sou · GSB3122d3 · 2005-01-01 00:00:00 — Som anges ovan pågår en utvärdering av påföljdsreform för unga lagöverträdare. Det kan antas att den utvärderingen kommer att utgöra ett betydelsefullt kunskaps- underlag för de fortsatta ställningstagandena om påföljdernas framtida utformning. Mot denna bakgrund framstår det som angeläget att inte redan nu i alltför stor utsträckning avgränsa förevarande uppdrag. Det kan istället finnas anledning för regeringen att, när utvärderingen är klar, i tilläggsdirektiv återkomma med mer preciserade riktlinjer för utredarens arbete. I avvaktan på dessa bör utredarens arbete inriktas på att belysa övergripande och strukturella frågor. I det följande anges riktlinjer för arbetets allmänna inriktning samt frågeställningar som är av central betydelse för kommande överväganden. De grundläggande principer som redovisades i samband med förändringar skall alltjämt vara vägledande. Det innebär att påföljdssystemet för unga lagöverträdare skall bygga på principen att barn och ungdomar som har begått brott i första hand skall bli föremål för insatser inom . Det måste vara en ambition att de åtgärder som vidtas skall syfta till att åstadkomma en positiv förändring och att främja en gynnsam utveckling, genom bl.a. vård och utbildning. För att uppnå detta måste hänsyn tas till den unge förövarens hela livssituation. Vidare måste samarbetet mellan berörda aktörer fungera samt förutsättningar skapas för att den unge ska kunna återföras till ett socialt välfungerande liv. De straffrättsliga principerna om proportionalitet, förutsebarhet och konsekvens måste ha fortsatt genomslag i påföljderna. SOU 2004:122 Bilaga 1 En huvuduppgift skall vara att undersöka möjligheterna att utveckla och förstärka innehållet i påföljderna samt att skapa nya alternativ. Utredaren måste också ha som mål att skapa ett system som är överskådligt och tydligt, såväl för den unge som begått brott som för rättstillämparen. Det är inte regeringens avsikt att åstadkomma någon generell straffskärpning när det gäller unga lagöverträdare, utan främst att se till att påföljdssystemet för unga har ett pedagogiskt och tydligt innehåll. Det måste, liksom tidigare, vara ett mål att minska användningen av frihetsberövande påföljder, särskilt korta sådana. I uppdraget ingår även att analysera hur behovet av en nationell samordning av kompetens- och metodutveckling och spridande av allmän information och kunskap kan tillgodoses när det gäller ungdomsbrott och det allmännas ingripanden med anledning därav. Överlämnande till vård inom Utredaren skall pröva om ytterligare åtgärder kan vidtas för att förstärka och utveckla överlämnandepåföljden, förtydliga social- tjänstens ansvar för vård och åtgärder beträffande unga lag- överträdare samt redovisa vilka förändringar som i så fall bör göras. Utredaren skall också överväga hur samarbetet mellan och berörda myndigheter skulle kunna utvecklas och förbättras och hur hinder i detta hänseende skall kunna övervinnas. Möjligheten att införa en s.k. ryggsäck Som ett led i en förstärkning av samarbetet mellan berörda myndigheter, vårdgivare och skola skall utredaren lämna förslag på en modell där en person utses att ha ett särskilt ansvar för den unge genom dels kontroll och uppföljning, dels samordning av de insatser och åtgärder som vidtas från samhällets sida, en s.k. ryggsäck. Förslaget bör ange former för ansvarsfördelning och samarbete samt hur frågor om sekretess och kompetens bör lösas. Denna modell skall även kunna tillämpas av för barn . I det här avseendet bör viss vägledning och erfarenheter kunna inhämtas genom internationella utblickar och jämförelser av olika modeller för behandling av unga lagöverträdare. Utredaren skall överväga om tillämpningsområdet för sluten ungdomsvård har en lämplig avgränsning, såväl i förhållande till andra påföljder som i förhållande till andra åtgärder som vidtas av det allmänna. Utredaren skall även uppmärksamma vilka åtgärder som kan vid- tas för att stärka påföljdens innehåll och för att på andra sätt främja den dömdes förutsättningar för ett liv i frihet utan kriminalitet. Påföljdskombinationen skyddstillsyn och fängelse Utredaren skall analysera om det finns anledning att behålla påföljdskombinationen skyddstillsyn och fängelse och om domstolen bör ges möjlighet att, i stället för att förena en skyddstillsyn med fängelse, besluta om skyddstillsyn i förening med sluten ungdomsvård. Utredaren skall undersöka om, och i så fall på vilka sätt, bötes- straffets användningsområde kan begränsas när det gäller unga lagöverträdare och vilka alternativ som står till buds, såväl i fråga om påföljder som beslut om åtalsunderlåtelse. Medling med anledning av brott Utredaren skall följa utvecklingen av medlingsverksamheten i landet och överväga vilken ställning i rättsprocessen medlingen bör ha samt hur den bör organiseras. En målsättning bör vara att medlingen, i vart fall , skall kunna utvecklas till en verksamhet som är allmänt tillgänglig och som spelar en mer framträdande roll i rättssystemet. Utredaren skall undersöka vilka möjligheter som finns att ersätta häktning med andra former av placering eller andra åtgärder för övervakning i kontrollerade former . En särskild fråga som bör övervägas är om det är möjligt att genom placering på särskilda ungdomshem minska användningen av häktningsinstitutet. Vidare bör utredaren pröva om det är möjligt att placera häktade ungdomar på särskilda ungdomshem för att undvika placering på allmänna häkten. Utredaren skall även belysa vilka åtgärder som behöver vidtas för att möjliggöra placeringar utanför de allmänna häktena. Utredaren skall behandla tänkbara lösningar för att minska de skillnader vad gäller tillgodoräknande av tid för frihetsberövande som uppstår beroende på i vilken form den misstänkte unge har berövats friheten med anledning av brott. Utredaren skall samråda med berörda myndigheter, särskilt , och Statens institutions- styrelse samt följa den fortsatta beredningen av