposed to enter into force on 1 July 2025.

Mr. Speaker! Investigation and preparatory work is ongoing. Propositions are to be processed. I look forward to when these proposals can be processed here in the chamber, so that one can move from words to action.

With reference to the ongoing work, I move for approval of the committee's proposal that the Riksdag shall reject all motions.

(Applause)

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! We are discussing a committee report on violence and victims. First, I would like to comment on gang crime. There, Jomshof claimed that it went that way for the previous government. I think that concept can be used now as well. We have not been able to curb the violence and limit it. I believe that it is connected to the fact that the right measures are not being taken.

Gang crime is, of course, an extremely serious form of violence, but we also have many other forms. I want to thank previous women in the speaker's chair for having raised issues regarding men's violence against women and children. I also want to do that. I do so by raising and moving for the approval of reservation number 3, which concerns preliminary investigations and the work of the police and prosecutors once knowledge of men's crimes against women and children has been obtained.

Then I think it is of interest to see what we mean by violence. We have physical violence. I believe everyone realizes that it is violence; some think it stops there. Sexual violence is even more serious. For many women, it is a form of breaking into the body. One can speak of economic violence and perhaps even, as is done in the report, include fraud against elderly persons. We have digital violence, which can be very mentally taxing. We have what we perceive as threats and psychological violence or psychological abuse. There is much that can be included in this.

The worst scars the victims carry are internal. It is about the fact that I have been violated as a person and in my personality. I may also have severe traces of attacks on my body because there have also been physical assaults.

Much work is ongoing within our authorities to try to manage this. The police are repeatedly trying to achieve early evidence securing, recruit more employees, and so on. But as has already emerged here in the speaker's chair, we still see from time to time black and harsh headlines about yet another woman being killed. The person who is suspected is very often a person whom this woman has or has had a close relationship with. It is someone she has loved and wanted to continue to love, but where the love contract has crashed and been shattered with violence.

We know some about the processes in this. Even if one were to have the economic resources to be able to break up, it is incredibly difficult to cut the emotional bonds, as many men are incredibly skilled at attaching with both love and warmth and then punishments. The switching between violence and warmth creates traumatic bonds. We must have respect for the women who have to try several times before they succeed in breaking up. There is still not sufficient competence and insight among our agency officials when it comes to this violence.

We know when it is more dangerous than usual for this woman. It is when she dares to show that she probably wants to break up or will do so. We can also see that the woman has usually sought help in different ways earlier from health and medical care or social services or that she has called the police. But unfortunately, it is often the case that she is not taken seriously enough.

We are now deeply moved that the father Mikael was killed in front of his son. There are many children in our country who have seen their mother assaulted or killed and who may be the ones alerting the police and ambulance from the home. But we have a very poor follow-up when it comes to how we view the home as a crime scene. Do we investigate it in the same way as other crime scenes with forensics, filming, and early questioning of the victim—if that person is still alive—which could be the woman and/or the children? Do we quickly question the person who is suspected?

Many mistakes were made here. One does not always gather evidence regarding what has happened previously, evidence that may exist within the healthcare system. There is insufficient competence regarding violence. The response is lacking, and one neither documents sufficiently nor collects documentation.

I want to assert that this government is not woman-friendly, rather the opposite. A good deal of the measures that we have been able to take for granted previously are being reduced. The women's shelters are being scaled back, and their protected housing is being closed due to licensing requirements, where things are demanded that are not always necessary. Such things could in themselves be positive, but it also costs a lot of money both to apply for and to maintain staffing hours on weekends and nights.

Resources are being withdrawn from school, healthcare, and welfare, which are also part of an extremely important safety net for women and children. We invest far too much in arguing for harsher punishments. We would need a completely different policy that protects welfare and that creates security for women and children also when they have been subjected to men's violence.

