sou · H6B385 · 2018-12-18 00:00:00 — Vi föreslår därför att de be- stämmelser i lagen (1964:167) med särskilda bestämmelser om unga lagöverträdare som innebär att inte bara 15–17-åriga lagöverträdare utan också 18–20-åriga lagöverträdare särbehandlas ska ändras så att lagen framöver gäller bara 15–17-åriga lagöverträdare. Vi gör bedömningen att strängare påföljder för lagöverträdare i åldern 18–kommer att medföra ökad tillämpning av häktning, anhållande och andra processuella tvångsmedel inom denna ålders- grupp. Konsekvenser av utredningens förslag m.m. De som i praktiken berörs närmast av våra överväganden och förslag är lagöverträdare i åldern 15–. Vidare berör övervägandena och förslagen domstolar, åklagare, målsägande och offentliga försvarare samt frivården och . När det särskilt gäller ekonomiska konsekvenser berör övervägandena och förslagen i första hand Krimi- nalvården (inklusive frivården), och kom- munerna samt den del av statskassan som motsvarar det allmännas intäkter av dagsböter. Baserat på bl.a. uppgifter från Kriminalvården och Statens institu- tionsstyrelse bedömer vi att ett genomförande av utredningens förslag i fråga om lagöverträdare i åldern 18–kommer att leda till ökade årliga kostnader för staten med . Vår i första hand förespråkade modell beträffande lagöverträdare i åldern 15–(alternativ 1) är kostnadsneutral. Skulle i stället alter- nativ 2 eller 4 eller alternativ 3 väljas, skulle de leda till ytterligare kost- nadsökningar för staten med respek- tive . Finansieringen av förslagen bör ske inom ramen för de resurser som kan förväntas behöva tillföras rättsväsendet . De föreslagna ändringarna i lag kan träda i kraft och det krävs inte några särskilda övergångsbestämmelser. Remit of the Inquiry We have had the remit of considering and proposing amendments to the special treatment in criminal law of offenders in the 18–20 age group in order to bring the determination of sanctions for this age group into line with that for other adult offenders. As regards the determination of penalties our remit has been to: •consider and propose how to design a system that means that offenders in the 18–20 age group are treated like other adult offenders in sentencing; •analyse the consequences of such a system for offenders in the 15–17 age group and consider, against that background, various models for how the sentencing of offenders in the 15–17 age group can be arranged and assess the need for consequential amendments; and •present the legislative proposals needed. As regards the choice of sanction our remit has been to: •consider and propose how to design a system that means that offenders in the 18–20 age group are treated like other adult offenders in the choice of sanction and in procedural terms; and •present the legislative proposals needed. So we have not had the remit of considering whether the special treat- ment of offenders aged 18–20 years in penal law and criminal proce- dure should cease but only of considering and proposing how an abolition of this special treatment can be put into effect as regards this age group. In the case of offenders aged 15–17 years our remit has been formulated in a more open way. As regards this age group, our task has been to present and consider various models. (Our terms of reference are in annex 1.) As background to our deliberations we have studied the position regarding special treatment of young offenders in , , , and . All these countries have explicit provisions about special treatment of the very youngest offenders, even though the form of special treatment varies between these countries. The design of their regulatory systems also varies regarding offend- ers who have attained 18 years. In Finnish law offenders aged 18– 20 are given special treatment both in the choice of sanction and regarding conditional release. The same applies under Icelandic law German law also provides scope for special treatment of offenders in this age group. In contrast, Danish law does not contain any provision on special treatment of offenders aged 18–20 in deter- mining sanctions. At the same time, being under 21 years can be a reason for conditional release under Danish law, which means, in practice, a reduction of the actual penalty by a third or half of the penalty imposed. Norwegian law does not contain explicit provisions about offenders aged 18–20 either; but their low age is considered to be a general factor to be taken into account in sanction determi- nation. The conclusion of this overview is that offenders in both the 15– 17 age group and the 18–20 age group are given special – more lenient –treatment in the determination of sanctions and/or regarding conditional release in the countries covered by this review, with