Risk and proportionality assessment

The plan guards the basic principles of the rule of law and rejects special legislation lifted out of the ordinary legal frameworks. Dual, unclear risk assessments open to arbitrary application, which goes against the plan's requirements for predictability, presumption of innocence and oversight of legal application. The counter-proposal's requirement for rapid clarifications is therefore in line with the plan.

• ordinary legal frameworksdecisive»avvisar en särskild terroristlagstiftning och menar att våldsbrott ska« (party programme ↗)“rejects special terrorism legislation and means that crimes of violence shall”
• presumption of innocence and legal security»anses oskyldiga tills motsatsen är bevisad måste lyftas fram som« (party programme ↗)“are presumed innocent until the opposite is proven must be emphasized as”
• oversight of legal application»ska inte ha politiska befogenheter och de ska själva stå fria från politisk maktutövning. Genom medborgerlig insyn, rättshjälp, offentlig« (party programme ↗)“shall not have political powers and they shall themselves be free from political exercise of power. Through citizen oversight, legal aid, public”
• prevention before repression»Alltför ofta lyfts repression och hårdare tag upp som lösningar istället för att ta itu med problemen på allvar.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“All too often repression and harder measures are put forward as solutions instead of seriously tackling the problems.”

The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.

The plan requires forceful tools against gang crime but is simultaneously based on that law shall be law and that authorities apply the law objectively and uniformly. The counter-proposal's requirement to promptly eliminate the ambiguities regarding the dual risk assessments serves both commitments: a clear law can be applied both effectively and safely. The plan does not take a position on legislative constructions, but its legal-state principle speaks for clarifying ambiguities.

• objective and uniform legal applicationdecisive»beakta allas likhet inför lagen och iaktta saklighet och opartiskhet.« (party programme ↗)“consider equality before the law for all and observe objectivity and impartiality.”
• rule of law and equality before the law»Vi är lika inför lagbokens paragrafer och i våra myndigheter arbetar plikttrogna tjänstemän med hög integritet.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“We are equal before the paragraphs of the law book and in our authorities work dutiful civil servants with high integrity.”
• uncompromising crime fighting»Kampen mot kriminaliteten ska vara kompromisslös.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“The fight against crime shall be uncompromising.”
• clear reaction against crime»Samhället måste reagera tydligt mot brott och regelöverträdelser.« (party programme ↗)“Society must react clearly against crimes and rule violations.”

The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.

The party programme establishes that the party opposes laws that constitute disproportionate interference in privacy and that crime prevention shall not be done at the expense of human rights. A construction with double risk assessments that the Legal Council considers difficult to apply, and an unclear proportionality assessment, precisely hits this legal certainty principle. The demand to quickly develop solutions so that law enforcement authorities and courts avoid ambiguities therefore aligns with the plan.

• against disproportionate interferencedecisive»alla lagar som innebär oproportionerliga ingrepp i« (party programme ↗)“all laws that constitute disproportionate interference in”
• secured legal certainty»Rättssäkerheten ska tryggas samtidigt som de« (party programme ↗)“Legal certainty shall be secured while”
• human rights first»viktigt men ska inte ske på bekostnad av mänskliga« (party programme ↗)“important but shall not be done at the expense of human”

The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.

The party programme requires that all legislation be tested against its impact on integrity and that restrictions stand in proportion to the law's purpose, which presupposes that risk assessment rules are clear and foreseeable. The election manifesto establishes that the rule of law and the individual's rights against the state shall be defended and that individuals should be able to have their case heard. The counter-proposal's demand to promptly eliminate the ambiguities in the dual risk assessments thus follows from the plan. The plan says nothing about whether the bill's legislative comment suffices.

• integrity review of legislationweak support»All lagstiftning bör prövas mot dess påverkan på människors personliga integritet.« (party programme ↗)“All legislation should be tested against its impact on people's personal integrity.”
• proportionality in restrictionsdecisive»Det måste finnas en proportionalitet mellan lagstiftningens inskränkning av medborgarnas integritet och lagarnas syfte.« (party programme ↗)“There must be proportionality between legislation's restriction of citizens' integrity and the laws' purpose.”
• the rule of law is defended»Rättsstaten och individens rättigheter gentemot staten måste försvaras.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“The rule of law and the individual's rights against the state must be defended.”
• fair examination for individuals»Alla som bor i Sverige ska kunna få sin sak prövad.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Everyone living in Sweden should be able to have their case heard.”

flags: citat_svagt

The plan requires that rule of law and protection of civil freedoms and rights be strengthened and that legislation that intervenes in the individual's privacy be carefully examined. The counter-proposal does not require residence prohibitions to be stopped, but that the ambiguity around double risk assessments and proportionality assessment be quickly removed for authorities and courts. A predictable framework for legal application aligns with the plan's requirements, even though the party in substance wants to examine residence prohibitions.

