Ungdomsrabatten - En kritisk diskursanalys av slopad straffrabatt för unga vuxna

Sammanfattning: Young offenders have been specially treated in Swedish criminal law for centuries. Regulations of today are to be found in 29 kap. 7 § BrB and prescribes that anyone who commits a crime before the age of 21 should receive a reduction of their penalty because of their youth. This results in a so-called “penalty discount” that reduces as the age increase. The reasons for the existence of the penalty discount is due to the young people’s lack of responsibility, sensitivity for sanctions and maturation process. The 13th of December in 2017 the government gathered a group of investigators to examine how the penalty discount could be repealed. The investigation results in a proposal that the wording of 29 kap 7§ BrB should be changed to only include penalty discount for those who not yet have turned 18 years old. Accordingly, the penalty discount for offenders between 18-20 should be abolished. The proposal later on becomes part of the governments “34-punktsprogram”, containing measures against organised crimes. The proposal is largely criticised by the consultation responses which revolves in a revise. In a draft of a law council referral they stipulate that the repeal of the penalty discount only should include young offenders between 18-20 that have committed crimes sentenced with prison for one year or more. Also this proposal had to endure criticism in media as well as by consultation responses. The majority though had no objections. The government intends to abrogate the penalty discount regardless of the criticism from researchers and experts. Due to this, this essay intends to analyse underlying motives of the reform. Central explicit arguments have been chosen for a critical discourse analysis. The analysis clarifies that a repeal can not be motivated by general prevention nor individual prevention. Another argument implies that the principal of proportionality should be prioritized over the reasons for special treatment of young offenders. The idea of young offenders lack of responsibility has therefore changed. The aim to increase security in the society is one of the most central motives for repealed penalty discount and is now politically prioritised over crime prevention. In summary the reform shows how politicians strive to please the society by giving them what they want on the expense of young offenders. In the concluding discussion I criticise the discourse for being too narrow both when it comes to underlying motives and the possibilities of alternative measures. Finally, discussions about how the voters create the criminal policy to suit the law-abiding citizens instead of the criminals are made.