the proviso that it is not possible to determine the exact age at which the consideration of low age ends according to the Norwegian perspective. Sanctions for young persons, brain research and youth crime As background to our deliberations we have also examined how differ- ent sanctions have been applied regarding young offenders in recent years, what the state of psychological and neurological research of relevance for questions of sanctions for young people is like and how youth crime has developed in recent years. To begin with, we can see that there is some, albeit limited, cross application of the special youth sanctions and sanctions intended for adults. There are instances of offenders aged 15–17 being sentenced to, for example, imprisonment, a conditional sentence and probation at the same time as there are instances of offenders aged 18 or older being sentenced to, for example, youth care. Here we can also see that in some judgments in 2017 the courts have discussed penal values1 corresponding to imprisonment for life for defendants who have committed offences when aged 18–20 in cases where the sanc- tion has been set at imprisonment for a fixed term. The abolition of what is called the ‘youth reduction’ for offenders aged 18–20 can therefore be expected to lead to one or a few more life sentences each year. The psychological research done in this area shows that people do not attain social and emotional maturity until the age of 19–21 and that the capacity for self-control is not fully developed until between the ages of 23 and 25. The neurological research – which provides support for the psychological research results – indicates that the brain is not fully developed until the age of 25. When it comes to the development of youth crime the available statistics indicate that youth crime is decreasing and that – in the main – this trend also applies when individual serious types of offences or of types of offences are studied. Against this background we draw the conclusion that there is no empirical, or experience-based, support for tougher sanctions for young offenders. 1In principle penal value (straffvärde) is a function of the harmfulness of the conduct and the culpability manifested in the conduct. Starting points for a reform Our deliberations and proposals are based on the following general starting points: •The severity of the sanction should be proportionate to the se- riousness of the offence. •The general level of repression should not be higher than neces- sary. This follows from the principles of forward-looking propor- tionality and humanity. A less general tightening of penalties also requires rational arguments and weighty substantive reasons. •Rational decision-making regarding sanction requires that the ‘conformity principle’ and the ‘guilt principle’ are taken into account. Only a person who was able at the time of the act to comply with the penal law – and committed the act with intent or out of negligence – may be found guilty. These principles are also relevant for the question of what sanction should be imposed for an offence. The degree of guilt also affects the degree of reprehendsibility, which should also be reflected in the penal value. •Greater use of imprisonment can be counterproductive since it works against the social rehabilitation of the sentenced person. Imprisonment can lead to offenders being inducted into in a criminal lifestyle and therefore to a greater risk of reoffending. There is also a risk of increases in repression leading to a ’spiral of repression’ with recurring demands for more severe sanctions. One starting point is therefore that more far-reaching repression than is required by our remit should only be put into effect if there are strong reasons for it. •Countering criminal activity requires crime-prevention measures in a broad sense, measures in, for instance, areas including educa- tion, working life and social and health care or specific measures in the form of theft protection devices for property, for example. It is also important that the activities of the criminal investigation authorities are effective so that as large a portion of offences as possible is detected, investigated and can lead to convictions. Our proposals must be viewed in the light of the need for measures in areas outside penal law. •What a perpetrator has done after the act does not affect its penal value and the same applies, with some simplification, to circum- stances before the act. The focus of the system of sanctions on the point in time – or the time – of the act is usually described by saying that the concept of guilt is episodic. At the same time, the existence of provisions about factors external to the offence indi- cates that