Psykansvars- kommitténs betänkande (SOU 2002:3). Det är också angeläget att utredaren i dialog med och Ungdoms- styrelsen inhämtar kunskap om de ungas åsikter i dessa frågor. Regeringen avser att besluta om direktiv till en parlamentarisk kommitté med uppdrag att utforma en ny kriminal- vårdslag för såväl öppen som sluten kriminalvård. Även detta arbete kommer att vara av betydelse för utredningens överväganden. För utredarens arbete skall innehållet i de olika dokument om barn och ungdomsbrottslighet som har utarbetats inom ramen för olika internationella organ, främst FN och , vara väg- ledande i den utsträckning som de är av betydelse för att fullgöra uppdraget. Bland de internationella åtaganden som gjort skall särskilt FN:s konvention om barnets rättigheter framhållas. Utredaren skall lägga fram fullständiga lagförslag och även lämna förslag till förändringar i andra avseenden som uppdraget kan ge anledning till. Detta gäller även till uppdraget angränsande frågor av mer lagstiftningsteknisk karaktär som utredaren eller de myndigheter som utredaren samråder med uppmärksammar. står utredaren fritt att ta upp även andra frågor inom ramen för uppdraget som aktualiseras under utredningsarbetet. Förslagets konsekvenser skall redovisas enligt vad som anges i 14 och 15 §§ kommittéförordningen (1998:1474) varvid särskild vikt skall läggas vid att redovisa förslag till finansiering i de delar förslagen innebär ökade kostnader eller minskade intäkter för det allmänna och vid att redovisa förslagens betydelse för brottsligheten och för det brottsförebyggande arbetet. Uppdraget skall redovisas senast vid utgången av . The task and the bases for our work The system of sanctions for young offenders was changed most recently by a reform that came into effect on 1 January 1999. One of the aims of the reform was to strengthen the penal law principles of proportionality, predictability and consequence. The sanction of being handed over to the care of the social services was clarified and made more stringent. Furthermore, custodial youth care was introduced as a sanction involving deprivation of for young offenders who committed crimes before the age of 18. The task of the Commission included following up and further developing the 1999 sanctions reform. This task, concerning young offenders aged between 15 and 20, has been very extensive and involved both the decision on sanction and enforcement of the different sanctions. We have accordingly had to give particular consideration to the possibilities of further development of sanctions and creating new sanction alternatives. According to the Governments terms of reference, the basic principles presented in connection with the changes in 1999 were to guide our work as well. This means that the system of sanctions for young offenders was to continue to be based on the principle that children and young people who commit crimes were in the first place to be handed over for measures to be taken by the social services. The intention of the task has been, while maintaining the above penal law principles, to make further progress with the work of developing a system of sanctions for juveniles with a clear educational content and, based on the young persons needs, to improve the for a return to a socially well-adapted life and in this way to bring about a change for the better. The Government has not intended to bring about any general increase in the stringency of punishments for young offenders. Instead, it was stated that one objective must be to reduce the use of sanctions involving deprivation of , in particular short sanctions of this kind. The task has also entailed analysing how to meet the need for a national coordination of expertise and development of methods and the dissemination of general information and knowledge about juvenile crime and the intervention of public authority in response. , and have evaluated the 1999 sanctions reform for young offenders at the request of the Government. The agencies reported on their work in . This evaluation has been a valuable basis of knowledge for the work of the Commission. The evaluation of the 1999 sanctions reform The recently mentioned evaluation of the 1999 sanctions reform showed, with respect to the sanction of handing over to the care of the social services, that the reform had had certain effects although it was evident that it had not been realised to the full. With respect to custodial youth care, it emerged, among other things, that enforcement needed to be improved and that the continued treatment of the young person after enforcement either did not take place or ceased very soon after release despite a continuing need for care. The work of the social services with children and young people who commit crimes There is an increased need for measures by the social services in care of children and young people. Furthermore, the ambitions of the social services and the results expected by society have continued to increase. This together has entailed that the demands on the work of the social services with children and young people have increased considerably. The ability of the social services to carry out successful work with children and young people, not least with respect to the target group of the Commission, are, however, limited due to organisa- tional, staffing, expertise-related and administrative problems, In the light of this, the Commission has found it appropriate that the state work for greater uniformity in the activities of the municipalities relating to young offenders. We recommend that it shall be explicitly stated by law that is entitled to issue regulations in this sphere. We have drawn attention to the importance of collaboration between local authorities in this sphere in order to reduce the difference in the range and quality of support and treatment measures etc. available from municipality to municipality. Handling of juvenile cases in the judicial system The