Overview
of the position on Child Detention under the Jurisdiction of Sweden
The position of Sweden on child detention will be considered here
and also an analysis of other factor related to child detention. The position
of the Swedish jurisdiction on the implementation of detention is placed on the
basis of treatment rather than punishment. The most type of crime committed by
young offenders would be theft, however there has become a more prominent issue
because violent crimes are far more usual then theft, variations in violent
crimes will disappear in general reports.
Definitions to consider
of child detention
The definition of “young offenders” in
Sweden is offenders who have reached the age of 15, in Sweden a child under the
age of 15 is considered capable of committing a crime, but have not yet turned
21. The age has been lowered to 18, but special circumstances still apply to
offenders aged between 18 and 20. The number of young people suspected of
offences set out in the Swedish Penal Code has remained more or less unchanged
over the past 30 years, where fluctuations in the number of suspected persons
between the ages of 15 and 20 have in principle followed changes in population
figures. But, the overrepresentation of young people does not mean that young
people are responsible for the majority of crimes committed; people over the
age of 20 make up a far greater amounts of the population and are as such
responsible for a larger number of crimes in total.
Art 40.3 (a) of the UNCRC provides for the
establishment of a minimum age below which children shall be presumed to lack
capacity to infringe the law. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the
Administration of #justice in Rule 4.1 provides further guidance when the age
of criminal capacity is concerned “the beginning of that age shall not be fixed
at too low an age level bearing in mind the facts of emotional, mental and
intellectual maturity”. Neither of these conventions however outline a
particular fixed age limit is a decisive factor when determining those children
in trouble with the law who can be subjected to and sentenced in criminal
proceedings.
Detention of children unaccompanied with their
parents or relatives is prohibited in many EU countries, they must be
accommodated in dedicated facilities for minors. However the lack of these
child specified facilities or short comings in the identification process could
result in the accommodation of a child in a centre for adults or even a placement
of detention. Children may be detained when there is an issue over the real
age, where, the child claims to be under the age of 18, while the state
maintains that the child is an adult.
Children are classified according to their
migration status before being seen as children. There is limited information on
the numbers of children administratively detained for immigration reasons. The
limited amount of information available is as a result of a general failure on
the part of the state to collect data on the number of children detained, on
regards to the duration of the detention and the reasons for their detention. Where
official statistics or documents are available, they are often out-of-date, not
comprehensive, not disaggregated or may have been collected using different
methodologies. Restricted NGO’s access to places of detention.
The conditions children are placed in include being
deprived of rights to which they are entitled to when detained, such as right
to education, physical and mental health, privacy, information, and rest and
leisure. They can also find themselves detained with adult and subject to adult
regime and treatment. Art 37 (d) of the CRC gives children the right to
challenge the legality of their detention or restriction of their liberty,
before a court or other competent independent and impartial authority, and to a
prompt decision on any such action.
However children may not know of their right to
challenge, be afraid to challenge authority that it may damage their case, or
simply have no access to legal representation or assistance to mount such a
challenge. The impact of such results in the child being highly traumatized
especially if vulnerable, that they have a perception that life is unsafe,
uncertain, unstable, unpredictable (PTSD). Detention also aggravated previous
traumas experienced in their home country or during migration. As well as that
the children are less capable to understand why while they have been detained,
are limited opportunities to play and why their parents are treated without any
dignity. Disruption of family unity and parental role have a negative impact in
their psychological development.
Oldest children tend to then take on the role of parenting: emotional burden
disproportionate for their age.
The law to consider in
relation to Child Detention
The Migration Board, the Migration Court or
the Migration Court of Appeal, the Government or the police are the bodies that
authorise whether to detain you or place you under supervision in accordance
with the Aliens Act. Here you are entitled, when placed under detention or
under supervision, to the same daily allowance and health care as other asylum
seekers. In regards to child detention neither children/their parents/ guardian
may be placed into detention if that separates them from each other. However
children and their parents/guardians can be detained together if there is a legal
reason for doing so. The maximum detention period of 72 hours can be extended
by an additional 72 hours if special circumstantial grounds exist. A child that
has come to Sweden alone can be placed in detention under exceptional
circumstances if he/she must leave the country as the result of a refusal of
entry/expulsion decision.
Children, according to the Aliens Act, may be
detained with their custodian. Unaccompanied minors may be detained only if
they don’t have a custodian in Sweden and there are “exceptional grounds” for detention
(2005, Ch.10, S.2-3). Minors may not be placed in prisons or police facilities
(Aliens Act 2005, Ch. 10, S.20).
The Council of Europe consists of Resolution
1701 (2010) “vulnerable people should not as a rule be placed in detention and
specifically unaccompanied minors should never be detained” and Resolution 1810
(2011) “unaccompanied children must be
treated first as children…the child’s best interest must be a primary
consideration…regardless of the child’s migration or residence status”. EU
Commission urged Member States to seek alternatives to detention as a “win-win
scenario” for them as well as migrants.
