345 with the success experienced by the empirical natural science disciplines. The penalists surrounding Liszt were unanimous that the state, in order to protect the systemof production, must in some manner step intothe place of the master which the same production system had displaced as an effective upbringer and supervisor. Youths, the age groups between children and adults, required special rules. Opinions differed, however, on thepractical rules: could the state take children into care only when they had degenerated into malicious behaviour or already in cases where the environment in which they grew up appeared to be suspect? Must the parents be shown to have behaved in a blameworthy manner? According to what principles should juvenile transgressors be sentenced to reformation instead of punishment: guilt, moral maturity or the need for upbringing and reformation? Was public reformation punishment or a pedagogical measure? Many proposals were presented, many questions were not discussed, and therefore there was at the same time several alternatives and great gaps to completefor law makers who wished to realise the ambitions of the penalists. We must nevertheless observe that many trains of thought were in tune with contemporary Swedish views, not least the ambition to propagate an employable, conscientious, fully engaged and robust population of workers. Children, who were not subject to punitive measures, should be taken care of compulsorily on criteria relating to their environment and without any need for the parents tc^ be formally found responsible for blameworthy conduct. The age of criminality was raised. A common endeavour was evident here to substitute fines or short fixed sentences involving the deprivation of liberty for several years for juveniles belonging to the lower social classes through indeterminate compulsory care. The person convicted was transformed froma prisoner to a pupil, but the period of time within an institution was so much the longer. Swedish discussion lacked however several ideas which were ventilated by the IKV, including the requirements relating to protective measures for “incorrigible” juvenile transgressors and means for rendering harmless and filtering out the socially incompetent. Neither the Lombrosianism, eugenics (racial purity beliefs) or the successful methods and competence experienced by the natural sciences yielded any repercussion in the Swedish legal discussion, at least not then. The Swedish law makers relied in 1902 primarily on the time honoured tradition relying on common sense and worldly experience on the part of the parish trustees under the leadership of the vicar. Many of the themes from the debate within the circles surrounding the IKV had also been raised much earlier. Since the 1840’s the International Penitentiary Congresses had considered the two central issues of the extent to which the family father’s discipline and supervision should be transferred to other instances within society and how and why juvenile offenders should enjoy special treatment under penal law. Even then there was a discussion concerning
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=