There are some reforms underway; I also want to acknowledge and mark that as positive. It concerns stronger restraining orders and opportunities for ankle bracelets, and eventually, there will also be a success in the form of the woman being able to stay in the home. What is tragic then is that the man knows the address. What will happen to her safety when he has served a prison sentence and comes out again? These matters are not entirely simple.

This is, I mean, about thorough competence and insights regarding the vulnerability of crime victims in the face of a dangerous man who can appear incredibly charming in meetings with authority figures and who many times – I have seen examples of this – has succeeded in deceiving people all the way into the court. The woman may appear broken and a bit confused when she does not remember all the details after what she has endured, so what she describes might not quite add up.

I have followed many such processes and cases of domestic violence and have also been able to see how a quite broken woman who has broken up from a relationship and freed herself from violence has been able to make real progress in her job or obtained education and become a brilliant person when the energy has gone to something other than merely surviving. It is very important that we understand and work much more with this.

I also want to highlight that Brå has conducted a number of reviews of how the investigation of men's violence against women and children has been carried out in different years. It is primarily violence against women that Brå has focused on. There are large differences between different districts. It is very different how the initial evidence collection is conducted, whether one at all interrogates the person who is identified as a suspect, what additional documentation one takes, and whether one uses filming—something that has been recommended regarding both victims, perpetrators, and the crime scene since 1995 but which is not always done. It is about how one can have a crime victim-adapted investigative activity that relieves the person who is a victim so that the person can receive proper redress and ultimately perhaps also compensation.

We therefore need to repeat a review of how the preliminary investigations are conducted today so that we can spread good examples and reduce the deficiencies that still exist.

I would also like to briefly comment on Igor. I believe that such projects were truly needed. Breadth was needed throughout the country, but specialized expertise was also needed to drive new issues forward. A crime victim law is not wrong, but perhaps it is primarily for the crime victim. It is extremely important that we have special provisions in the police act, the social services act, and so on, so that every profession knows what it should do in its meeting with the crime victim.

We have a lot to do in this area, but we also have a lot to gain when it comes to safety for women and children.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! 18 months ago, the Swedish people went to the polls to elect their representatives in this chamber. Brutal shootings, robberies involving humiliation, and years of failed migration policy meant that safety was at the top of the agenda for the voters, and with all rights reserved. The people chose a new government in the hope of change.

A brutal reminder of why a new policy was needed was the murder in Skärholmen the other day, where a father was shot dead in front of his son's eyes for the simple reason that he had confronted a group of youths.

Civil courage is an indispensable part of a functioning democracy. But the crime development and the violence we see among criminals silence people. Several residents in the area who were interviewed after the murder state that they will never dare to speak up or confront any youth gang again.

Mr. Speaker! The crime we are seeing has a great amount of violence that people are prepared to use, cynically and indifferently toward the consequences for innocent people. Good norms and values have been completely abandoned in favor of a gangster culture where there is no right and wrong, other than the right to appoint oneself as executioner.

Apart from repression, the most important preventive work is to begin building up good norms and values from the ground up again in our vulnerable areas. We also need to get the migration in order and deport more who commit serious violent crimes. The threat of deportation in itself is many times more deterrent than a high sentence, and therefore we need to work more proactively also with that legislation.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats and the government work every day so that Sweden and our justice system can move forward their positions against brutal violence and reverse the crime trend. We are implementing the largest criminal policy overhaul in modern times. It is a paradigm shift in the view of violent crime and crime victims, in the view of redress and justice, and in the view of the perpetrator, and we are doing it in a way that has a real effect.

We will ensure that the justice system is expanded and that police and prosecutors are given more tools.

We are removing secrecy barriers between authorities so that society can work more coordinately and prevent crime.

We are expanding the restraining orders and intensifying the work against violence in close relationships and honor-based oppression.

We are changing the penalties and will abolish the volume discounts in their current form.

We are striking at the gangs' cash flows and the criminal economy, which has eaten its way into large parts of the body of society.

We are reviewing the publication of personal data by search services to stop fraud against the elderly and vulnerable.

