344 more effective than punishment to prevent recidivismon the part the underdeveloped. To punish individuals, who were still “inthe position of children” did not only conflict with traditional views that just punishment should be related to the culpability of a particular criminal act, but above all else with needs related to the treatment of offenders. The viewpoint had several consequences for the division of public authorities between state, county councils, municipalities and society’s private sector. Children under 15 years were sorted into the municipal and regional sectors, irrespective of whether they had committed crimes or not. The prerequisite for measures to be taken against them was formulated exceptionally vaguelv. There were no guarantees that sufficient numbers of places for youths who were considered in need of care at an institution. The central authorities contribution consisted of legislation, economic allocations and inspection of the child welfare department’s probation homes but it was still the responsibility of the local community to determine if the legislative provisions should be a dead letter or not. Measures regarding transgressors between 15 and 18 years were retained within the state prison and correctional service. But the two systems for re-socialisation, municipal child care and state correctional care, tended to overlap. The accused should first be condemned as a criminal and sentenced to punishment. Then with the support of information from the parish school board under the leadership of the local vicar, the convicted person could be reclassias a child and have the punishment substituted for compulsory upbringing, the length of which was determined, following the judgement, by an administrative authority. But the measures concerning upbringing could only arise if there was a pre-existing criminal act. The legislation appears in several important respects to have been influenced by the Supreme Court’s argument, which deviated fromwhat had been said to have distinguished the action of Norwegian jurists some years earlier. For this purposefully orientated penal law the Swedish law makers of 1902 referred to models which may be considered to be contradictory. The feeling that one was poised for great political and social changes was considered to justify new legislation, but in that connection reference was made to on the one hand the advances of the 1890’s in international ideas and law and on the other hand to ancient regulations fromthe period of the agrarian society. fied Part III examines one of the models which are stated in doctrine, namely the 1890’s discussions and legislative proposals fromthe circles associated with the sociological school, IKVand Franz von Liszt. Overcrowded prisons and a frightening rate of recidivismamong the young was advanced as evidence of the collapse of established “classical” penal law principles. The powerlessness of the dogmatic penal law was seen to contrast
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=