The Debaters: Shows an arrogant disdain
This is a debate article. It is the writer who stands for the opinions presented in the text, not Aftonbladet.
Published 2025-11-19 12.00
Sweden has had a good reputation for how legislation is carried out.
Our rules and routines have promoted knowledge, quality and democratic anchoring.
These values are now being compromised.
DEBATE. An important tool to ensure that our laws are based on knowledge and experience and that they can be applied in a good way is to send draft laws for comments, for referral. Last spring, a proposal was sent out to lower the age of criminal jurisdiction to 14 years. In principle, everyone who spoke, courts, universities, authorities and civil society, condemned the proposal.
The government responded by proposing a reduction to 13 years instead. That proposal has also now been assessed with a similar result. Even the Correctional Service, which is supposed to enforce punishment, says no. No investigative proposal has received such an execution in modern times. But will the government care?
The government’s criminal policy action is out of touch with knowledge
Another example: Last spring, proposals were presented for extensive changes to the Criminal Code (SOU 2025:66). The bottom line is a dramatic continued tightening of state repression with at least another 16,000 sentenced years in prison each year at an annual cost of at least 17 billion. The proposals went out for consultation in the usual way.
The investigation, but also the government, receives devastating criticism from all sides. Criticism refers to, among other things, the lack of reasons for the proposals, their content, the government’s directives and short investigation and consultation time.
Some examples:
The Svea Court of Appeal finds that the proposals should not lead to legislation.
The Court of Appeal over Skåne and Blekinge states that the underlying issues of principle have not been examined sufficiently.
Lund University rejects the proposals. The report appears to be frivolous.
Stockholm University finds that the report is characterized by a striking lack of content in terms of what the proposals are aimed at and discourages the proposals.
Uppsala University believes that the proposal cannot be used as a basis for legislation.
This execution should rule out the government taking the proposals forward to the Riksdag. But in this year’s budget proposal – which was submitted a few weeks before the inquiry’s consultation period had expired and when the opinions were still unknown(!) – the government announced that the proposals must be implemented. The government therefore moves on without even having taken note of the opinions of the relevant courts, universities and other authorities. The preparation is an arrogant contempt for referral bodies, established democratic processes and the form of government.
Political action is admirable. Powerful politicians who push issues for the common good with conviction. But if that power is exercised without respect for knowledge and for the processes that guarantee democracy, it is dangerous.
Minister of Justice maintains a high profile in constitutional matters. But when it comes to respecting the constitutional limits and rules that apply to his own actions, he is more frivolous, the signatories write.” sizes=”(min-width: 1300px) 662px, (min-width: 1180px) 50vw, (min-width: 768px) 65vw, 100vw” loading=”eager” fetchpriority=”high” style=”aspect-ratio:1900 / 1267″/>The government’s criminal policy action is out of touch with knowledge and respect for the decision-making process to be used. Politics is becoming less and less oriented towards making society better with solid knowledge and more and more towards acquiring or maintaining power.
The Minister of Justice maintains a high profile in constitutional matters. But when it comes to respecting the constitutional limits and rules that apply to his own actions, he is more frivolous. If the political power becomes unrestrained, does not take into account knowledge and the well-founded and proven experiences of others, and also does not respect rules and practices that are supposed to guarantee quality and democratic processes, then the power becomes dangerous and harmful.
Stone Heckscherformer Minister of Justice and Chairman of the Supreme Administrative Court
Anne Ramberglawyer and former secretary general of the Swedish Bar Association
