Knut Olivecrona and his ”Om dödsstraffet”. - Figuras

More documents

Recommendations

Info

dödsstraffet fortfarande finnes i den svenska strafflagen”.1 Even when the last Swedish execution, of Alfred Ander, were decided in 1910 the minister of justice Albert Petersson argued that the king couldn’t precede the legislation.2 Olivecrona didn’t approve of this line of thought and in the second edition of Om dödsstraffet commented on it. Had for instance the view propagated by Oscar II in 1876 been in effect during the years 1830-1861 many women would have been executed for the murder of their child, a crime punishable by death, but during this period never executed. Instead pardon always were used. Many international examples were also quoted in support of abolition de facto through the use of clemency as a natural step in the legislative process.3 For many opponents of capital punishment, as for instance Olivecrona and Lucas abolition de facto was something more and stronger than a period without executions. A decision to follow through with a certain execution instead of pardoning was also of greater importance. It was a decision to reinstate or hold on to the penalty of death. Some themes Usually ther supreme court judges were recruited from courts and sometime ministeries, but there was another former professor of law, Christian Naumann, in the supreme court at the same time as Olivecrona and the two are sometimes compared. Interesting enough the question of the penalty of death for them meant both concurrence and fierce disagreement. Naumann saw himself as an abolitionist and conveyed his abolitionistic longings to Olivecrona, for instance when he in 1864 wished that the upcoming book of Olivecrona should contribute to abolition.4 Soon also Olivecrona became a supreme court judge and there were personal friendliness, maybe friendship, between Olivecrona and Naumann. 5 It is not a coincidence that the name of Naumann has been mentioned before. 1 Statsrådsprotokoll (justitieärende) 4/2 1887 NJrA RA. Olivecrona although finding the sentence legal advocated pardon as an execution wasn't necessary and referring to Hagströms hardship during his childhood and youth and his repentance of his crime when he now found people listening to him with compassion. Also,without his confession he could not have been sentenced to death. Cf Högsta domstolens protokoll 12/1 1887 NJrA RA. 2 ”Jag är icke övertygad om att frågan om dödsstraffets bibehållande i lagstiftningen ännu är att anse som slutförd, och under alla omständigheter kan jag icke tillstyrka Eders Kungl. Maj t att därutinnan gå lagstiftningen i förväg.” Statsrådsprotokoll (justitieärende) 28/10 1910 RA. 3 Olivecrona 1891a 2 p 300, 307 sqq. 4 Letter of Christian Naumann to Knut Olivecrona 21/11 1864 G 197 k:3 UUB. Knut Olivecrona also were to give Christian Naumann the first edition of Om dödsstraffet as soon as they met, letter from Knut Olivecrona to Christian Naumann 3/6 1866 E 4851 RA. 5 See for example letters from Christian Naumann to Knut Olivecrona 12/8 1875 and 13/8 1876 G 197 k:3 UUB. The latter letter is from Belgium and Naumann also thanks Olivecrona 48
Those feelings, however, were not prevailing, at least not, on the part of Olivecrona, when it came to the ideas and actions of Naumann in relation to the penalty of death. Olivecrona had problems with accepting Naumann as any kind of abolitionist. In a note in his copy of Notice présentant par ordre chronologique le relevé et la désignation des personnes et des associations qui ont pris la part la plus notable au mouvement abolitioniste de la peine de mort by J Hello Olivecrona protested when Hello in a list of abolitionists had included Naumann.1 Probably the greatest source of frustration for Olivecrona was the different way the both judges acted when capital cases reached the supreme court. Although it occurred that Olivecrona upheld a capital sentence as legally correct, he always recommended pardon. 2 Naumann however was much stricter as a judge, upheld many more sentences to death and more rarely recommended pardon, and Olivecrona showed clear frustration over the behaviour of Naumann as a judge and his arguments for upholding capital sentences and rejecting pardons.3 Not without delight Olivecrona noted from a cabinet meeting of 1876 where pardon were to be decided upon for Hjert and Tektor that Naumann had prepared, what Olivecrona thought was, a longer speech in favour of capital punishment and executions, but had to pocket it as the king postponed the decision.4 In the archive of Oscar II there is a memorandum from Naumann originating from the early days of Oscar’s reign, probably related to the discussion on clemency for Lars Anderssen Moen.5 In it Naumann discussed the passages on murder in the penal code, the relationship of the judge to the legislation and the role of the pardoning power. His view was that the penalty of death was the normal punishment for murder and that only when extenuating circumstances were at hand a sentence of penal servitude for life could instead be passed by a judge. Also, when making recommendations on a possible pardon the judge is limited to the facts of the case, that is, a judge is not to recommend pardon if he can’t provide good reason for a pardon, reasons found in objective circumstances of the specific case. The position of the king is much freer. He may look at the person, the subjective, the individual and, the excusable. He can for his advise on what to see in Belgium and the Netherlands. Cf also letter from Knut Olivecrona to Christian Naumann 23/2 1871 E 4851 RA. 1 The name is given as ”Ch. Aumann”, p 12 Hello 1867 Jur Dödsstraff Kaps, UUB. 2 Olivecrona upheld the sentence of death of Nils Peter Persson Hagström but recommended pardon, statsrådsprotokoll (justitieärende) 4/2 1887 NJrA RA, note in B 187 m:27 UUB. 3 Notes concerning cases in supreme court 25/4 1882, 31/10 1883, 3/5 1886 B 187 m 27 UUB. 4 Note for 10/3 1876 in diary of Knut Olivecrona Kartong 17 OFA RA. 5 Christian Naumann: U. P. M. Oscar II vol 100 BFA. Naumann mentions that has thirteen years experience as supreme court judge and he was appointed 4/12 1860, Jägerskiöld 1987- 89 p 467. 49
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 and 46: exceptional circumstances of the cr
Page 47: A few days later Olivecrona and Osc
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?