Under the European Convention, deprivation of
liberty may only be ordered for the purpose contained in Art 5 UDHR, this does
not specifically mention detention on security grounds, and the only way
administrative detention for security reasons is lawful under the European
Convention is under a declared state of emergency and derogation from the right
of liberty.
The Aliens Act also provides alternative
control measures for persons who might otherwise be placed into detention. Both
adults and children may be placed under “supervision,” which entails an
obligation to report to the police or to the Swedish Migration Board regularly.
Children may be detained for 72 hours, subject
to renewal of another 72 hours in exceptional circumstances (Aliens Act 2005,
Ch.10, S.5). Detention orders are reviewed at regular intervals—two weeks or
two months from the beginning of the order depending on the grounds for
detention. Supervision orders are re-examined every six months (Aliens Act
2005, Ch. 10, S.9). Given that detention exceeding the set time is possible on
“exceptional grounds,” Sweden does not yet fulfil the EU “Return Directive”
criterion of having specified a maximum length of Detention.
It is possible to submit an appeal against the
Migration Court against a decision to detain you, to which will be sent from
the Migration board to the court.
In Sweden no child under 18 may be held in
detention for more than three days, however in extreme circumstances it can be
six days. After this period the child is released with the family at a refugee
centre. Where a member of the family is understood to pose a potential threat
to national security, or where a person’s identity cannot be verified, the
family is notified that the father is to be held in detention, while the mother
and children are released into group homes and allowed to visit him during the
day.
Like detention practices in other Nordic
countries such as Finland, Swedish officials emphasise a social service
approach to detention. This management arrangement stands in contrast to that
of many other countries, where detention centres are often managed by security
personnel (Swedish Migration Board 2009a).During a recent visit by the European
Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (CPT), Sweden received a favourable review of its detention
infrastructure, which has led to its characterisation as a European role model
(Le Figaro 2009). The CPT, in its preliminary observations, noted that there
were no allegations of abuse and that detention centre staff were sufficient in
number and skills and that “many detainees interviewed spoke positively about
the staff.”
Article 3 of the UDHR, Article 9 of the ICCPR
and Article 37 of the CRC are the key provisions in international human rights
law that limit the use administrative detention. In addition, the Human Rights
Committee’s General Comment No. 8 emphasises the most of the elements of Art 9
of the ICCPR have effect to all types of deprivation of liberty, including all
forms of administrative detention. While part of Art 9(2) and 9(3) are only
used against persons whom criminal charges are brought, the rest, including
control by the court of the legality of the detention, - applies to all other persons
deprived of liberty by way of arrest of detention. Art 37 of the CRC also
limits the use of administrative detention, and adds additional restrictions on
the use of administrative detention.
In addition, the UN’s, Rules for the
Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (Havana Rules), provide a
further limitation on detention. Even under the circumstances that detention
should be used as a last resort, you are also to place a child in detention,
limited to exceptional cases. The Beijing Rules reiterates that any detention
should be brief and states that this should only occur where the child has
committed-a serious act involving violence. The right to liberty and security
of the person is mirrored in regional human rights instruments, including Art 5
of the Arab Charter on Human Rights (Arab Charter), Art 6 of the Banjul
Charter, Art 7 of the American Convention, Art 1 of the American Declaration on
the rights and Duties of Man and Art 5 of the European Convention. Further
Duties can also be found in the body of Principles.
Art 3 of the CRC requires that – in all
actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social
welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative
bodies, the best interests of the child must be the primary consideration. This
means that the issue of whether the best interests of the child have been a
primary consideration must be taken into account in underlining whether the
detention is appropriate. Other human rights standards, such as
non-discrimination are also relevant. For instance, the administrative
detention of a particular group of children chosen on the basis religion, race,
nationality or ethnicity is likely to be regarded as unlawful.
In order to comply with the UN Declaration
on the Rights of the Child, that juvenile offenders shall be kept separate from
adult offenders, a new sanction has been placed to the Swedish Panel Code. This
allows juveniles who otherwise would have been sentenced to prison, to be
sentenced to closed juvenile care in special institutions run by the National
Board of Institutional Care. Should a juvenile be sentenced to prison, however,
they are to be housed separate from adult prisoners unless it is considered to
be in their best interests to be housed with adult prisoners.
When an administrative decision is taken to
detain an unaccompanied child or family with children, little thought is given
by the States to the best interests of the child. Reports from international
bodies, state bodies and NGOs, as well as case law from regional bodies and the
Human Rights Committee lead to the likely conclusion that children’s are not a
priority and are not fully implemented by immigration detention centres.
It should be considered, however, that you
might decide that instead of being detained you might consider being placed
under supervision. Children can also be placed under supervision under certain
circumstances. If you are under supervision, you must report at the time and
place you are informed about and provide your passport or other identifications
over, also there may be special conditions that must be complied with. The
decision can be withdrawn if there is no longer any reason to keep you under
supervision. Whereas the decision will be considered within six months. However
you cannot appeal against a decision to place you under supervision.
