Knut Olivecrona and his ”Om dödsstraffet”. - Figuras

however, would occur that Oscar II rejected clemency even though more than
one advisor advocate pardon.1
For Olivecrona Oscar II came to represent the hope, when he ascended the
throne in the autumn following the execution of Carl Otto Andersson. A year
later a Norwegian case became the first serious test of how Oscar was to use his
power of clemency. Fredrik Brandt in a letter to Olivecrona described how the
decision in the case of Lars Anderssen Moen, the murderer of his master and
mistress, as a choice for Oscar between following the principles of his father or
those of his brother and Olivecrona related the thought of the choice to Charles
Lucas.2 When the decision was upcoming Oscar summoned Olivecrona and his
supreme court colleagues Ludvig Theodor Almquist, Victor Cramér and
Christian Naumann. Oscar had emphasised that the question also had Swedish
implications. The king of the union must ”följa samma grundsatser i begge de
förenade Rikena”. Almquist, Cramér and Olivecrona recommended pardon.
Almquist was of the opinion that in this case the sentence in Sweden would
have been penal servitude for life. Only Naumann objected to a pardon on the
ground that as the penalty was in the law it should be applied. Oscar uttered his
great uncertainty of what decision to take.3 The pardon 20/2 1874 against
unanimous recommendation of the supreme court and the government fed the
hope of Olivecrona that there would be no further executions and that it was an
indication that Oscar had inherit the ideal of his father.4
Through the correspondence of Olivecrona the hope was spread of a sustained
de facto abolition in Sweden, a hope linked to Oscar II in person. The secretary
of the Howard Association, William Tallack, in a letter to the foreign minister of
Sweden, Oscar Björnstjerna, concerning the plans for a penitentiary congress in
Stockholm also praised Oscar I and Oscar II, which ”have both taken a most
honorabel interest in the question of the Abolition of Capital Punishment.” In a
pamphlet Tallack attached he had emphasised the diligent use of Oscar II of his
power to pardon, particularly how he recently had pardoned a Norwegian
murderer against the advice of an unanimous supreme court and the
government. The situation in the kingdoms of Oscar II resembled the Belgian
were life imprisonment through the use of pardon had replaced the penalty of
1 See for example Statsrådsprotokoll(justitieärende) 23/6 1882 NJrA RA where three
advisors, Olivecrona, supreme court judge Edvard Henrik Carleson and foreign minister Carl
Hochschild, recommended clemency for Carl August Andersson Sköld and Johan Erik
Österman, which was denied, cf note in diary of Knut Olivecrona 23/6 1882 Kartong 17 OFA
RA.
2 Letter from Fredrik Brandt to Knut Olivecrona 23/9 1873 G 197 k:6 UUUB, draft of letter
from Knut Olivecrona to Charles Lucas 19/1 1874 G 197 k:17 UUB.
3 Note in the diary of Knut Olivecrona 4/1 1874 Kartong 17 OFA RA. Oscar was notorius in
depending on others than his constitutional advisors. In 1900 this trait in Oscar was a factor
in the resignation of the prime minister, Erik Gustaf Boström, Bergman 2001b p 82 sq.
4 Draft of letter from Knut Olivecrona to William Tallack 17/1 1875 G 197 k:17 UUB.
42