Knut Olivecrona and his ”Om dödsstraffet”. - Figuras

is no such thing as a good or useful execution.1 There is no deterrence when the
people forget the crime for the unhappy victim of justice.2 But the execution is
never as absurd and ridiculous as in the eyes of the penitent delinquent. The
state insists that it tries to imitate divine justice but it refuses the penitent to
atone his crimes in this life. Instead a minister follows him to the scaffolds
declaring God's grace and that he does not desire the death of the sinner, but that
he repents and lives.3 In his empathic and emotional discussions of the reactions
of the condemned to his situation and execution a good example of the
humanitarian strand noted by Savey-Casard is displayed by Olivecrona.
When the first edition came from the printers Olivecrona was at parliament
and among those that received it favourably were several parliamentarians and
supreme court judges.4 The question of the penalty of death was already raised
by the bell-ringer Sven Rosenberg He proposed that the penalty of death would
be suspended for at least ten years. 5 Olivecrona also proposed a suspension, for
ten to twenty years, in Om dödsstraffet. Although he would have preferred an
immediate abolition he put forward this idea as he felt that many, as they hadn't
studied the question as thorough as him, were hesitant to abolition.6 The Law
committee rejected the proposed suspension as against the constitution. Three
members, Olivecrona, the mayor Johan Bovin, and Rosenberg instead saw
suspension as a possibility through which experience could be gathered ahead of
final abolition and invoked the Finnish experience.7 Three estates followed the
1 Olivecrona 1866 p 150. ”Är det ej en hädelse att i samma stund Ordets tjänare, i den
treenige Gudens namn, tillsagt honom förlåtelse, kallblodigt, döv för alla böner, likväl kräva
offret av hans liv?”
2 Draft of letter from Knut Olivecrona to Carl Joseph Anton Mittermaier undated with note
[1863?] G 197 k:17 UUB.
3 Olivecrona 1866 p 145 sq ”Det kan icke bestridas, synes det mig, att det gränsar till ett hån,
att förklara att Staten skall i sina lagar efterbilda den gudomliga rättvisan, men vägra den
ångerfulle brottslige att inom det bevakade fängelsets fångrum försona sig med samhällets
lagar, på samma gång man låter fångpredikanten som följer honom till stupstocken, viska i
hans öra, att Gud är rättvis, nådig och barmhärtig och att Han ej vill någon syndares död, utan
att syndaren omvänder sig och lever. Vad måste delinkventen tänka i de sista ögonblicken,
om icke detta: ’Är Gud rättvis, är Han god och barmhärtig, då är tvärtom samhället orättvist,
grymt obarmhärtigt, som vill neka mig att genom gott uppförande ådagalägga, att jag
verkligen är en förändrad, till det godas utövning strävande människa….’.”
4 Letters from Knut Olivecrona to Rosalie Olivecrona 16/1 and 19/1 1866 Kartong 12 OFA
RA.
5 RD 1865-66 mot Bo 98.
6 Olivecrona 1866 p 130, 153 The idea that Olivecrona and Rosenberg had cooperated has
been put forward, Seth 1984 p 77. Rosenberg, however, acknowledged the motion as his own,
RD 1865-66 Bo III:340.
7 RD 1865-66 LU 25.
16