The proportion of adults responsible for
committing offences also tends to increase with the degree of seriousness of
the offence. The pattern of high juvenile crime which decreases from the age of
20 is not unique for Sweden. This indicates that crime at a young age may be
seen as a passing phase in a large majority of cases.
The main sanctions in the SPS include
fines, probation, suspended sentence and imprisonment (or alternatively
intensive supervision with electronic monitoring). These sanctions may be
imposed in combination and may also be subject to special conditions, e.g.
probation in combination with community service or an order on undertaking to
follow a treatment. Further sanctions include waiver of prosecution,
psychiatric care and treatment according to the Act on Treatment of Drug
Misusers.
Young offenders
can be sentenced to special sanctions for young people, but also to other
sanctions. The special sanctions youth care and youth service are based more on
the best interests of the child and on the young person’s social situation than
on the penal value of the crime. Closed youth detention is intended as an
alternative to prison in the case of especially serious crimes, and is
determined entirely on the basis of the penal value of the offence.
Other Areas to consider
in relation to Child Detention
Youth care
Youth care is regarding the handing
over to the social services of young people deemed to be in need of care or
other measures. The aim of the social services’ measures should be to assist in
the positive development of the individual and to counteract the risk of
further offences. When deciding what measures to take, the social services are
to make an assessment of the young person’s overall social situation and not
only look at the crime. The most common measures today include talks, contact
persons, placements in a family home or an institution, drug tests and measures
in the family.
Youth service
Youth service is about carrying out unpaid
work for 20 to 150 hours under the supervision the social services. The
sanction, which was introduced as an independent sanction in 2007, is intended
as an alternative to fines and deprivation of liberty for less than one year,
primarily for young people between the ages of 15 and 17, and who are not in need
of care under the Social Services Act. Young people aged between 18 and 20 can
also be sentenced to youth service if there are special reasons for this.
Youth care and youth service can be placed
for offences at both fine and imprisonment level. The most common categories of
crime receiving such sanctions in 2008 were assault and theft. Youth care and
youth service require the consent of the young person concerned; youth care
can, however, be enforced without consent in certain circumstances under the Act
with Special Provisions on the Care of Young People.
Closed
youth detention
At the beginning
of 1999, changes were introduced to the sentencing system for young offenders.
A new feature was closed youth detention. Young persons who have committed serious
crimes can be sentenced to closed youth detention at a special youth detention
centre instead of prison. The aim is to reduce the detrimental effects of time
spent in prison. The length of the sentence is determined on the basis of the
penal value of the crime and can vary from fourteen days to four years, ten
months being the average. There is no conditional release.
The report from
the City of Stockholm notes that youth service is a sanction that has worked
well for a large group of what may be characterised as “normal young people”
without social problems and previous criminal records. However, it has not
succeeded in changing the pattern among young people who had started a criminal
career even before the age of 15 and who come from socially vulnerable
conditions
In conclusion
there is wide range of analysis to be made through child detention within
Sweden. There has be consideration given to the conditions, implantations and
result of child detention, and also the law that convers this are, in which
covering most areas. An analysis also on the courts don’t give much thought
towards the interests of the child in particular circumstances.
Ibrahim
Chaudhary
GCD FLAC
Bibliography
·
Jerzy Samecki, Felipe Estrada,
Juvenile crime in Sweden: A trend report on criminal policy, the development of juvenile
delinquency and the juvenile justice system.
·
Erik Axelsson Riksdag, Young
Offenders and Juvenile justice in Sweden, Research Service, Stockholm, Sweden.
·
Karolin Johansson and Therese
Palm, Children in Trouble with the law: Child Justice in Sweden and South
Africa.
·
Dudley M, Steel Z, Mares S.
Newman L, Children and young people in immigration detention, University of New
South Wales, 2012.
·
International Detention
Coalition, Children in Immigration Detention Position Paper’, May 2009.
·
Erik Axelsson Riksdag, Young
Offenders and Juvenile justice in Sweden, Research Service, Stockholm, Sweden.
While
the opinion polls are in favour of same-sex marriage, there are fears that
opposition campaigns will force many to refrain from voting as happened with
the children’s referendum. The flood of illogical arguments against gay
marriage has already begun as an organization called Mothers and Fathers Matter
has claimed that legalizing same-sex marriage will hurt children. This is
despite the evidence gathered by many organizations including the American
Sociological Association who concluded through exhaustive studies that
“children fare just as well when raised by same-sex parents[6].”
Last year in the United States Supreme Court it was stated as the majority
opinion in the case of Unites States v
Windsor[7] that “denying gay couples
the right to marry is harmful to children.”[8]
Hopefully Irish Citizens will not be caught up in the politics of fear and will
be able to recognise that oftentimes change is good. Whatever your opinion on
same-sex marriage, make sure to do your research, consider the opinion of others,
and make an unbiased decision based on the question: What is in the best
interests of the people?[9]