Sentencing has already been tightened. The penalty for weapons offenses was doubled, for example, on January 1. A total and complete review of the sentencing system is also being conducted with the aim of toughening the penalties and achieving a sentencing measurement that focuses on restitution for the crime victim rather than discounts and mitigating circumstances.

From the left, we often hear that harsher sentences do not help. I believe that is wrong. Harsher sentences will have a clear effect when crimes are resolved so that we can remove criminals and dangerous people from the streets and prevent them from recruiting new children and young people in the meantime. It is also about justice and what kind of society we should live in. Should we have a society where the punishments are in reasonable proportion to the crimes, or should we have a society that largely focuses its care on the perpetrator?

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats are suddenly talking about wanting a tougher approach in crime policy. They have shifted on several issues, for example, youth prisons. Very well, but sometimes it can be perceived as a lot of talk and little action. As recently as last week, the Social Democrats voted no to introducing security zones. Arguments that the current police act is sufficient and that the zones risk resulting in racial profiling and discrimination were heard here in the chamber. It is simply regrettable.

Mr. Speaker! I know that new ways of working and methods play a role. The law on preventive surveillance introduced last autumn is an example. Since the law was changed, over 30 people have been arrested with its help. Several shootings and explosions have been able to be stopped. Several residents have avoided falling victim in the brutal manner we saw in Skärholmen.

The law on stay bans for criminals, which was introduced on February 1, has already shown positive effects in the areas where such bans have been introduced, for example to combat open drug trafficking and reclaim areas. Over the weekend, a large coordinated operation was carried out at the Öresund Bridge where the police, with the support of the new law on extended police methods in border areas, seized 20 million kronor. These were proceeds of crime that were to be transported out of the country.

Next week, the police will receive security zones as an additional tool in their toolbox. Then we can seriously get weapons off the streets, prevent crime, and increase safety for residents in the area. Danish police have used security zones since 2004 with good results. If we had had this in place earlier, we would probably have prevented more fatal shootings and brutal violent crimes, as the zones give the police significantly greater opportunities to search for weapons and explosives.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats and the government are implementing the largest reorganization of crime policy in modern times. We are working intensively to step by step reverse the brutal development, stop the violent crimes and give crime victims increased redress.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are discussing violent crime and crime victims, and like several other members, my thoughts go to those who in the recent past and previously have been affected by lethal violence, by gross violence, and by violence of all kinds. It is completely unacceptable. Thoughts go to those affected and to their relatives.

Centerpartiet welcomes an increased and greater focus on crime victims and those affected by crime. We view the review of the entire criminal law that is now being conducted positively, and also the way crime victims are highlighted in the directives. This must, however, not occur at the expense of legal certainty, which we highlight in several other reports and matters.

The state has a duty to protect its citizens from crime, but we need to do so with legal guarantees where fundamental civil and political rights are respected. We shall prevent, investigate, and prosecute with a high degree of security and precision. We must manage that balancing act and that trade-off, especially when we also know that in many environments one is often both a crime victim and a perpetrator or offender. Not everything is black or white.

Centerpartiet's crime policy is based on keeping crime victims in focus, the principles of the rule of law, and being able to see the entire justice chain from police, prosecutor, and court to correctional services. We have stood behind the major resource increases that have gone to the police and the rest of the justice system.

Both I and the country's citizens expect a delivery in accordance with the government's promises. During the day here in the chamber, we have heard how evidence-based, scientific approaches and working methods have been highlighted by all parties. This bodes well for the great crime prevention and crime-fighting work we as a country have ahead of us.

Regarding crime areas, serious organized crime receives great attention and should, but we also need to address men's often deadly violence against women, violence against children, as well as large-scale crimes and everyday crimes. Much of this requires increased, stable police presence throughout our country. There is significantly more to be done from the government's side, and we will also return to that in other reports concerning the police.

In this report, a large, broad area with many important issues is addressed. I choose to mention some of our reservations.

