Knut Olivecrona and his ”Om dödsstraffet”. - Figuras

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