Mentally disordered criminal offenders in the Swedish criminal system

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2010.06.003 Byline: Christer Svennerlind, Thomas Nilsson, Nora Kerekes, Peter Andine, Margareta Lagerkvist, Anders Forsman, Henrik Anckarsater, Helge Malmgren Keywords: Swedish model; Accountability; Severe mental disorder Abstract: Historically, the Swedish criminal justice system conformed to other Western penal law systems, exempting severely mentally disordered offenders considered to be unaccountable. However, in 1965 Sweden enforced a radical penal law abolishing exceptions based on unaccountability. Mentally disordered offenders have since then been subjected to various forms of sanctions motivated by the offender's need for care and aimed at general prevention. Until 2008, a prison sentence was not allowed for offenders found to have committed a crime under the influence of a severe mental disorder, leaving forensic psychiatric care the most common sanction in this group. Such offenders are nevertheless held criminally responsible, liable for damages, and encumbered with a criminal record. In most cases, such offenders must not be discharged without the approval of an administrative court. Two essentially modern principles may be discerned behind the 'Swedish model': first, an attempted abolishment of moral responsibility, omitting concepts such as guilt, accountability, atonement, and retribution, and, second, the integration of psychiatric care into the societal reaction and control systems. The model has been much criticized, and several governmental committees have suggested a re-introduction of a system involving the concept of accountability. This review describes the Swedish special criminal justice provisions on mentally disordered offenders including the legislative changes in 1965 along with current proposals to return to a pre-1965 system, presents current Swedish forensic psychiatric practice and research, and discusses some of the ethical, political, and metaphysical presumptions that underlie the current system.