there is a need to be able to take account of factors located outside the act itself. Which factors are to be included in an assessment of penal value is a conceptual matter. A ‘reason of fairness’ – for example that the defendant has tried to alleviate the harmful effects of the offence – or the youth of the perpetrator could be said to mean a lower degree of guilt and a lower degree of reprehensibility. So, the meaning of provisions on taking account of the youth of the perpetrator when determining the sanction does not necessarily have to be described by saying that the person concerned has been given a ‘discount’ or ‘reduction’. The provisions can, instead, be said to intended to correct the penal value, so that the perpetrator is not given a more intrusive penalty than they deserve. •At a general level the special treatment of young offenders can be explained in terms of young people typically having an undevel- oped capacity to take responsibility and of young people typically being more psychologically sensitive to punishment than adults and by saying that society should show tolerance for the young person’s process of maturing. Account must also be taken of the fact that, in the case of people under the age of 18, the Conven- tion on the Rights of the Child requires account to be taken of the best interests of the child and there to be laws that are specially adapted to children. •There is an interest of avoiding threshold effects in the system of sanctions. At the same time, all conceivable forms of levelling out of the threshold effect at the age of 18 would mean that individual children aged 15–17 would be given more severe sentences with- out any expectation that this will lead either to less crime at a general level or to better social rehabilitation of the individual child. An increase in repression of children in a particular age range without an expectation of any positive concrete conse- quences is not desirable. By itself, the interest of minimising threshold effects cannot justify far-reaching increases in repress- sion. •Children and young adults often have a lower degree, than older adults, of abilities that are linked to the possibility of taking re- sponsibility for their actions all the way up to the age of 23–25. The degree of such abilities can vary from person to person. Since a lower degree of development, experience or judgement means that the defendant has a lower degree of guilt in an act, it is impor- tant for it still to be possible to take account of such factors at the level of the individual. Amended provisions on determination of penalties for young persons In the case of offenders aged 18–20 we propose that the ‘youth reduc- tion’, which is regulated in Chapter 29, Section 7 of the Penal Code and that currently applies to offenders under the age of 21, should apply in the future to a person who has committed an offence before attaining the age of 18. As a consequence of this we propose amend- ing the provision in Chapter 26, Section 3, second paragraph of the Penal Code – which is about it being possible to extend the scale of penalties upwards in certain cases on account of reoffending in relation to an offence committed by the defendant as of the age of 21 – so that reoffending in relation to offences committed as of the age of 18 can be taken into account. A further consequential amend- ment is proposed in Chapter 35, Section 2, second paragraph of the Penal Code so that the lapsing of sanctions (statute bar) for murder and the other serious types of offences listed in that section will only be applied if the offender was under the age of 18 at the time of the offence. In the case of offenders aged 15–17 we discuss four different models. 1.Under alternative 1 the present regulations will remain in force and continue to be applied in the same way as at present regarding offenders aged 15–17. This then means that there will be a thres- hold effect at the age of 18 as the ‘youth reduction’ for 18-year old offenders will cease to apply. 2.Under alternative 2 the present ‘youth reduction’ for 15-year old offenders will continue to apply but the ‘reduction’ will taper off at a faster rate than at present – and therefore be smaller than at present for offenders who are older than 15 but younger than 18 – and reach zero at the age of 18. This would make it possible to avoid a threshold effect regarding the determination of penalties. At the same time, the model requires more severe sanctions for 15–17-year old offenders without there being any reasons for this other than to counter the threshold effect. 