A society that jails exploited children has failed them twice

If an adult sexually abused a 14-year-old girl, no decent society would call the child the problem and lock her away. We would ask who groomed her, who profited from her pain and which adults failed to reach her before the harm was done.

But when criminal adults exploit a 14-year-old boy, put a weapon in his hand and send him to carry out their violence, Sweden has chosen another answer: prison. The violence may destroy another family, and society must protect them. Yet a child does not stop being a child because an adult succeeded in turning him into a weapon. Who are we if, after failing to protect that child from exploitation, we punish him for the terrible success of the adults who used him?

On 13 August, Parliament approved a five-year trial lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 14 for the most serious crimes. From 10 September, a 14-year-old may be prosecuted for offences carrying a minimum sentence of four years. Because a separate reform has replaced closed youth care with prison when a custodial sentence cannot be avoided, children this young can then be sentenced to prison under Kriminalvården.

This is not a Tidö policy alone. The Social Democrats also backed the age of 14. Sweden’s political centre has crossed this line together, and all of it must answer for what lies on the other side.

No serious person can minimise the crimes at issue. A weapon held by a child can end a life just as completely as one held by an adult. The murdered do not become less dead because their killer was young. Their families deserve protection, justice and every possible assurance that another family will not suffer as they have.

Society may sometimes need to remove a dangerous child from the public. A secure facility may be necessary. But security is a condition, not a moral philosophy. We can stop a child from causing further harm without pretending that punishment is the same thing as protection.

The government’s own words expose the contradiction. In July, ministers proposed harsher penalties for people who involve children in crime. They called luring or forcing a child into criminal acts an abhorrent attack and acknowledged that children are among society’s most vulnerable members.

The police describe how that exploitation works. Criminals offer money, expensive clothes, attention and belonging. Once the child has been drawn in, promises can become pressure and rewards can become threats. This is the architecture of grooming: find a need, win trust, create dependency and then use the child.

Yet after recognising every link in that chain, the law arrives at the final one and declares the child newly old enough for prison.

Some children seek out criminal assignments. Some recruit other children. Their choices matter, and childhood cannot become a word that erases responsibility. But recognising a child’s agency is not the same as pretending that a 14-year-old and the adults directing a criminal network possess equal power, maturity or freedom.

The government promises that its special prison units will provide education, treatment and rehabilitation. Those promises must be enforced. But placing care behind a prison door does not make the door meaningless. The institution tells the child, and the country, what we believe he is: first a prisoner, then perhaps someone worth saving.

Real accountability would pursue the adults who recruit children with relentless force while surrounding every vulnerable child with equally relentless protection. It would mean schools that notice absence, social services able to act before danger becomes catastrophe, mental healthcare that children can reach, support for frightened families and intensive treatment for those already trapped.

We failed the child when the gang reached him first. We must protect the public from the violence that followed, but we do not repair that first failure by committing another.

A country reveals its character not when a child is innocent and easy to love, but when that child has done something terrible. The question is whether Sweden can still see a child standing there.

If we answer only with a prison cell, then the adults who exploited him have not merely stolen his childhood. They have persuaded the rest of us to abandon it too.

DailySweden

DailySweden's desk of editors, reporters, researchers and investigative journalists. We bring readers factual, truthful and objective reporting on the issues that matter to them.

Contact the editorial desk ›