Thinking with Bevereley Skeggs - Stockholms universitet

on social rights, public responsibility, a holistic view, a minimumstandard of living and the use of preventive measures (Govt.Bill 2000/01:80). To date, the right to assistance (4:1 SoL) isalso based on needs, rather than on cause and fault. The Actconflicts with the logic of liberalism, since it is built on structuraltheories that clash with a system of ideas based on individualresponsibility. The distribution of welfare according to need isalso a profoundly anti-capitalist concept (McGregor 1999).The Victim of Crime as a Trojan HorseBut now the fundamental values of the Social Services Act mightbe in danger. In 2001, a new provision of support to victims ofcrime was incorporated in the Social Service Act. Alongsidespecial provisions concerning other groups in the 5th Chapterof the Act, such as children, youths, elderly persons, personswith functional impairments, substance abusers and relativecarers, the provisions concerning support to victims of crimecan be found in a separate section of the Act (5:11 SoL). Theprovisions of section 5:11 in the Social Services Act did notchange the legal responsibility of the social services or lead toany strengthening of the rights of victims of crime. It is primarilya recommendation to the social services to ensure that this groupis supported (Ljungwald & Hollander 2007).Even the preparatory materials indicate that the reform doesnot effect any legal changes (Govt. Bill 2000/01:79). Support tovictims of crime was already a responsibility falling within theambit of the social services under other provisions of the Act (cf.2:2 and 3:1 SoL). Just as before section 5:11 was introduced, anyvictim of crime had the right to apply for assistance within thelimits of section 4:1 of the Act. Under these provisions it doesnot matter, however, whether the person in need is a victim ofcrime or not. The right to assistance is not linked to any specificsituation of an individual person or a group of persons (Govt. Bill2000/01:80).31