Effektivitet eller rättssäkerhet? - En rättsanalys av den nya lagen om slopande av ungdomsreduktionen för grova brott

Sammanfattning: On November 17, 2021, the Swedish Riksdag voted in favor of the governments’ proposal for a new law that abolishes the penalty rebate for young adult offenders who committed serious crimes. Furthermore, the law entails that the same punishment can be sentenced to 18–20 years as to other adult offenders, including life imprisonment. Young adult offenders have been treated differently than other adult offenders in the Swedish law system for almost 60 years. Yet, in the last decade there has been a debate regarding whether this group should be treated the same way as other adults. Against this background, I find it relevant to analyze the legislator's arguments and distinguish which reasons that led to the law. Thus, the main purpose of the essay is to examine the new law on the abolition of the penalty reduction for young adult offenders in relation to serious crime. More specifically, the purpose is to analyze the legislator’s presentation of the abolition based on criminal law theories and principles, especially Jareborg's (1995) theories on defensive and offensive criminal law policy. To realize the purpose of this essay, the following two questions will be answered: 1. How does the Swedish legislator present the abolition of the penalty reduction for young adult offenders? 2. How can the legislator’s presentations be understood based on criminal law theories and principles? By studying the preparatory works for the new law in order to answer the first question at issue, four main reasons to justify the abolition of the penalty reduction are crystallized: - Efforts are needed in the justice system to reduce crime and increase security in society. - The reaction to serious crime today is too restricted and is not sufficient in proportion to the seriousness of the crime. - Admittedly, research indicates that young people do not reach the required degree of maturity until later in life, but a general limit cannot be set. In several ways, people are considered sufficiently mature when they are 18years old. - A change in the maximum penalty is necessary for the reform to be consistent. The analysis, in which the second question is answered shows that the legislator places considerable emphasis on prevention. The penalty system, in accordance with the offensive orientation, seems to constitute a kind of repertoire for methods and solutions of societal problems. Furthermore, it is noted that the legislator emphasizes proportionality rather than individual preventive considerations. This fact is linked to the question when a young person reaches the required degree of maturity, and whether the merit will not be less if the person is not able to assimilate his actions. Furthermore, the fact that life imprisonment can be sentenced to 18–20-year old’s is also in line with the offensive orientation, blocking efforts towards increased humanity. Hence, the main conclusion is that there seems to be a discrepancy between, on the one hand, the legislator’s striving for crime prevention and criminality and, on the other hand, the system’s notions of legal certainty and restrictiveness in relation to criminal sanctions. This discrepancy can be linked to the distinction between defensive criminal justice policy and the offensive orientation, in which the former seems to have given way to the latter. However, against the conclusions in this essay, it is suggested that the legislator exercise caution when adopting strategies in line with the offensive approach. Otherwise, important values in a society governed by the rule of law might be forced to be subordinated to political points.