343 tion that prison sentences were unjust and ineffective for juveniles, that criminal behaviour could be prevented by purposeful upbringing and that the state had the right and duty to utilise, for preventive purposes, coercive measures to ensure a proper upbringing. Accordingto the other interpretation, the approach adopted by the 1902 Reformatory Acts grew independently of late 19th century ideas and at a significantly earlier stage in history. The special treatment in penal law of young offenders which was introduced in Sweden and the Western world generally around 1900 consequently appears to be a continuation of the philosophical ideas prevalent during the Age of Enlightenment concerning the optimum means of organising a rational society. Part II describes and analyses the content and debate surrounding the laws relating to the upbringing and reformation of children from1902 - the Reformatory Acts of 1902. In the course of the parliamentary decision-making process groups with widely divergent political viewpoints could gather around a programme where citizens fromthe poorest sectors of society were given the right and duty to be brought up while simultaneously emphasising the right and duty of the state to permit the coercive implementation of the same programme. The fundamental criminological theory was sociological. Criminal behaviour was considered in most cases to be the result of a wretched social background. Modern industrial production prevented parents from supervising their children and children frombeing supervised by an employer. The prerequisite for adoption of a measure tended to undervalue the significance of antisocial acts such as crime. Instead certain features of personality were emphasised, primarily lack of self control, while more regard should also be taken of the accused’s personal circumstances. Crimewas redefined as misbehaviour for children under 15 years while punishable offenders between 15 and 18 years were transformed into misled and irresponsible “children” in need of care. It was argued that there existed a contradiction between the culpability of the act and the need for purposeful care. Following punishment there remained, according to many who discussed the issue, normally a residual need for treatment and care. The criticismagainst placing children in prisonwas thus not based on humanitarian considerations but rather that, on the contrary, a just deprivation of liberty was too short, too mild and an inadequate deterrent. The prisoner was transformed into a pupil, blame to compulsory care, short detention to long term. Criminals between 15 and 18 years should be subjected to special principles focusing on treatment which deviated fromthe regime applicable to older transgressors. The special treatment of young persons was justified on the grounds that they generally incurred less blame, if any at all, for their violation of norms. Care concentratingon reformation was also said to be
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=