Society must see the big picture to stop young people from crime

Since September 10, 14-year-olds can be sentenced to prison for particularly serious crimes. But the law only regulates what happens after a crime is committed. If society is to prevent the next child from being drawn into crime, efforts must come before the crime.

Brå's survey of children under the age of 15 who were investigated for serious crimes shows that nearly nine out of ten young people were already known to social services. About half had reported anxiety for the first time before the age of twelve. Many had also received support measures. This does not mean that the crimes could have been easily foreseen - most children with school problems or contact with social services never become criminals. But the figures show that serious crimes are often preceded by a long list of warning signs.

The school may have seen a growing absenteeism. Social services may have received several reports of concern. The police may have known of older criminals in the child's vicinity. The care may have met the child for mental illness. At the same time, the parents themselves may struggle with mental illness, addiction, violence or financial vulnerability. Then the support must cover the whole family – the parents may need treatment, parental support or practical help to be able to give the child security.

Each business may thus have seen part of the development. The problem does not have to be that no one saw, but that no one saw the whole.

Since December 1 last year, authorities have greater opportunities to share classified information when necessary to prevent, prevent or detect crime. Data may still not be shared freely. Every disclosure requires a trade-off, and the central rules on health care confidentiality are exempt. The law has nevertheless created a wider scope for action. However, a room for action is not the same as a functioning routine.

When an authority detects serious or recurring warning signals, there should be a clear way to sound the alarm. Municipalities should have a designated function that can quickly assess the situation, gather relevant activities and ensure that the child and family receive support.

Such a coordination alarm should not replace today's alarm notification, and it should not go off every time a child is truant or unwell. It must be based on concrete circumstances and used when several serious risk signs coincide. Only necessary information must be shared, and the child's privacy and legal security must be protected.

However, caution must not become passivity. When several businesses see signs of a dangerous development, someone must bear the responsibility of putting the picture together, coordinating the efforts and following up on their implementation. If a child is still convicted of a serious crime, the municipality should also review what went wrong - and how the next child can be reached sooner.

The ability to share information does not help if no one knows when the alarm will go off or who will receive it. Society should not discover the whole picture until the child is in court. The alarm must go off while there is still time to break the trend.