Livstidsstraffet i förändring

Sammanfattning: The main point of this thesis is whether or not there is a need for modifications of the life sentence in Sweden, and should that be the case, how that modification is supposed to be constructed. To answer this in an adequate manner, the Swedish life sentence is going to be compared to the English and Norwegian equivalents. To start with, an account of different theories on penalization and principles that have embossed the Swedish penal system’s construction will be given. The life sentence has gone through a number of different paradigm shifts and our current differentiated penal system considers both the risk for a relapse into crime and the prognosis for treatment. A short review of the development of the life sentence will be made in order to explain how the penalty has evolved into its current importance. The life sentence has replaced the death penalty in punishing the most serious of crimes and is currently the harshest penalty the law prescribes. In a proposition, the Swedish government suggests that the life sentence should be possible to use on a much wider scale and be the normal sentence in the manner that it will be used on a majority of cases. In practice, this means that more people sentenced for murder will receive life imprisonment as a penalty. According to the law many of the deeds committed by these criminal leads to a shorter, fixed term sentence. The Swedish Parliament approved this proposition on April 29th 2014 and it will come into effect on July 1st 2014. This coming legislation could come to affect the proportionality of the penal system and the Rule of Law in a negative manner. This thesis argues on whether there is such a need as the government suggests. To further address the thesis’ main issue, the arguments for and against the life sentence and its legal construction will be examined and analysed as will the legal debate in the chosen countries. In Sweden, the issue of converting the penalties and the risk assessment, which are to be the foundation for a possible conversion of the non-fixed term penalty, are debated. Arguments about the aggravation of a meaningful enforcement and the lacking Rule of Law are addressed. The strongest arguments for life sentencing are considered to be the aspect of societal protection. In England, the whole-life order where convicts sentenced to life imprisonment and denied the possibility of parole is the target of criticism. Also, the mandatory life sentence for murder in England is criticized since it, in practice, does not actually mean imprisonment for life. By a comparison to Norway, the deduction that the life sentence is a legally insecure sentence and out-of-date punishment is made. The criticism towards preventive detention is mainly aimed at the reliability of the risk assessments on which the trial of parole is founded. On the other hand, based on the possibility to extend the sentence by five years at the time, preventive detention gives the convict hope of that the imprisonment not necessarily has to last for too long. The conclusion of this thesis is therefore that there is a need for change in regard to the life sentence where a solution similar to the one in Norway is a suitable option.