Certain questions regarding the future design of legislation
Future legislative questions on indeterminate detention: a crime catalogue, court jurisdiction and extending the detention term
What's at stake: The question concerns how clear and legally certain the framework around a new indeterminate-detention sanction should be for the future, affecting both predictability for those who could be sentenced to it and consistency across court rulings.
Case texts and AI reasoning are AI-translated from the Swedish originals; the Swedish text is authoritative.
What the vote decides
The question is whether the government should be directed to tighten future indeterminate-detention legislation — through a clearer catalogue of qualifying crimes, concentrated court jurisdiction, and stricter limits on extending the detention term — or whether the current design should stand.
Yes Yes — the committee proposal
The committee rejects the motions, finding that the law's current scope — crimes involving attacks on another person's life, health, freedom or peace, combined with the requirement of serious criminality — is sufficiently clear and should not be changed. It also sees no reason to concentrate rulings on conditional release and extensions of the detention term in a small number of courts, since the advantages of doing so do not apply in the same way as in other case types.
No No — the reservations
Reservation 3 (MP)
The reservation wants the government to promptly bring forward a clear catalogue of qualifying crimes for the sanction, to concentrate rulings on conditional release and term extensions in one or a few courts, and to make the rules on extending the detention term more legally certain through a limited extension option, arguing that the current wording risks arbitrariness and inconsistent case law.
Summarised from the committee report. Party labels in the summary come from the report, not from the vote.
V–
S–
MP–
C–
L–
KD–
M–
SD–
YesNoAbstainAbsent
What do the votes mean here?
Yes The committee proposal: rejecting the motions (keeping things as they are).
No Backing the counter-proposal: reservation 3 by MP.
Abstain The party marks a position of its own that is not one of the two final alternatives.
The plan's stance / Actual vote
AI
Vote
Confidence
Evidence
V
–
Yes 15/0/0/7
S
–
Yes 93/0/0/13
MPown reservation
–
No 0/16/0/2
C
–
Yes 20/1/0/3
L
–
Yes 10/0/0/6
KD
–
Yes 17/0/0/2
M
–
Yes 60/0/0/8
SD
–
Yes 62/0/0/9
Broke with the party line
CAnna Lasses(C, Stockholms län)
No — party line: Yes
MPs whose vote differs from their party's majority position in this division. Marked with a dark ring in the chamber view.
Committee proposal
The Riksdag rejects motion
2025/26:3902 by Ulrika Westerlund et al. (MP) demands 2, 4 and 5.
Original (Swedish)
Riksdagen avslår motion
2025/26:3902 av Ulrika Westerlund m.fl. (MP) yrkandena 2, 4 och 5.
Riksdag decision: Persons who have committed serious crimes against other persons and who also have a high risk of reoffending should be able to be sentenced to secure custody for an indeterminate period. The Riksdag voted yes to the government's proposal.
Secure custody means that the court first determines a minimum period to be served in prison, which corresponds to the prison sentence that would otherwise have been imposed. In addition to this, a maximum period of an additional four to six years is to be determined. The maximum period may be extended by at most three years at a time if it is absolutely necessary to deter the convicted person from reoffending in serious crime.
At the end of the minimum period, the court may decide on so-called conditional release. This means that the Swedish Prison and Probation Service may decide that the convicted person shall serve the sanction outside the institution with special support and under supervision. If the person misbehaves or commits new crimes, the release may be interrupted.
The purpose of the government's proposal is to strengthen society's protection against persons who have committed serious crimes against other persons and who also have a high risk of reoffending in such crime, but who are not eligible for forensic psychiatric care or life imprisonment.
The new rules enter into force on 15 April 2026.
Counter-proposals
The counter-proposal wants preventive detention to be imposed only in recidivism cases and for a special risk assessment to always be required before the sentence is determined. (MP) — Reservation 3
Motion 2025/26:3027 — Skärpta åtgärder mot sexualbrott mot barn av Noria Manouchi (M)
Motion 2025/26:3234 — Stärkta skyddsåtgärder mot dömda förövare i föreningslivet och verksamheter nära barn av Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)
Motion 2025/26:3477 — Stärkt skydd för barn mot dömda sexualförbrytare samt förebyggande insatser i skolan av Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)
Motion 2025/26:3586 — Utgiftsområde 4 Rättsväsendet av Teresa Carvalho m.fl. (S)
Motion 2025/26:3591 — Jämställdhet och mäns våld mot kvinnor av Ardalan Shekarabi m.fl. (S)
Motion 2025/26:3901 — med anledning av prop. 2025/26:95 Säkerhetsförvaring - en ny tidsobestämd frihetsberövande påföljd av Ulrika Liljeberg m.fl. (C)
Motion 2025/26:3902 — med anledning av prop. 2025/26:95 Säkerhetsförvaring - en ny tidsobestämd frihetsberövande påföljd av Ulrika Westerlund m.fl. (MP)
Proposition 2025/26:95 — Säkerhetsförvaring - en ny tidsobestämd frihetsberövande påföljd