Awarded by the Royal Family for Research Denying a Link Between Immigration and Crime

American criminologists recently received a prestigious prize from Queen Silvia. They are praised for their unique conclusion that immigration does not increase crime. Critics argue that their research misses the issue dominating today’s Swedish migration policy debate.

Two American criminologists have been awarded the world’s most prestigious prize in their research field for studies that, according to the award jury, claim that “immigration in general” does not lead to increased crime—and in some cases may even contribute to lower crime levels.

The award, the Stockholm Prize in Criminology, was presented by H.M. Queen Silvia at Stockholm City Hall on June 9 during the international conference Stockholm Criminology Symposium, organized by the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå). The recipients are Professors Charis E. Kubrin from the University of California, Irvine, and Mark W. Lipsey from Vanderbilt University.

Prize for Unconventional Research on Migration and Crime

According to the award citation, Kubrin’s own research and extensive reviews of previous studies conclude that “immigration in general” does not drive societies towards higher crime rates—they are thus described by Stockholm University as “mythbusters”, that is, people who have shattered the myth of escalating crime as a consequence of liberal immigration policies.

In interviews after the award ceremony, Kubrin referred to American studies dating as far back as the 1930s, which she says show that immigrants “often” commit fewer crimes than the native population, and that increased immigration in “some” areas “can” coincide with lower crime rates.

The research has received significant attention due to the award and positive coverage from both Brå and the magazine Forskning & Framsteg.

Critics: Overgeneralizes the Current Conflict Issue

At the same time, the conclusions have raised questions and criticism, with some arguing that the research treats “immigration” as a general :censored:6:cdd6bbaa89: phenomenon over almost a hundred years, instead of distinguishing between various immigrant groups, countries of origin, and migration periods. Therefore, it says nothing—or can even be misleading if cited incorrectly—about the immigration that is relevant to discuss in today’s Swedish migration policy context.

The criticism mainly revolves around the fact that the Swedish and European debate in recent years has largely focused on the effects of extensive non-Western immigration and its well-documented links to the serious crime that has emerged in several Western countries, including Sweden.

Critics argue that the researchers’ conclusions risk being perceived as an answer to a question that is not actually being asked. While Kubrin’s research is mainly based on American studies over long periods and includes all types of immigrants, the Swedish discussion is largely about developments over the last two decades and about non-Western, asylum-related immigration.

Brå Statistics Confirm Overrepresentation

Alongside international research, Swedish studies have shown that people with foreign backgrounds are heavily overrepresented in crime statistics.

In a 2021 report, Brå found that foreign-born persons were about 2.5 times more likely to be registered as crime suspects than Swedish-born with two Swedish-born parents. For people born in Sweden with two foreign-born parents, the corresponding risk was about three times higher.

The report also showed significant differences between types of crime—the more serious the crime, the greater the overrepresentation. For example, people born in Sweden with two foreign-born parents were about five times as likely to be suspects of murder and manslaughter compared to those with two native-born parents, while foreign-born were nearly three times as likely to be suspected of rape.

At the same time, Brå claimed that a large part of the differences could be explained by factors such as age, gender, education, income, and neighborhood. But the overrepresentation did not disappear when such factors were considered. Nor could it be shown how socioeconomic disadvantage would increase the likelihood of crimes such as rape.

Praised by Left-Liberal Profiles

The award laureates have received strong support from several left-liberal profiles within Swedish criminology and the judiciary. In an opinion piece in the left-wing newspaper Aftonbladet, the laureates are praised by, among others, Stockholm Prize in Criminology Foundation chair Anne Ramberg and criminologist Jerzy Sarnecki.

Ramberg was, until recently, the longtime chair of the Swedish Bar Association and has been clearly profiled on the left in public debate. The association’s members also earn billions every year at taxpayers’ expense for defending criminals with immigrant backgrounds in the nation’s courts. In a single criminal case, the defense’s fee can amount to several million kronor.

Jerzy Sarnecki has been the subject of harsh and recurrent criticism for devoting more effort to misleading the public about the connection between immigration and crime than to highlighting it with real research.

Opposing Views on Emotions and Facts

The authors of the opinion piece emphasize that research shows the importance of evidence-based criminal policy actions and warn that increasingly conservative criminal policy is being driven by emotions rather than scientific results. Conservative researchers, on the other hand, argue that on the political left it is feelings that are allowed to dominate over evidence.

The debaters especially highlighted Mark Lipsey’s research on rehabilitation and treatment programs for young offenders, which according to them shows that some interventions can be more effective than harsher penalties in reducing recidivism.

However, Sweden’s experience is that the outlook is poor for young people who do not receive a severe sentence but instead are sentenced to a few weeks of community service and conversations with Social Services. A very high proportion quickly reoffend, and the crimes become increasingly serious.

Part of a Larger Ideological Conflict

The award ceremony illustrates the deep conflict that has emerged in recent years regarding criminal policy and migration issues. For supporters, Kubrin’s research represents a scientific antidote to what they claim are simplistic explanations where immigration is pointed out as the main cause of crime.

For critics, however, the conclusions risk downplaying the problems documented in Sweden, where authorities, police, and researchers have repeatedly pointed to a strong overrepresentation of people with distant foreign backgrounds within serious organized crime.

The research supporting left-liberal migration and criminal policy rhetoric has now gained considerable symbolic value and prestige, being awarded what is often described as the criminology equivalent of the Nobel Prize, ahead of the upcoming election where these issues have a prominent place in the debate.