Fraud has come to be one of the major new sources of income for serious organized crime, and there, the elderly are particularly affected. Banks and others need to prevent this more. We also believe that crimes against the elderly should automatically be classified as serious. There are proposals regarding this, but they have not yet landed on the Riksdag's table. They should be prioritized higher.

Regarding the dissemination of child pornography - that which should be called material with documented sexual abuse of children - much more can be done. Tools to identify, detect, and prevent the dissemination of such material on the internet need to be introduced on all public computers, for example.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, I want to raise the issue of protection for adults with intellectual disabilities. They do not have the same protection as children within the voluntary sector when it comes to requesting register extracts regarding leaders and coaches. Adults with intellectual disabilities are a group that is rarely highlighted in the debate but who are very vulnerable. It is a group that, similar to children, needs increased protection and active measures to reduce the risk of abuse. It is not possible to demand with current legislation, and we believe this is wrong and should be addressed.

Mr. Speaker! For the sake of time, I move for approval only of reservation 22 regarding register extracts.

(Applause)

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! I intended to spend a few minutes talking about something that we all agree on, namely that men's violence against women is reprehensible and abhorrent. The entire society must work much more against men's violence against women. Therefore, it is important that we in here, who can actually influence how that work can be carried out, also do it in a good and effective way.

When I read through the motions raised on the subject, I see that there is a consensus across the party lines, and that is good. It shows that there is a will to do something about something that is not working very well. Society today cannot protect the women who live in fear of being killed.

On average, 15 women are murdered every year in Sweden, and there are several thousand who live under death threats. How many live under physical and psychological threats and violence in relationships, we do not know. The number of unreported cases is large beyond the reports that are made.

The protection that exists today for threatened women, besides technical ones such as safety phones and practical ones such as protected housing, is restraining orders. The law on restraining orders has been tightened over the years, most recently a couple of years ago. This government now wants to tighten the law further and achieve even more effective restraining order legislation. There is an investigation out for consultation now regarding this, which is good.

Mr. Speaker! A threatened woman should not run the risk of meeting the person threatening her on the bus on the way to work, or in the grocery store, or at the gym. To live under death threats means that your freedom and your opportunity to move freely are restricted. A threatened woman should, as far as possible, despite the circumstances, always be able to feel safe in her everyday life. We as legislators have a duty to ensure that we have laws that work, not least when it comes to protecting threatened women. But as it looks today, I do not think it is working.

Let me briefly describe how a restraining order - or let us call it a visitation ban, as the legislator wants - works today.

A restraining order means that today, the person who has made a threat is prohibited from visiting, contacting, or following the person they threatened, the protected person. It is a so-called normal restraining order.

In some cases, the person making the threat can be issued an extended restraining order. In that case, the person making the threat is not allowed to be in the vicinity of where the protected person lives, works, or usually spends time. An extended restraining order can also be combined with an electronic ankle monitor.

But it doesn't stop there. We have a third alternative, a particularly extended protection order. This means that an area around the protected person is added, a larger area, where the person who threatens is not allowed to stay. Most such cases should also be linked with an ankle bracelet.

In my world, I can't quite wrap my head around the fact that a person who has initially threatened or been physically or mentally violent towards another person—crimes of such a serious nature that, in addition to being convicted for the violence, he has been issued a restraining order—is then supposed to get several chances before he receives an ankle bracelet and a particularly extended restraining order. I do not understand why it is so.

I am pleased that in the investigation that the government has commissioned regarding more effective contact legislation, which is now out for consultation, it is discussed that a particularly extended restraining order should be imposed from the very beginning. I hope that it will eventually become so, because it cannot be as it is now.

First he strikes. It is not good - we impose restraining orders.

He ignores the prohibition and goes home and tries to break down the door. It is not good. Now he might get an extended restraining order and perhaps an ankle monitor, but it is not certain.

He also ignores that and goes home for a third time, knocks on the door and tries to force his way in. Now we react and put on an ankle bracelet and issue a particularly extended restraining order - after three chances.

