Knut Olivecrona and his ”Om dödsstraffet”. - Figuras

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Despite his harsh words and deep feelings, often conveyed on the subject of executions, Olivecrona liked to present himself as a pragmatic abolitionist, far from the fanatic opponents might portray, stressing that his rejection of the penalty of death was based on it unnecessity in many countries, especially those, as the four Nordic, where the long periods of non-application show that it is not necessary. The execution of a severer punishment than necessary is also not just. But there could be situations were the penalty of death would be necessary.1 The examples could be found in societies without order where no other means to defend justice is to be found. In a text written sometime in the time between the parliaments of 1867 and 1868 Olivecrona mentions Greece and Mexico as countries where this could be the situation.2 This concept of the disappearance of the penalty of death as a cultural development was common at the time, even retentionist like Karr used it as we have seen. Among abolitionists it was quite common to consider only ’civilised’ countries – it was there development, also to abolition took place.3 Olivecrona as most nineteenth century thinkers seems oblivious of the consequences of this line of thought. European colonial powers were and would be using the penalty of death in their colonies even though it was abolished in the European country itself. So was the case with the Netherlands where the penalty of death was abolished in 1870 but stayed in use in the colonies.4 In Belgium where no executions except in relation to war had taken place since 1863 executions were frequent in the African colonies.5 But there were cases more close to home. At several occasions there had in Norway been given special considerations to the deterrent effect of a decision on the Sami population, most notably in the decision not to pardon but execute Aslak Hætta och Mons Somby in 1854. 6 The conservatism of Olivecrona often noted in purely constitutional matters is mixed with a quite radical reforming spirit in many other aspects. Not only in his struggle for better prisons and for reformatories for youth in trouble with the law or in his abhorrence for capital punishment but also in his motives. In a commentary to the execution of Carl Otto Andersson Olivecrona regarded the resumption of executions as putting the cultural development fifty years back.7 1 Letters from Knut Olivecrona to Karl von Amira 18/12 and 27/12 1892 Amiraiana 1 BSB. 2 Frågan Om Dödsstraffets Afskaffande B 187 m:25 UUB. 3 On the idea of civilised countries and cultures see Dölemeyer 2001 p 124 sqq. 4 Concerning the Netherlandic Indies see Ruller 1989 p 228 sq, Hoogte 1989 and Matthes 1887. Also in Curaçao and Surinam the penalty of death was preserved, Van der Grinten 1937 p 113 sq. The last execution in Surinam took place in 1927, Man A Hing 1983 p iv. 5 Stengers 1996 2 p 112 sqq. 6 Letter from Fredrik Brandt to Knut Olivecrona 31/12 1869- 2/1 1870 G 197 k:6 UUB; cf Zorgdrager 1989 p 319. 7 Note for 6/3 1872 in diary of Knut Olivecrona Kartong 17 OFA RA, ”Exc. De Geer, vilken vid 1868 års riksdag förhindrade dödsstraffets utplånande ur strafflagen; han för oss 50 år 52
An ideal of development, of a brighter future, was thus also an ideal of Olivecrona. In the history of Knut Olivecrona and abolitionism there is a temporal perspective easily put: hope of the 1860’s turned into disappointment of the 1870’s. This is not an exclusive perspective of Olivecrona or Sweden, one might make a case that the 1860's and the generation active then was something special in the history of abolitionism. Olivecrona himself sees as one of the most important reasons for the change was the French-German war of 1870. It's effect had been demoralising.1 Probably Olivecrona wasn't primarily referring to the war itself but its aftermath in Paris that seems to have been deeply chocking for many in several ways. Also, from the 1870's the abolitionism and the debate again changed. The importance of specific publications diminished and books on a grander scale became rarer. When the second edition of Om dödsstraffet came it was already an uncommon type of book. Instead much of the debate eventually moved into organisations such as Deutsche Juristentag, congrès internationale pénitentiare, and société général des prisons. Compared to earlier organisations these primarily and increasingly were the arena for professionals and not for the interested public. Also a new generation was coming. Already when société générale des prisons was founded, Charles Lucas had no formal position. He was, as Martine Kaluszynski puts it, ”père spirituel de la société et de la reforme pénitentiaire.”2 Was it an era of great abolitionists coming to an end? Maybe, obvious is however that the attitude to the penalty of death was changing – for some decades it was losing its role of symbolic question. In Sweden Olivecrona was both questioned and respected, isolated and revered, but in any case he was of importance. There was nobody in the Nordic countries that could challenge his primacy as abolitionist. In an international perspective, however he was typical, maybe exceedingly typical. Abbreviations AEG Archives d'État de Genève AK Andra kammaren (second chamber) BFA Bernadotteska familjearkivet, Stockholm Bg Borgarståndet (burghers) Bo Bondeståndet (peasants) BPU Bibliotheque publique et universitaire, Genève BSB Bayerische Staatsbibliothek tillbaka i vår kulturutveckling. Femtio år härefter, skola våra efterkommande förvånas att man ännu 1872 har kunnat anställa en offentlig avrättning i Sverige. Det är ej skäl att skryta med 19de århundradets höga civilisation, så länge folket ska demoraliseras genom åskådandet av delinkventers halshuggande.” 1 Draft of letter fromKnut Olivecrona to William Tallack february 1876 G 197 k:17 UUB. 2 Kaluszynski 1999 p 165. 53
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 and 48: A few days later Olivecrona and Osc
Page 49 and 50: Those feelings, however, were not p
Page 51: moratoriums were appreciated roads
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?