Knut Olivecrona and his ”Om dödsstraffet”. - Figuras

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The opinion in the newspapers, were, however, not unanimous. Aftonbladet found the limitation argued, by for example Nya Dagligt Allehanda, on the power of the king to pardon wholly unknown by the constitutions of Norway and Sweden. To thus exalt the law would in reality lead to the rejection of any prerogative to pardon.1 The next day an article started by quoting Franz von Holtzendorff writing that as long the penalty of death remains there will persons choosing as their task to educate the king in that his duty, to execute, must subdue the voice of his heart. It also, citing many examples, argued that de facto was a common method and principle. In Swedish law it had often happened that a change first had been implemented de facto and later, sometimes almost a century later, de jure. Abolition of the penalty of death often followed this pattern, after years of consequent pardoning the penalty was abolished.2 It was also in Aftonbladet that Knut Olivecrona anonymously wrote an article about the three executions in Norway in which he presented details from the executions in an abolitionistic light – flowers placed on the grave of Jakob Wallin, the axe falling over Sofie Johannesdotter while praying ’and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us’, and the sheer age of Kristoffer Nilsson Grindalen, at 72 at the end of life anyhow. The article ended with a longer quote from a letter from Fredrik Brandt to Olivecrona arguing than none of the three should have been executed. Worse criminals than Jakob Wallin had been pardoned, the mental health of Sofie Johannesdotter was dubious and her motives were unknown, and there was no risk in letting Kristoffer Nilsson Grindalen living his few remaining years.3 In 1876 Olivecrona once again was the only high Swedish official voting against upcoming executions. He firstly voted for life sentences for Hjert and Tektor found guilty of murder and attempted robbery and when this failed he advised that pardon should be given.4 Olivecronas persistence in opposing executions was not approved by all. The same year six members of the parliamentary delegation charged with censoring supreme court judges voted to censor Olivecrona. He interpreted it as a reaction to his sentencing of Hjert and Tektor to life instead of death and some months later was not particularly concerned, rather the action was a source to ridicule of the censoring parliamentarians.5 k:6 UUB. For the Belgian experience see Visschers 1864, although one should bear in mind that Visschers very much was part of the history himself. 1 Aftonbladet 22/11 1875. 2 Aftonbladet 23/11 1875. 3 Aftonbladet 7/3 1876, letter from Fredrik Brandt to Knut Olivecrona 14/2 1876 G 197 k:6 (the quotation from the letter is my reason for identifying the author as Olivecrona). 4 Note for 17/1 1876 in diary of Knut Olivecrona Kartong 17 OFA RA. 5 Note for 23/2 1876 in diary of Knut Olivecrona Kartong 17 OFA RA, draft of letter from Knut Olivecrona to Paul Edouard Didier Riant 31/5 1876 G 197 k:17 UUB, cf Jägerskiöld 1992-94 p 202. 46
A few days later Olivecrona and Oscar happened to meet at a skating rink and Oscar confided his thoughts of the matter. As long as the penalty of death remains in the law it had to be applied at some time. He also stated that he probably would be seen as weak in not always pardoning, Olivecrona commented in his diary that the decision certainly was about popularity, but the popularity gained by pardoning some and executing some.1 Thus during less than half a year in 1875-76 Oscar consented to three Norwegian and two Swedish executions. During the remainder of his reign nine capital sentences were to be executed. The last execution in 1910 occurred during the reign of his son, Gustaf V. He had also confirmed two sentences in 1900 as regent. The autumn of 1878 Anders Larsson from Qvallan was the possible object of an execution. Olivecrona has left two versions, in his diary and in a directly afterwards recorded description, of a conversation he had had when summoned to Oscar II three days before the application of pardon was rejected. The king is described as very uncertain on which decision he would make. Earlier in the conversation he had emphasised his disapproval of the penalty of death and his longing to propose its abolition, but his advisors had said that the time was not right as the approval of parliament was uncertain. Oscar didn't want to replace his advisors, that is exchange his ministers, for the reason of sending such a proposal to parliament. He also emphasised that he couldn't put himself above the law but asked Olivecrona for reasons to pardon. 2 As pardon was rejected Olivecrona with indignation noted that the decision had been to reject clemency despite one of the judges present, Carl Johan Oscar von Segebaden, had advised that pardon should be given. Oscar, according to von Segebaden, became confused by the advice and a second determined advice was needed. Olivecrona comments that the often iterated saying of the king that he would pardon if only one of his advisors so recommended was proven false.3 Olivecrona also judged that for every rejected pardon the harder Oscar would find it to pardon: ”[K]ungen skall snart besanna mina ord; att ju oftare han låter en dödsdom gå i verkställighet, ju svårare blir det att sedermera kunna giva nåd.” 4 The idea of the compulsory use of a punishment stipulated in law continued to be the leading argument. When Oscar II in 1887 denied pardon to Nils Peter Persson Hagström his foremost argument was stated very briefly: ”Enär 1 Note for 13/3 1876 in diary of Knut Olivecrona Kartong 17 OFA RA. 2 Note in the diary of Knut Olivecrona 19/11 1878 Kartong 17 OFA RA, Samtal med H. Maj:t Konung Oscar II, angående dödsstraffet, genast af minnet upptecknadt vid min hemkomst från audiencen fol 86, B 187 m:25 UUB. 3 Later note on Samtal med H. Maj:t Konung Oscar II, angående dödsstraffet, genast af minnet upptecknadt vid min hemkomst från audiencen fol 86, B 187 m:25 UUB 4 Note in the diary of Knut Olivecrona 22/11 1878 Kartong 17 OFA RA, cf the same thought in letter from Knut Olivecrona to Fredrik Brandt 5/7 1882 Brevsamling 237 ONB. 47
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 and 30: Christian Naumann, prison officials
Page 31 and 32: aised, not without some success. In
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: exceptional circumstances of the cr
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?