Knut Olivecrona and his ”Om dödsstraffet”. - Figuras

penalty of death as the society murdering the murderer, a terrible swapping of
crime and punishment.1
Probably Olivecrona wouldn’t have concurred with this analysis of his
thought. In his autobiography Olivecrona indicated a comprehensive motive for
his diverse activities in the area of crime and punishment, found in the 25th of
the Swedish rule for judges: ”allt straff bör vara till förbättring och straffet vara
sådant, om möjligt är, att det icke förhindrar honom, som straffad varder, till att
bättra sig.” 2 When all punishment aims to the bettering of the punished capital
punishment naturally is not an option. The thought of bettering as an essential
part of the punishment, and thus, the rejection of the penalty of death Olivecrona
traced to the first five centuries of Christianity.3
And already in 1889 Olivecrona had declined to become member in die
internationalen kriminalistischen Vereiningung because he could not concur
with some of its fundamental theses such as that incorrigible petty criminals
should be kept outside of society for as long time as possible or that shorter
prison sentences should be transformed into other punishments of the same
efficacy. Olivecrona put the questions: Who could and should decide that
somebody was incorrigible? How was such a punishment to be constructed not
being corporal punishment?4 The rejection of Olivecrona of some of the
fundamental theses in the new association points at core disagreements on
questions of punishment, society and the individual. The program was written
from a sociological point of view with crime as the dominating feature.
Olivecrona, on the other hand, tended to focus on the specific case and the
individual. It would probably also be less pleasing for Olivecrona to be member
in an association were the penalty of death weren’t discussed out of fear for a
split. Franz von Liszt, the founder of the association would also say that
abolition was a minor question due to the few crimes carrying the penalty of
death and the few executions. 5
Olivecrona rewrote and enlarged his book between the two editions. The
second was almost twice as thick as the first and the preparation for the second
edition took many years. In the first years he seems to have been planning and
1 Staël von Holstein 1893 p 3 sq.
2 fol 221 X 284 p:2 UUB. ’All punishment should be to improvement and the punishment
should, if possible, be of such a kind that it doesn’t hinder he that is punished to improve.’
The rule is also quoted in Olivecrona 1866 p 145.
3 Olivecrona 1866 p V.
4 Letter from Franz von Liszt to Knut Olivecrona october 1889 including Satzungen der
internationalen s a G 197 k:10 and draft of letter from Knut Olivecrona to Franz von Liszt
24/10 1889 G 197 k:19 UUB.
5 Radzinowicz 1991 p 26 sqq.
19