Knut Olivecrona and his ”Om dödsstraffet”. - Figuras

More documents

Recommendations

Info

founders and belonged to the interim board for Föreningen till minne af Konung Oscar I och Drottning Josephina.1 In the invitation to become member the idea of Oscar of private associations working with youth on the road to vices and criminality, and with those freed from prison was evoked. The original tasks of the association were therefore to help to get positions and other support for the freed and to run an institution of care for youth; it was to found an agricultural colony at Hall (now one of Sweden's main prisons). 2 In the foundation of Hall Mettray and Ruysele served as models.3 Olivecrona used his contacts to prepare a journey for the prospective superintendent of Hall, Hjalmar Kylberg, to France, Switzerland and England. Mettray and Val d'Yèvre were visited.4 Swedish royal orders were conferred to V Blanchard, superintendent of Mettray, and Charles Lucas fils, earlier superintendent of Val d'Yèvre on the initiative of Olivecrona. 5 To the local work of Olivecrona may also be mentioned that he from the foundation in 1879 to his death was the chairman of Stockholms skyddsförening för frigifne.6 For many years he also was a trustee in Stiftelsen ”Hem för de elända”, providing lodgings and work for men freed from prison or otherwise having problems.7 Abolition de facto? The picture of the situation in Sweden communicated by Olivecrona was for several years dominated by the hope of a abolition de facto. The work on a new penal code had been under way for decades when it finally was enacted in 1864 and became active in 1866. Several partial revisions had been passed during the process and the question of the abolition of the penalty of death was repeatedly 1 Among the founders were also Axel Adlercreutz, Louis de Geer,and Christian Naumann, of which Adlercreutz and Naumann also sat on the interim board, Föreningen till minne 1873 p 3, 7, cf Åkerbrukskolonien Hall 1905 p 4 were it also was especially noticed that Olivecrona had made the association known abroad. 2 Föreningen till minne 1873 p 1sqq. 3 Quelques renseignements 1878. 4 Letters from Hjalmar Kylberg to Knut Olivecrona 29/3 1874, 13/4 1875, 24/3 1875 G 197 k:2 UUB, draft of letter from Knut Olivecrona to V Blanchard 25/5 och 24/10 1874 G 197 k:17 UUB, draft of letter from Knut Olivecrona to Charles Lucas fils 6/1 1875 G 197 k:17 UUB, draft of letter from Knut Olivecrona to Charles Lucas 6/1 1875 G 197 k:17 UUB, cf letter from Charles Lucas fils to Knut Olivecrona 12/3 1875 G 197 k:10 UUB. 5 Draft of letter from Knut Olivecrona to V Blanchard 30/10 and 9/10 1875 and draft of letter from Knut Olivecrona to Charles Lucas fils 30/10 1875 G 197 k:17 UUB, letter from Charles Lucas fils to Knut Olivecrona 4/11 1875 G 197 k:10 UUB. 6 Stockholms skyddsförening 1905 p 3, cf letter to Knut Olivecrona from Frederik Bruun 14/9 and 1/10 1881 G 197 k 6 UUB. 7 See for example Redogörelse 1883 p 3 and 11, Årsredogörelse 1904 p 17. 30
aised, not without some success. In 1863 the Peasants decided to abolish capital punishment, but as the other three estates did not concur abolition fell. In 1867 the second chamber abolished capital punishment but abolition was rejected by the first chamber. Thus in 1868 the expectation of a close call and probably even abolition was high, especially as the first chamber had rejected abolition with only one vote. Many had been absent and one member, present and having attacked the penalty of death, hadn’t cast his vote.1 There had been two executions in 1866 – would they be the last? This time another obstacle came on and held the stage. Louis de Geer, the minister of justice, made three speeches on the subject, in the first chamber when the motion were sent to committee and in the main debates of the both chambers, in the second chamber he was the first speaker.2 He commented himself of the uncommonness of him playing such a prominent role when not a royal proposal but a motion from a parliamentarian was on the table.3 De Geer put himself in the spotlight, he wanted to make an impact and he did. Already after the first speech of De Geer in the first chamber, Rudolf Adlersparre had come to the conclusion that the motion would be unsuccessful. Thus he wrote another motion on intramural executions, which he perceived as a step on the road.4 The utterances of de Geer was seen by contemporaries as decisive for the outcome.5 So what did de Geer say? Basically, that everybody wanted to abolish the penalty of death but that time was not ripe yet. He clearly argued the retaining of the penalty of death but did it in such an irenic way that he could be perceived as close to abolitionism. He for instance endorsed the justice of the penalty of death rather negatively, it is not unjust. Primarily he quoted abolitionists conceding that there might be situations where the penalty of death might be acceptable. 6 A large part of the speeches also discussed the experience of other countries. Also here the methods, such as the use of statistics, and arguments of abolitionism were turned in the opposite direction. Experience of abolition was rare and uncertain or far away or possibly from countries more developed. De Geer thus answered the abolitionists on their own ground. If they conceded the possibility of the penalty of death due to absolute necessity he agreed. Popular demand, but mostly the crimes themselves, made abolition an impossibility, in Sweden – now.7 In Portugal capital punishment had been abolished in 1867 and de Geer 1 Seth 1984 p 95 sqq. 2 RD 1868 FK 1:60 sqq, 417sq, AK 1:338 sqq. 3 RD 1868 FK 1:60. 4 RD 1868 mot FK 69. 5 See for example RD 1868 FK 1:411, AK 1:412, Thermænius 1931 p 252 (letter from Ola Jönsson to F T Borg 12/3 1868); cf Seth 1984 p 157 sqq. 6 RD 1868 FK 1:60, 417, AK 1:338 sqq, 348 sq. 7 RD 1868 FK 1:60 sqq, AK 1:341 sqq. 31
Page 1 and 2: The Swede in 19th century European
Page 3 and 4: Childhood and executions In 1867 Ol
Page 5 and 6: sciences sociales in Gent, thereby
Page 7 and 8: Knut Olivecrona had in Rosalie a sp
Page 9 and 10: presented at L'Institut Impérial.
Page 11 and 12: inspector of French prisons and fou
Page 13 and 14: ich due to a systematic collection
Page 15 and 16: tendencies are clearly of great imp
Page 17 and 18: law committee while the view of the
Page 19 and 20: penalty of death as the society mur
Page 21 and 22: ägnas denna skrift vördsamt av f
Page 23 and 24: Budapest also a statistical congres
Page 25 and 26: willing to be at hand when further
Page 27 and 28: Besides from communicating informat
Page 29: Christian Naumann, prison officials
Page 33 and 34: necessary to preserve society and i
Page 35 and 36: Unsucessfully raising his voice in
Page 37 and 38: somewhere in between? Interesting i
Page 39 and 40: penal code gave the courts less lee
Page 41 and 42: wrote a preface.1 The action of Ros
Page 43 and 44: death.1 It’s an irony of history
Page 45 and 46: exceptional circumstances of the cr
Page 47 and 48: A few days later Olivecrona and Osc
Page 49 and 50: Those feelings, however, were not p
Page 51 and 52: moratoriums were appreciated roads
Page 53 and 54: An ideal of development, of a brigh
Page 55 and 56: HEIDELBERG Universitätsbibliothek
Page 57 and 58: 1988 Une prison verte dans les mara
Page 59 and 60: 1987-89 Naumann, Christian i: Svens
Page 61 and 62: 1868b Om förbättringsanstalten i
Page 63 and 64: Rodhe, Edvard 1926 Förbindelser me

Knut Olivecrona and his ”Om dödsstraffet”. - Figuras

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?