Knut Olivecrona and his ”Om dödsstraffet”. - Figuras

mentioned, but the focus was on Norway and Sweden. Olivecrona stated his
conviction that the king would continue to pardon and that the de facto abolition
of Sweden soon would be transformed into a de jure abolition in both
countries.1
Do we here see a supreme court judge not finding it conscientious to discuss
and predict the actions of the king in a Swedish magazine? But Carl XV was the
king of both nations and a pamphlet spread widely in political circles in Norway
would hardly remain unknown in Stockholm. And it would be spread.
Olivecrona had sent Brandt some copies of the first, Swedish, article which he
gave to two others, one of which wanted to publish the article in Norwegian and
give it to the members of parliament to influence them for the abolitionistic
cause.2 The omission concerning Finland and that no decisive incident or
declaration had taken place in Sweden paints another picture where Olivecrona
shares centre stage with Christian Naumann, the editor of Tidskrift för
lagstiftning, lagskipning och förvaltning, but also judge in the supreme court
and earlier professor of law in Lund. A large part of the magazine was made up
of supreme court verdicts. It is possible that Naumann did see it as inappropriate
to publish the notion of a de facto abolition i Sweden without a stronger case. It
is even more possible that he did not wish to propagate such an opinion as his
own view was that abolition de facto was neither right nor legal. It is just as
possible that Olivecrona, aware of the views of Naumann, submitted a text
without any potentially problematic comments. But as no rift was caused
between the two it is likely that the adaptation either was a voluntary action of
Olivecrona or made with his assent. We shall see more of the discrepancies
between the views of Olivecrona and the views of Naumann later but it is likely
that it is in those discrepancies we find the reason that the published Swedish
article differed from the French and Norwegian texts.
Was there a de facto abolition building in Sweden or was this just a vain hope
of Olivecrona? Given good circumstances abolition de facto might have
succeeded, but the circumstances coming up were the worst. In the fortress and
prison of Landskrona 20/7 1871 an angry and revengeful prisoner, Carl Otto
Andersson, serving a life sentence, attacked a prison sergeant, who died of his
wounds, with a knife. This could be judged as the only crime where the new
1 ”Men er det muligt, at de forenede Rigers Sverige och Norges fælles Overhoved som
svensk Konge kan benaade Forbrydere, hvilke han, som Norges Konge, vilde lade føre til
Retterstedet? Er det muligt, at han, uden noget absolut Retfærdighedsprincip, for identiske
Forbrydelser kan paa den ene Side benaade Forbryderen og paa den anden befale hans
Henrettelse? Logiken fordrer klarligen Anvendelsen af de samme Benaadningsprinciper i de
tvende Stater. Man kan og bør altsaa haabe, at identiske Principer snart ville gøre sig
gjeldende i Norge som i Sverige, og at Dødsstraffen, der er afskaffet de facto, snart vil blive
det de jure.” Olivecrona 1871b p 15, cf Olivecrona 1870b p 17.
2 Letters from Fredrik Brandt to Knut Olivecrona 31/12 1876-2/1 1870 and 15/5 1871 G 197
k:6 UUB.
38