3.Under alternative 3, 15–17-year old offenders would take over the position in the system that 18–20-year old offenders have today. Alternative 3 would also make it possible to avoid the threshold effect at the age of 18. At the same time, the threshold at the age of 15 (the ‘age of criminal responsibility’) would be greater than at present and, like alternative 2, alternative 3 requires more se- vere sanctions for 15–17-year old offenders without there being any reasons for this other than to counter the threshold effect. 4.Under alternative 4 a certain threshold effect is permitted at the age of 18. This means that the ‘reduction’ in the age range 15– 17 does not need to taper off as fast as in alternative 2. So alter- native 4 appears to be a kind of compromise. At the same time, it can be seen that the model also requires more severe sanctions for 15–17-year old offenders without there being any reasons for this other than to counter the threshold effect. We consider than the interest of avoiding a threshold effect at the age of 18 is not so strong that increases in repression should be intro- duced for the 15–17-age group unless there are also other reasons for doing so than to counter the threshold effect. Since there are no such reasons we advocate alternative 1. Moreover, alternatives 2–4, with their higher values for the determination of penalties2 for 15– 17-year old offenders, can be assumed to lead to more severe types of sanctions being applied for less serious offences than at present. So there may be a need to depart from current case-law concerning the areas in which the special youth sanctions are applied, and this can lead to practical problems in the application of the law. 2This is the penalty that could be imposed if the sanction was set at a fine or imprisonment. The Swedish term is straffmätningsvärde. We propose supplementing Chapter 29, Section 7 of the Penal Code with a provision that – by drawing up the outer limit for the ‘reduction’ – indicates that as a starting point it should not be pos- sible to sentence offenders aged 15–17 to a sanction more severe than half of the penal value. If any of the other models is to be chosen, we advocate alternative 4 as our second preference. The fundamental provision about the choice of sanction for young offenders is set out in Chapter 30, Section 5 of the Penal Code. The first and second paragraphs of the Section provide that exceptional reasons and special reasons respectively are required to sentence of- aged 15–17 and 18–20 respectively to imprisonment. We propose amending Chapter 30, Section 5 of the Penal Code by removing its second paragraph – about special reasons being required to sentence offenders aged 18–20 to imprisonment. Conse- quential amendments to the proposed amendment to Chapter 30, Section 5 of the Penal Code are proposed in the provisions of Chapter 32 of the Penal Code about the areas of application of the sanctions of youth care and youth service. In line with our deliberations about the determination of penal- ties for offenders aged 15–17 our assessment is that the provision in Chapter 30, Section 5, first paragraph of the Penal Code on the choice of sanctions for offenders aged 15–17, should not be altered. We note that the path to imprisonment and other sanctions intended for adult offenders would be shorter if any of alternatives 2–4 was chosen. We also make the assessment here that the sanctions for this age group should not be made more severe unless doing so can be justified by reasons of fairness and crime prevention over and above the interest of countering a threshold effect at the age of 18, If alternatives 2–4 were chosen, one way of countering too short a path to imprisonment and other adult sanctions could be to expand the areas of application of the special youth sanctions by, for example, raising the maximum number of hours of youth service. In that case it would be possible to apply youth sanctions at higher determi- nation of penalty values than at present. At the same, we can see that practical problems are associated with such solutions. Further delib- erations about the area of application of the special youth sanctions would require the assistance of , psychological and other experts. One part of our remit has been to abolish all special treatment of offenders aged 18–20 years in criminal procedure. We therefore pro- pose amending the provisions in the (Special Provisions) Act (1964:167) that mean that not only offenders aged 15–17 years but also offenders aged 18–20 years are given special treat- ment so that in the future the Act will only apply to offenders aged 15–17 years. We make the assessment that more severe sanctions for offenders aged 18–20 years will result in more application of remand in custody by a court, arrest by order of a prosecutor and other procedural coer- cive measures in