Säkerhetsstraff - en påföljd för brottsoffer eller politiska poäng? En kritisk granskning av förslaget om en ny tidsobestämd påföljd utifrån proportionalitet och brottsofferperspektiv.

Sammanfattning

The Inquiry on Sanctions, Recidivism and Enforcement left a proposal to introduce a new sanction through their report SOU 2024:48. The sanction is an indefinite custodial sentence with a preventative structure and is meant to counteract recidivism and ensure protection of members of society against serious crime. The proposed sanction is called 'security penalty' in Swedish and is supposed to be imposed in a limited number of qualified situations where the need for societal protection is particularly evident. The preventive structure of the sentence implies that, when imposing it, account is taken of both the severity of the offence committed and the offender’s risk of reoffending after serving the sentence. The preventive as well as intrusive nature of the ‘security penalty’ raises questions about its compatibility with principles of law and its effectiveness in achieving its objectives, namely the need to protect society from recidivism. This paper critically examines the proposal from the perspective of the principle of proportionality and the victim of the crime. The principle of proportionality is applied from two angles; the constitutional proportionality as set out in the Swedish constitution, and the proportionality of criminal law, applied when deciding on penalty scales as well as in determination of penalties in individual cases. The victim of crime’s perspective involves many different interests, in this paper, the interest of the victim’s rectification is particularly emphasised. Rectification can include many things, but especially the distribution of blame to recognize the victim, as a victim of serious crime. There are different ways of presenting a victim of crime perspective. In the case of the proposed sanction, it has the most importance for potential victims. The paper further tests the ‘security penalty’ in a case study against a highly topical case of serial rape. The conclusion of this case study is that the sentence could not have been imposed since the total penal value of the offence in the case was not serious enough to impose a ‘security penalty’. The critical examination of the ‘security penalty’ leads to several conclusions about the proposed sanction. Such as whether the penalty covers the situations to which it aims, and whether the penalty is sufficient in relation to its objectives to be as intrusive as it is.