What's at stake: The proposal means that someone who escapes or absconds from, for example, a prison or remand facility could be convicted of a crime, in addition to the administrative responses the Prison and Probation Service can already decide on. The question is whether criminal liability actually deters escapes and strengthens confidence that sentences are enforced, or whether the Prison and Probation Service's existing tools, such as postponed release and a stricter security class, are already sufficient.
Case texts and AI reasoning are AI-translated from the Swedish originals; the Swedish text is authoritative.
What the vote decides
The motion called for the proposal to criminalize escape to be rejected, while the committee held that criminalization is warranted to strengthen public protection and confidence in the criminal justice system.
Yes Yes — the committee proposal
The committee agrees with the government that it is fundamentally important for confidence in the criminal justice system that sentences are enforced safely and that people who are deprived of their liberty remain so, and notes that escapes and absconding still occur every year despite measures taken, showing that the current sanctions system is not sufficiently effective at shaping behaviour, and therefore backs the criminalization and rejects the motion.
No No — the reservations
Reservation 1 (MP)
The reserving party (MP) considers it reasonable for society to react when someone deprived of their liberty does not serve their sentence but questions whether criminalization is the most effective route, pointing to the government inquiry's assessment that there are not sufficiently strong grounds for criminalization, that escapes are few, and that the Prison and Probation Service already has a functioning sanctions system, including postponing conditional release, transferring to a higher security class and withdrawing leave, and therefore wants that part of the bill rejected.
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 1 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 21/0/0/0
S
–
Yes 106/0/0/0
MPown reservation
–
No 0/18/0/0
C
–
Yes 23/0/0/1
L
–
Yes 16/0/0/0
KD
–
Yes 19/0/0/0
M
–
Yes 66/0/0/0
SD
–
Yes 70/0/0/0
Committee proposal
The Riksdag adopts
a) the government's proposal for a law amending the Penal Code in those parts concerning chapter 17, sections 12, 12 a and 16 and chapter 21, sections 7 and 15,
b) the government's proposal for a law amending the Act (1994:1811) on Disciplinary Liability within Total Defense, etc.
Thereby the Riksdag approves proposition 2025/26:181 points 1 in this part and 3 and rejects motion
2025/26:4062 by Ulrika Westerlund et al. (MP).
Original (Swedish)
Riksdagen antar
a) regeringens förslag till lag om ändring i brottsbalken i de delar det avser 17 kap. 12, 12 a och 16 §§ samt 21 kap. 7 och 15 §§,
b) regeringens förslag till lag om ändring i lagen (1994:1811) om disciplinansvar inom totalförsvaret, m.m.
Därmed bifaller riksdagen proposition 2025/26:181 punkterna 1 i denna del och 3 samt avslår motion
2025/26:4062 av Ulrika Westerlund m.fl. (MP).
Riksdag decision: The Riksdag approved the government's proposal for strengthened public protection and clearer consequences for repeat offenses. The proposal aims to strengthen public protection in cases of serious and repeated crime, reduce the risk of repeat offenses, increase security for crime victims and tighten consequences for misconduct or repeat offenses.
The legislative changes include, among other things, the following:
- Escape from certain forms of detention, such as remand detention, prison and custody, is criminalized
- Repeat offenses become more significant in sentencing
- Opportunities to combine supervisory sentences with imprisonment are expanded
- A person sentenced to supervisory sentencing or conditionally released shall be notified of restrictions on freedom of movement (residence restrictions) if he or she is involved in, or has a connection to a group that engages in serious crime and risks committing or otherwise participating in serious crime at a certain location or within a certain area
- Residence restrictions can be imposed for the purpose of protecting the complainant
- It is stated in law that involvement in, or connection to, a group that engages in serious crime shall be considered when deciding on furlough.
The legislative changes enter into force on July 2, 2026.
Counter-proposals
The counter-proposal wants to reject the proposal to criminalize escape from prisons and detention facilities. (MP) — Reservation 1
Motion 2025/26:4062 — med anledning av prop. 2025/26:181 Ett förstärkt samhällsskydd och tydligare reaktioner vid återfall i brott av Ulrika Westerlund m.fl. (MP)
Proposition 2025/26:181 — Ett förstärkt samhällsskydd och tydligare reaktioner vid återfall i brott