DN Debate Replicas. "No, longer prison sentences do not solve crime"

Fredrik Kärrholm (M) believes that the size of the prison population is ultimately a consequence of political decisions (DN Debatt 21/10). In this he is absolutely right.

The large amount of criminal policy reforms means that it is difficult to make forecasts about the need for places, as the Correctional Service has pointed out. It is something that Kärrholm should have special understanding of. He himself led the investigation that was tasked with analyzing the possibilities of creating more prison places. Although the assignment included calculating how many places the proposals would make possible, the investigation does not present an overall calculation of this in particular.

Now, Kärrholm also wrongly claims that the Correctional Service calculates incorrectly and assesses itself that "significantly fewer" places will be needed. He refers, among other things, to incapacitation, that is to say that people in prison cannot commit crimes outside society. But this does not mean that more and longer prison sentences automatically reduce crime.

Increased incarceration has neither in the Nordics nor in other western democracies been able to explain reductions in, for example, lethal violence. Research also shows that imprisonment can increase the risk of recidivism and is particularly harmful for young people. Long-term social protection therefore presupposes that the time spent in prison contributes to reducing recidivism. It requires a correctional system with room for treatment and rehabilitation – something that is therefore at risk of being lost if there is continued overcrowding and expansion. In addition, deteriorating conditions for those deprived of liberty risk violating Sweden's international commitments on human rights.

For a fraction of the sums that are now to be invested in more prison places, compensation to the victims could be multiplied many times over

What is clear is that we are facing a historic and costly expansion. Even Kärrholm himself admits that it will be expensive. Even if we halve the long-term cost increase that the Correctional Service forecasts, it is still an increase of SEK 30 billion every year.

We are hardly alone in questioning why precisely an extremely costly mass lock-up should be prioritized over other efforts to reduce crime, increase safety and give crime victims support and redress. With regard to the latter, research shows the importance of, among other things, support during the legal process and financial compensation.

In 2025, the state paid less than SEK 0.3 billion in criminal damage compensation through the Crime Victims' Authority. For a fraction of the sums that are now to be invested in more prison places, compensation to the victims could be multiplied many times over. It would be a political priority to help crime victims because there are major deficiencies in care and support. If, in addition, we invested parts of the future prison billions in hiring 20,000 new employees for schools, social services, healthcare and psychiatry, we could strengthen crime prevention work and social protection in the longer term.

Do these investments in crime victims and welfare sound unrealistically expensive? These amounts are not higher than that there would still be a number of billions left over for other priorities.