Commission was not specifically instructed to investigate issues relating the handling of juvenile cases. However, we have drawn the conclusion that a review of the actions taken by public authority in youth crime cannot be excluded from the presenta- tion. This has led to us making some recommendations in this area. We consider that the specialisation in handling juvenile cases has been very important for the young person who comes into contact with the judicial system. We have therefore emphasised that the , the prosecution service and the courts should regard it as important to develop the specialisation previously decided upon by the legislator with respect to the handling of juvenile cases by public authorities. We have furthermore found that there are reasons to introduce a special requirement of aptitude for the attorney-at-law appointed as public counsel for a suspect under the age of 18. We consider that, in the first place, an attorney-at-law shall be appointed, who, due to his or her knowledge and experience and personal characteristics, is particularly suitable for the appointment. However, this shall not lead to a restriction on the ability of the suspect to have an influence on who is appointed as defence counsel. We consider that it shall be taken into account, when determining remuneration to defence counsel, that these cases can require special contributions by the defence counsel in cases where the accused is aged between 15 and 17. Our proposals also focus on the requirement for swiftness in section 4 of the (Special Provisions) Act (1964:167) (LUL) which apply to preliminary investigation against persons under the age of 18. We take the view that this requirement for swiftness is to be expanded to apply to crimes that include imprisonment in the range of penalties, because it is important that society reacts quickly to all crimes committed by young people. We consider that the practical difficulties that this can entail are manageable. We also recommend that the obligation in LUL to notify, among others, the person with custody if a prosecution is instituted and of the date of main proceedings shall explicitly apply to all courts. Furthermore, we recommend that certain provisions in LUL on court proceedings are to apply correspondingly to the courts handling of cases after the prosecutor has instituted proceedings for a new consideration of the issue of sanction. With respect to the handling of suspected crimes by children under the age of 15, we have found, in investigations under section 31 of LUL, that the court should be able to appoint a legal representative for the young person. This possibility should be used restrictively. It may be appropriate, for instance, when the crime investigation concerns serious crimes or can lead to large claims for damages being made against the young person. We consider that it is justified in other contexts to review the ability to use coercive measures against crime suspects under the age of 15. However, we have concluded that it should be possible to take photographs and fingerprints of suspects under the age of criminal responsibility. We have also suggested certain clarifications in LUL with respect to the ability of the to detain a person under the age of 15. Waiver of prosecution – Formal caution We consider that greater use of the possibility of waiver of prosecution under LUL should be made than at present. Consideration should therefore be given to the measures that can be taken with a view to reinforcing waiver of prosecution in LUL and thus contributing to it being applied to the extent intended by the legislator. The Commission recommends that the term waiver from prosecution in LUL be replaced by formal caution for educational reasons and by way of clarification. For the same reasons, waiver of prosecutions under the Code of Judicial Procedure for crimes committed by a person under the age of 18 should be replaced by a formal caution. The reasons stated in Chapter 20, section 7, of the Code of Judicial Procedure (RB) shall thus serve as a basis for the prosecutor to decide on a formal caution under LUL. We also recommend that the prosecutor take a final position on whether a formal caution is to be notified to the young person first at a personal meeting with him or her. Personal attendance of the young person at the meeting with the prosecutor shall in principle be a prerequisite for being able to decide on a formal caution. In the view of the Commission, it shall also be possible for the court to notify a decision on a formal caution if it finds that the young person is guilty of the crime. However, the ability of the court in this respect is to be limited to cases where there are special reasons and when the deed has been committed due to mischief or rashness. We consider that the collaboration between the prosecutor and the social services should be reinforced and therefore suggest that the social services should be obliged to report back to the prosecutor in those cases where the measure assumed by the prosecutor in the decision on a formal caution does not take place. We consider that should provide guidance to the social services in the municipalities on the obligation to report in these cases. The Office of the Prosecutor-General should issue new general guidelines about the detailed application to achieve a uniform and predictable application of the legal provisions on formal caution. In our view, the new guidelines should be based on certain general principles. They should be designed in such a way as to increase the use of formal cautions at the expense of the imposition of penalties and court hearings. With a view to motivating the young person to refrain from re- offending, we recommend that information relating to the decision on a formal caution be removed from the criminal register three years after the decision provided that no new entry has been made during this period, i.e. that the