• strengthened rule of lawdecisive»Rättssäkerheten och skyddet för de medborgerliga fri- och rättigheterna behöver förstärkas.« (party programme ↗)“Rule of law and protection of civil freedoms and rights need to be strengthened.”
• privacy assessment of legislative proposals»Alla nya lagförslag ska analyseras ur integritetssynpunkt.« (party programme ↗)“All new legislative proposals shall be analysed from a privacy perspective.”
• rights review of laws»öka domstolarnas oberoende och verka för en författningsdomstol som ska kunna häva lagar eller bestämmelser som strider mot grundlagsskyddade fri- och rättigheter« (2022 manifesto ↗)“increase the independence of courts and work for a constitutional court that shall be able to overturn laws or provisions that violate constitutionally protected freedoms and rights”
• residence prohibitions shall be examined»pröva möjligheten att införa vistelseförbud för dömda kriminella i utsatta områden« (2022 manifesto ↗)“examine the possibility of introducing residence prohibitions for convicted criminals in disadvantaged areas”

The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.

The plan requires that reactions to crime rest on humane and clear legislation and that courts can handle cases with legal certainty. The counter-proposal does not demand that the measure be abolished, but that the ambiguity the Legal Council has pointed out regarding double risk assessments be removed quickly. A demand for clarified rules for law-enforcement authorities thus lies in line with the plan's commitment to clarity and legal certainty.

• clear and predictable criminal lawdecisive»förankrade i en human och tydlig lagstiftning« (party programme ↗)“anchored in humane and clear legislation”
• legally certain handling»rättssäkert och effektivt sätt« (party programme ↗)“with legal certainty and effective manner”
• strong independent courts»Domstolarna ska stå fria och oberoende från« (party programme ↗)“The courts shall remain free and independent from”

The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.

The plan requires a legal system characterized by legal certainty and that all exercise of public authority is governed by law and predictable. A requirement to promptly clear up ambiguities about double risk assessments is in line with this, because courts and agencies must be able to apply the rules predictably. The plan, however, says nothing about legislative construction, so the support is derived from the principles and not from an explicit commitment.

• legally certain legal systemdecisive»Sverige ska ha ett rättsväsende präglat av rättssäkerhet« (party programme ↗)“Sweden shall have a legal system characterized by legal certainty”
• rule-of-law-based predictable exercise of power»All offentlig maktutövning ska vara lagstyrd och vägledas av« (party programme ↗)“All exercise of public authority shall be governed by law and guided by”
• courts' legally certain judgment»domstolsväsende som har förmågan att döma rättssäkert.« (party programme ↗)“court system that has the ability to judge with legal certainty.”
• powerful tools against gangs»Införa visitationszoner så att Polisen får bättre möjligheter att leta efter vapen« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Introduce stop-and-search zones so that the Police get better opportunities to search for weapons”

The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.

The plan wishes to strengthen the Lagråd's position and demands that procedural obstacles to increased prosecution be removed. A legislative construction that the Lagråd assesses as difficult to apply undermines precisely the tool the plan seeks against gang crime. The counter-proposal does not limit the residence ban in substance but demands that obscurities for authorities and courts be corrected urgently, which aligns with the plan.

• strengthened Lagråd reviewdecisive»Lagrådets ställning bör stärkas genom att utreda möjligheten att fordra kvalificerad majoritet i riksdagen vid antaganden av lagförslag om vilka Lagrådet riktat kritik.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“The Lagråd's position should be strengthened by investigating the possibility of requiring a qualified majority in the Riksdag when adopting legislative proposals on which the Lagråd has directed criticism.”
• removed procedural obstacles»Processuella hinder för att möjliggöra en ökad lagföring måste också undanröjas.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Procedural obstacles to enabling increased prosecution must also be removed.”
• effective tools against gang crime»Framförallt behöver rättsväsendet få mer effektiva verktyg för att bekämpa gängbrott.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Above all, the justice system must be given more effective tools to combat gang crime.”
• independent courts»Stärka domstolarnas oberoende« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Strengthen the independence of courts”

The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.