It is incomprehensible to me. I have no problem with a person who has snatched a chocolate bar getting one, two, or even three chances before it snaps and something serious happens. But a man who is violent towards a woman, so violent that she fears for her life, her entire existence is completely adapted to the perpetrator and how he behaves and she cannot control her life - why should he, the perpetrator, get chance after chance? It is she who is the victim. I do not understand this.

Let me briefly take a case from reality that I myself was involved in three or if it was four years ago to show that this law does not work.

A person called 112 and stated that he was in an apartment with a woman who had been stabbed. He was a lodger with the woman and had happened to open the door when it rang or was knocked on. At that point, a man rushed in with a knife. The man sought out the woman who lived in the apartment and began to stab her.

I was the first police officer on the scene. When we entered the apartment, we were met with blood all over the kitchen. There was blood on the counter, in the sink, on the walls. In the bedroom adjacent to the kitchen, I found the woman where she was lying. She had been stabbed with five wounds to the body. She was able to speak and informed me that it was her former boyfriend who had broken into the apartment and tried to kill her.

The former boyfriend could be arrested by another patrol after an hour. It then emerged that the woman had reported this man on six previous occasions for violation of a restraining order. He had not been deprived of his liberty on any of the occasions, nor had he been convicted.

None of us here can probably imagine the panic this woman must have felt when the man rushes into the apartment with a knife and begins to hack her, hack after hack, in a state of full rage. I do not believe that anyone can empathize with the terror she must have felt.

Why did this man get six chances? Why wasn't he locked up immediately? He could at least have been banned from staying in the municipality and had an ankle monitor—an ankle monitor that immediately starts beeping and marking where he is so that the police can go and pick him up. I hope that at some point in the future it will be like that, Mr. Speaker.

I am, of course, aware that we must take into account both the principle of necessity and the principle of proportionality in these cases, absolutely. But I think somewhere that if one has done something that warrants a restraining order, one has already crossed a line, and then society must react immediately. Therefore, I want to see a particularly extended restraining order with an ankle bracelet and potentially a stay-away order.

We, as a society, must really react immediately. Keep in mind the last thing I say now: that all murders of women committed by an ex or a current boyfriend or man have been preceded by threats or violence. Therefore, it is important that we take the threats seriously immediately, before anything happens. And, Mr. Speaker, a man who attacks a woman through violence or threats of violence should not be given a second chance.

(Applause)

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! There is a lot of focus in this debate on men's violence against women, and that is good. It receives far too little focus and attention at most other times. Instead, there is relatively more focus solely on serious gang crime.

The government often claims that men's violence against women is prioritized just as much as gang crime. To take an example, Mr. Speaker, the Tidö Agreement, which governs the government's work, has three and a half pages on gang crime, while men's violence against women is a point in a bulleted list.

We must continue to expand the Swedish Police Authority. The police resources are not sufficient as they are today. But in order to curb men's violence against women, the police's methods of work must also be developed and improved, and that work must be prioritized.

We must see that it is not only about direct physical violence, but also controlling behavior, psychological abuse, and so on.

Punishments for sexual crimes have been tightened in stages. We view it positively that it continues to be reviewed. There are grounds for increased penalties that need to be raised even in the situation we have now.

Mr. Speaker! The protection for those sexual crime victims who still exist must be strengthened. We also cannot have a one-sided focus on the sentencing scale here; we must see both how crimes can be prevented and how those who are subjected to them should receive reinforced protection.

Mr. Speaker! I have heard various developments during the debate. Some members want to continue discussing visitation zones. We had a debate about them for three hours as recently as last Wednesday. I am happy to continue that discussion at a later time. In that debate, I asked questions that I did not receive answers to, which I hope to obtain moving forward. But here and now, I will be content.

Violent crime and crime victims

Madam Speaker! I move for the approval of reservation number 19, which concerns strengthened protection for victims of sexual crimes.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 18 April.)

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