young person has not been charged with any other crime during the three-year period. Handing over to care by the social services – the social service sanction The sanction of being handed over to care by the social services can either mean voluntary or coercive care. The content of this sanction can consist of a lot of different measures on the part of the social services – everything from less extensive to very intrusive measures. Less intrusive measures might be, for instance, counseling with a social welfare officer and the appointment of a contact person. Examples of considerably more intrusive measures are participation in structured open care, for instance, multi- systemic therapy, MST, and custodial placements. The Commission has found the sanction of handing over to the care of the social services should only be used when the young person after skilled assessment has been found to run the risk of continued criminal behaviour and is therefore in need of strong measures by the social services. Moreover, we take the view that the name of the sanction should be changed for pedagogical reasons and for clarification. Our proposed new name is social service sanction. To clarify the role of the social services in the judicial system, we recommend that a contract should be drawn up based on a care plan, a youth contract in the case of a social service sanction which entails that measures are to be taken with the consent of the young person and his or her custodian, i.e. when it entails care under the Act (2001:453) (SoL). The youth contract is to be signed by the parties concerned and attached to the judgment. The court is to make a direction in the judgment that the young person is obliged to comply with his or her part of the contract. In the case of a social service sanction where coercive measures are to be taken pursuant to the Care of (Special Provisions) Act (1990:52) (LVU), the care plan drawn up is to be attached to the judgment. We have also made recommendations on procedural matters and enforcement. This part of our recommendations entails, among other things, that the obligation of the prosecutor to obtain a statement is brought forward to the time when he finds that there is a reasonable suspicion of crime, that the prosecutor is to be able to notify a caution to the young person if the latters conduct is unsatisfactory during enforcement of the sanction and that the court, if the prosecutor has instituted proceedings for a sanction to be varied, shall be able instead to make changes in the content of the ongoing social service sanction. We have also drawn attention to the importance of the social welfare caseworkers having the necessary knowledge of what the statements and care plans are to contain as well as an understanding of the purpose of the documents at the prosecutor and court. To facilitate the work of the social services, we consider that the Prosecutor-General and should produce a form for a statement under section 11 LUL and for reporting to the prosecutor when a sanction is not working properly. We also recommend that relatively extensive training be carried out within the social services on the sanction system for juvenile offenders. Attention has previously drawn in various contexts to the added value that good collaboration between the social services and the judicial system can create. The evaluation of the 1999 sanctions reform indicates, however, that the hopes raised for such increased collaboration and co-operation have not been met, but that a lot remains to be done on this issue. We therefore consider that it should be made sure that procedures are created that result in collaboration being established in between the participants involved in interventions against juvenile crime. We recommend that the social services endeavour for social welfare officers and representatives of the judicial system to regularly share information and experiences at the general level. We have found that the disadvantages associated with the penalty of fines for young offenders are so evident that it should be endeavoured to reduce use of the punishment of fines in the form of day-fines for this group of offenders. As stated above, the Commission is proposing a new arrangement for waiver of prosecution. The proposal is designed in such a way that the number of decisions on a formal caution will increase in relation to the number of waivers of prosecution at present. If the proposal leads to legislation, the need to use fines will therefore decrease. As is developed in more detail in the following section, the Commission recommends that youth service be made into a separate sanction. One reason for introducing a sanction alternative of this kind for juvenile offenders is that it is preferable in many respects for young people than fines and other sanctions. In particular, it can replace in particular fines to a great extent. We also consider that it appears fit for the purpose to increase use of youth service at the expense of fines when there is a need to combine the social service sanction with an additional sanction. The Commission considers that payment and collection procedures should be designed in such a way as to counteract the negative consequences that can ensue from the punishment of fines today for young people under the age of 21. We recommend that it be made possible for young people who have been sentenced to fines to contact the agency already at the time they are imposed with a view to reaching agreement on a timetable for payment. An alternative proposal that we are presenting is for it to be made possible for young offenders to have an extended period of time to pay fines. We recommend that be instructed to investigate how this could be designed, after consultation with the . The sanctions reform in 1999 led to the introduction of youth service as an additional sanction to the sanction of being handed over to the care of the social services.