Knut Olivecrona and his ”Om dödsstraffet”. - Figuras

penal code gave the courts less leeway. Homicide committed by a prisoner
serving a life sentence merited the penalty of death if no mitigating
circumstances were found. Carl Otto Andersson was sentenced to death of three
courts, the applications for pardon was rejected and he was executed 6/3 1872.1
The worst had happened – had also the hope of a Swedish abolition fallen with
the head of Andersson?
When the sentence of Andersson was upheld by the supreme court
Olivecronas proposal that Andersson's mental status should be examined was
first rejected by the other judges. Then all judges found the sentence to death
legal but Olivecrona alone recommended clemency. He put forward the time
passed since the latest execution in June 1866 and how Sweden had been spared
the horrible sight of executions through the use of pardon. Although criminals,
sometimes having committed heinous crimes, had been spared, the number of
serious crimes had not increased. In his view only compelling necessity could
motivate a new execution and that was not the situation. Also, because of the
youth, seventeen year, of Andersson at his first murder in 1858, had he been
judged by the new penal code his maximum penalty would have been ten years,
and special rules for those serving life sentences would not have applied to
him.2 Olivecrona also tried to influence Carl XV to grant pardon to Carl Otto
Andersson but did not succeed. 3
This is one occasion where the archives shows Rosalie Olivecrona acting
against capital punishment independently of Knut.
A debate started in Nya Dagligt Allehanda by an article signed ”X”. The
article shows a familiarity with the case using the documents of the courts and
the plea for pardon by Andersson. The arguments were to be appealing to the
emotions just as much as to reason. The main arguments were that Andersson
had been singled out to die, not because of what he had done, but because he
served a life sentence, and that he should be given the possibility to atone his
crime in the only reasonable way, through repentance and struggle. Despite the
lack of typical features such as international comparisons, statistics, and the
outlining of a historical development are outlined the closeness to the views
presented in Om dödsstraffet is evident. Olivecrona wrote in his diary that there
were many good arguments in the article, but the writer in some respects went a
bit far.4 Later in the debate Rosalie Olivecrona wrote an article, using a
1 Bergman 1996 p 89, Seth 1984 p 171, Lönegren 1893 p 261 sqq, cf SL 14:6.
2 Högsta domstolens protokoll 27/11 1871 NJrA ( a summary of the case and a quotation of
the vote of Olivecrona in Tidskrift för lagstiftning, lagskipning och förvaltning 1872 p 45
sqq), note for 27/11 1871 in diary of Knut Olivecrona Kartong 17 OFA RA, cf Seth 1984 p
171.
3 Draft of letter from Knut Olivecrona to William Tallack 20/4 1872 G 197 k 17 UUB.
4 Nya Dagligt Allehanda 29/1 1872, note for February 1872 in diary of Knut Olivecrona
Kartong 17 OFA RA ”I Dagl. Alleh. har en X uppträtt emot dödsstraffets tillämpande,
anförande i många avseenden goda skäl, ehuru han i vissa punkter synes gå för långt.”
39