EDITORIAL • The government’s proposal to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 13 years for the most serious crimes is an expression of realism. Minors recruited by gangs are not primarily children, but perpetrators who commit murder and carry out bombings. Society’s response must reflect that public safety and security always take precedence over the age of the offender. Some referral bodies seem unwilling to understand this. The fact that this lack of understanding is found among several influential actors within the judicial system is particularly concerning

The government wants to temporarily lower the Swedish age of criminal responsibility from 15 to 13 years for the most serious crimes, such as murder, aggravated rape, aggravated robbery, and bombings. The background is that the perpetrators of organized crime have crept down in age. It is no longer about lost minors shoplifting in a shopping center, but about child soldiers acting as couriers, weapons carriers, and murderers on behalf of the gangs and in some cases a foreign power such as Iran.

The proposal is limited to crimes with a minimum of four years’ imprisonment in the penalty scale, including attempts, preparation, and conspiracy to commit such crimes. The proposed legislative change is suggested to take effect from 1 July 2026 and will be evaluated after five years. It is an attempt to adapt the law to a reality where criminality has begun to exploit legal age limits, where sentence discounts and impunity serve as incentives for gangs to let minors commit the most serious crimes.

“It’s about children” – but not just any children

Referral bodies such as the Court of Appeal for Western Sweden, the Swedish Prosecution Authority, and the Police Authority take a reflexively unreflective stance: it’s about children, so they must be protected from punishment. The Court of Appeal leans on the Convention on the Rights of the Child and reminds that deprivation of liberty should be a “last resort.” The Swedish Prosecution Authority warns of implementation problems, and the Police warn that even younger children will be drawn into gang criminality.

But these are not just any children. A 13-year-old who cold-bloodedly pulls the trigger, or a 14-year-old who detonates an explosive device for a network, is not primarily an immature child, but a serious criminal and perpetrator within a heavy criminal structure. For those who lose their lives in a shooting or a bombing, it doesn’t matter if the perpetrator is 13 or 30 years old. That must be the primary starting point.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is not a free pass for murder. It requires protection for children, but primarily for the children who are affected as victims – even when the perpetrators are other children. Hiding behind general references to children’s rights when children murder children is an evasion when there is nothing substantial to offer, when comfortably floating on small fluffy academic clouds far above reality and wanting to continue doing so.

“Risk of legal uncertainty” – an incomprehensible objection

The Swedish Bar Association speaks vaguely about the risk of legal uncertainty. It is difficult to understand why 13-year-olds would be treated more uncertainly than other suspects. On the contrary, every case where a child is accused will be scrutinized more thoroughly than any other. In addition to directly involved prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys, social services, child ombudsmen, and journalists are also ready to monitor legal certainty.

To claim that the rule of law cannot handle a 13-year-old accused child is a lack of confidence in the Swedish legal system. If the Swedish Bar Association has objections of that kind, they should present them concretely and generally, not use them to continue letting murders committed by 13-year-olds go unpunished.

If criminality creeps even further down – let the law follow

Both the Police and the Swedish Prosecution Authority argue that if the law is changed, gangs will use even younger children, perhaps 11-12-year-olds. It is a contradictory objection. Should we let 13-year-olds go free to avoid seeing 12-year-olds commit murder in their place? If that were the consequence, the answer is not to give up – but to move on and act against it. And against the parents who do not take their responsibility and let their children become serious criminals. To provide some perspective, the age of criminal responsibility in the UK is 10 years.

The same faltering logic that is now being heard is used from the left against every form of stricter penalties: that crime moves, that tougher measures do not help, that criminals are victims of society, and so on. These are arguments that are more often than not incorrect in substance, but even if one were right on some point, the safety and security of the law-abiding public must always take precedence – serious criminals must be removed from the open society, regardless of age.

“We have no facilities for 13-year-olds” – but then build them

The Swedish Prison and Probation Service has pointed out that they lack suitable facilities and treatment methods for such young offenders. This is not an argument against the law – it is a reminder of the authority’s responsibility and a signal that they want to abdicate from it. Society already has institutions such as SIS homes and residential care homes, where there is experience in dealing with young people with violent behavior.

Some of that thinking can be used, while others must be rejected as fluff, for example, that all young people who have gone astray can be saved with indulgence and pampering. But above all, rehabilitation should take place in institutions without revolving doors, as youth homes are, as they were created for a completely different reality, where young people on the wrong path were more antisocial than serious criminals.

The Swedish Prison and Probation Service has whined with the same argument over harsher penalties and fewer discounts in general. It is just a repetition of what we are now hearing about the lowered age of criminal responsibility. If there is a lack of funds, then complain about that instead of complaining that necessary legal tightening is being introduced.

The time limitation signals uncertainty

The only reasonable objection to the government’s proposal is that the reform is proposed to be temporary. It sets the ball up for critics to portray the government as uncertain in its decision, as not having done its homework. Criminal law should not be experimental, those who object are entirely right about that.

The tightening of the law also does not address any temporary state of emergency, a passing pandemic. It is about a new Sweden with an established new serious crime in the wake of decades of irresponsible immigration policy. Even if the ultimate goal is to “crack down on the gangs” or achieve “a paradigm shift,” it is a distant light at the end of the tunnel.

If one believes that the law should work, then it should be enacted permanently. And if it does not work as intended, then it should be adjusted. Just like any other laws. But the signal must be clear: society does not accept that anyone, regardless of age, takes a life without consequences – not today, not tomorrow, never.

Dare to see reality as it is

The Court of Appeal calls for “deeper analysis” before taking action. It is a familiar cry from those who would rather postpone uncomfortable decisions, who would rather timidly investigate than bravely act. Sweden is a world champion in investigations. But those who are shot in their stairwell cannot wait for the next investigation.

Minors who are drawn into organized gang crime deserve protection – but protection does not consist of letting them continue to murder with impunity. It is precisely such laws that have led to us now having 13-year-old child soldiers who murder for payment and gangs pressuring them to do so.

Punishing a 13-year-old murderer is not in contrast to preventive work with the 13-year-olds who have not yet taken the step to murder. But where preventive work fails, the law must step in and make it clear: no murderers on our streets. This is what the government is now making an attempt at, but some referral bodies are trying to hinder it. That it is actors within the judicial system who engage in such activities, directly contrary to their core missions, is truly concerning.