“When harsher penalties become the only language we speak”

When the Minister for Justice recently presented new, harsher penalties for children and young people, the message was clear: decisive action is required now. Lowering the age of criminal responsibility. Imprisonment even for very young offenders. No more penalty reductions for young adults. All in the name of criminal policy. It is tough to argue otherwise when you hear the problem described. Serious crime among young people is a major societal problem. Shootings, bombings and a brutal reality that affects both crime victims and entire neighbourhoods. Something has to be done. But the question is not if we should take action. The question is how.

What strikes me, time and time again, is how narrow the criminal policy debate has become. As if harsher penalties were the only tool we have left in our toolbox. As if harsher penalties automatically create safer societies. Even though research says something completely different. For decades, studies have shown that repressive measures have a limited, and sometimes opposite, effect when it comes to young people. Longer sentences do not necessarily reduce recidivism. Early criminalisation runs the risk of cementing identities rather than breaking them. Yet we continue to devote more and more political energy to this very area. At the same time, we talk surprisingly little about what actually works.

I am thinking of restorative justice. This is a collective term for working methods that focus on relationships, responsibility and redress. Mediation in cases of crime. Structured meetings where perpetrators are made to take responsibility for the damage they have caused. Support for crime victims that goes beyond compensation to include being heard and taken seriously. These are not vague and feel-good alternatives. They are methods that have been tested, evaluated and used internationally; methods which in many cases have been shown to reduce recidivism, increase security and give crime victims greater satisfaction than traditional processes. The EU and the Council of Europe recommend them. Our Nordic neighbours have progressed further than we have.

In Sweden, however, reparative approaches often lead a quiet life. They exist, but unevenly, on a project basis and dependent on enthusiasts. In certain municipalities, in certain organisations, sometimes. Without national coordination, without clear quality assurance and without a long-term strategy. This is where I think something is off. While the Government is now implementing historic changes to youth criminal law, it is doing so without taking a holistic approach to the alternatives and complements that research indicates are crucial. It is as if criminal policy were only about demonstrating decisiveness, not about actually reducing crime.

A legal system that responds only with harsher penalties runs the risk of failing to meet both the needs of victims and society’s long-term interest in reducing violence. Security is not created solely through imprisonment. It is also created through responsibility, reparation and the opportunity for change. It therefore seems strange that Sweden has yet to conduct a government inquiry into restorative justice. Not as a replacement for criminal law, but as a knowledge-based complement. An inquiry that seriously looks at how these methods are used today, how they can be developed in a legally compliant manner and how access can be made equal across the country. Calling for this is not naive. It is taking research, experience and the perspectives of crime victims seriously.

Harsher penalties may signal political determination. But they are not enough to build a safer society. If we are serious about reducing youth crime, we have to be willing to talk about more than just punishment and penalties. We also have to talk about responsibility, relationships and reparation. And right now, that voice is missing in criminal policy.

Maritha Jacobsson, Professor of Social Work at the Department of Social Work