this age group. Impacts of the inquiry’s proposals etc. In practice, the people who will be most immediately affected by our deliberations and proposals are offenders aged 15–20 years. Our delib- erations and proposals also affect courts, prosecutors, injured parties and defence counsel as well as the probation service and the social services. As regards their financial impacts in particular, our delib- erations and proposals primarily affect the Swedish Prison and Pro- bation Service, municipalities as well as the part of central government funds that corresponds to public revenue from day fines. On the basis of information from sources including the Swedish Prison and and tional Care, we make the assessment that implementation of the Inquiry’s proposals regarding young offenders aged 18–20 will lead to annual cost increases for central government of around bil- lion. Our first preference for a model regarding young offenders aged 15–17 (alternative 1) is cost-neutral. If alternative 2 or 4 or alterna- tive 3 were to be chosen instead, this would led to further cost in- creases for central government of billion and bil- lion respectively. Our proposals should be financed within the funds that it can be expected will have to be provided for the system in the long term. The legislative amendments proposed can enter into force on 1 2020 and no special transitional provisions are required. 1.1Förslag till lag om ändring i (1962:700) Härigenom föreskrivs att 26 kap. 3 §, 29 kap. 7 §, 30 kap. 5 §, 32 kap. 1 och 2 §§ samt 35 kap. 2 § (1962:700) ska ha följande lydelse. Har någon dömts till fängelse i lägst och begår han eller hon, sedan domen har vunnit laga kraft, brott som är belagt med fäng- else , får för återfallet dömas till fängelse som med överstiger det högsta straff som kan följa på brottet eller, om det är fråga om flera brott, det högsta straff som med tillämp- ning av 2 § kan följa på brotten. Straffet får dock inte överstiga . Brott som någon har begått Brott som någon har begått innan han eller hon har fyllt tjugo- innan han eller hon har fyllt ar- får inte läggas till grund för ton år får inte läggas till grund för sådan förhöjning som anges i för- sådan förhöjning som anges i för- En utländsk dom får tillmätas samma verkan som en svensk. 1Senaste lydelse 2009:396. Har någon begått brott innan Har någon begått brott innan han eller hon fyllt tjugoett år, ska han eller hon fyllt , ska hans eller hennes ungdom beak- hans eller hennes ungdom beak- tas särskilt vid straffmätningen. tas särskilt vid straffmätningen. Rätten får då döma till lindrigare Rätten får då döma till lindrigare straff än vad som är föreskrivet straff än vad som är föreskrivet För brott som någon har begått Ett fängelsestraff som motsvarar innan han eller hon fyllt tjugoett mer än hälften av brottets straffvär- år får inte dömas till svårare straff de får mätas ut för brott som någon har begått innan han eller hon och på livstid är före- fyllt endast om det krävs skrivet för brottet eller om det följer för att 4 § ska kunna tillämpas. av 26 kap. 2 §, får dock dömas till fängelse i högst . Vid tillämpning av denna para- graf får rätten inte döma till svå- rare straff än fängelse . För brott som någon begått För brott som någon begått innan han eller hon fyllt arton år innan han eller hon fyllt arton år får rätten döma till fängelse en- får rätten döma till fängelse en- dast om det finns synnerliga skäl. dast om det finns synnerliga skäl. Att rätten därvid i första hand Att rätten därvid i första hand skall bestämma påföljden till slu- ska bestämma påföljden till slu- ten ungdomsvård i stället för fäng- ten ungdomsvård i stället för fäng- else framgår av 32 kap. 5 §. else framgår av 32 kap. 5 §. För brott som någon begått efter det att han eller hon fyllt arton men innan han eller hon fyllt tjugo- får rätten döma till fängelse 2Senaste lydelse 2009:396. 3Senaste lydelse 2006:891. endast om det med hänsyn till gär- ningens straffvärde eller annars finns särskilda skäl för det. Den som är under tjugoett år Den som har begått brott in- och som begått brott får dömas nan han eller hon har fyllt arton år till ungdomsvård om han eller får dömas till ungdomsvård om hon har ett särskilt behov av vård han eller hon har ett särskilt be- eller annan åtgärd enligt social- hov av vård eller annan åtgärd en- tjänstlagen (2001:453) eller lagen ligt socialtjänstlagen (2001:453) (1990:52) med särskilda bestäm- eller lagen (1990:52) med sär- melser om vård av unga och så- skilda bestämmelser om vård av dan vård eller åtgärd kan beredas unga och sådan vård eller åtgärd kan beredas den unge. skall syfta till att motverka att och åtgärderna ska syfta till att den unge utvecklas ogynnsamt. motverka att den unge utveck-