The Swedish government, following the proposal of a commissioned investigator, is contemplating lowering the age of criminal responsibility from 15 to 14 years. This proposed change, aligned with the government’s agenda, would only apply to crimes carrying a minimum prison sentence of four years and would be implemented on a trial basis for five years, subject to evaluation. The rationale behind this temporary approach stems from the lack of evidence suggesting that lowering the age of criminal responsibility effectively reduces youth crime. The government’s track record on evidence-based crime prevention policies casts doubt on whether these limitations will be upheld. This skepticism is further fueled by Denmark’s experience, where a similar reduction in the age of criminal responsibility in 2010 was reversed after a couple of years due to its ineffectiveness. Not only did youth crime fail to decrease, but recidivism rates among 14-year-olds convicted under the lowered age threshold actually increased. This historical precedent raises concerns about the efficacy of the proposed change in Sweden.
Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer (Moderate Party) advocates for the reduction, citing the need to consider the victims of crime and the societal benefits of incarcerating dangerous individuals, regardless of age. However, critics argue that an increase in crime, and consequently in victims, is unlikely to benefit anyone. While acknowledging the rising trend of serious crimes committed by children under 15, they attribute this phenomenon not to spontaneous juvenile delinquency but to the calculated grooming of children by adult members of criminal gangs. These children, often coerced and exploited, are themselves victims, tasked with carrying weapons and executing criminal activities under duress. The focus, therefore, should be on addressing the root cause – the manipulative tactics of adult criminals – rather than penalizing the young victims caught in this web of exploitation.
The complexities of this issue are further compounded by the dynamics of gang recruitment. Police reports indicate that children and their families are often subjected to extortion and threats if a child attempts to disengage from criminal activities. This coercive environment makes it difficult for children to escape the grip of criminal gangs, highlighting the vulnerability of these young individuals and the need for protective interventions rather than punitive measures. The government’s proposal, critics argue, fails to address these underlying factors, focusing instead on punishment rather than prevention and rehabilitation.
Strömmer, in defending the proposal on the SVT program ”Agenda,” cited the case of a 14-year-old who fatally shot a man in Bromma in 2023 as justification for lowering the age of criminal responsibility. He argued that such crimes necessitate punishment. While the public sentiment for justice in such cases is understandable, the boy’s background, as revealed on the same program, paints a starkly different picture. Taken into social care at the age of eight and subjected to sustained physical and psychological abuse throughout his childhood, the boy’s actions, critics argue, are a product of a system that failed him repeatedly. Focusing on punishment in such a case, rather than addressing the systemic failures that contributed to the tragedy, raises serious ethical questions.
Furthermore, the developmental stage of a 14-year-old must be considered. Adolescents possess underdeveloped brains with limited capacity for consequential thinking. Singling out a child who has been consistently failed by the adult world and labeling them as deserving of punishment rather than help and rehabilitation reflects a disturbing societal perspective on vulnerable individuals. This punitive approach, critics argue, overlooks the crucial role of societal support and intervention in preventing youth crime and rehabilitating young offenders.
The debate underscores a fundamental disagreement on how to address youth crime. While the government emphasizes punishment as a deterrent and a means of protecting society, critics argue for a more nuanced approach. They advocate for preventative measures, addressing the root causes of youth crime, such as gang recruitment and exploitation, and providing support and rehabilitation to vulnerable children. The proposed reduction in the age of criminal responsibility, they argue, is a simplistic solution that fails to address the complex realities of youth crime and risks further marginalizing already vulnerable children. The Danish experience serves as a cautionary tale, highlighting the potential for unintended consequences and the importance of evidence-based policymaking in addressing this complex issue.
