351 Part VI elucidates the attitude and approach manifested by Swedish doctrine and the parliament concerning the special treatment of juvenile delinquents during the period fromthe introduction of the Penal Code 1864 up to the turn of the century, 1900. Swedish developments are compared with the international and special attention is afforded here to the variations among the Scandinavian countries. Swedish penal law doctrinal representatives affiliated themselves to a large extent with the German philosopher Grolman’s individual preventive theories, namely that punishment should consist of a severe disciplinary measure, intended to change the subjects “malicious will” and personality so that he did not relapse into crime. One included reformatory components as an objective of punishment. Inaccordance with Kant’s ideas, the compulsion should be imposed according to the external and internal obstacles which the criminal had overcome in order to commit the crime. Recidivism was considered to indicate a lack of susceptibility to the message and reproach given by punishment previously meted and justified a more stringent assessment in the case of the need of any future punishment. Youth or a deficient upbringing were considered to indicate that the perpetrator possessed less moral capability to refrain fromcrime and this factor supported the imposition of less severe punishment. Thus one weighed in considerations relating to personality and social background when determining the punishment. For those who were considered to have had a bad upbringing this viewresulted in less penal coercion but increased social compulsion or coercion under rules relating to public order and safety. The debate did not merely touch measures concerning upbringing within the framework of punishments but also contained proposals for indeterminate compulsory treatment after or as an alternative to punishment for persons between 15 and 18 years. Parliament also discussed the responsibility of the state in relation to the institutions for children under 15 years. They looked also at the issue concerning the substitution or supplementation of punishment for persons between 15 and 18 years by various forms of measures involving treatment. Flowever, already by the 1840’s a debate had commenced concerning the contradiction between a consistent penal systemand purposeful measures aimed at treatment. Parliament successively increased support for state involvement in the special treatment of juvenile offenders. In 1872 an allocation of funds was made from the national budget in order to establish special juvenile departments at the prison Nya Varvet in Gothenberg. The institutions also began to receive juvenileoffenders who had served their penal sentences but were considered to be in need of further care and supervision. Reformation was thus included as part of the penal sentence but was also a feature of an extended incarceration followingcompletion of the penal sentence. This dualistic systeminvolved the coercive deprivation of liberty which exceed the just punishment. The Parliament of 1873 requested the King to consider a legislative amend-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=