With 2018 being election year in Sweden, questions on how to reduce crime have naturally ended up at the forefront of the political agenda. The public attitude towards offenders have, at least to some extent, shaped the tone and tenor of the Swedish criminal policy, as the desire for retribution seem to be the sole motivation underpinning punitive attitudes towards sentencing. Consequently, The Government (as well as the opposition parties) have pledged to battle crime, and also the causes of it, by making strategical political efforts such as suggesting tougher sentencing and the tightening of laws. Although not unequivocally stated, there seems to be a political endeavour to imprison more law-offenders. Though from a legal point of view, the argument is actually the exact opposite. In the Swedish Penal Code Chapter 30 Section 4 it is stated that in choosing a sanction, the court shall pay special attention to any circumstance that argue for the imposition of a less severe punishment than imprisonment.

Paradoxically, the aforementioned principle is largely disregarded as imprisonment may be invoked if it is called for by the “nature of the crime” (henceforth referred to its Swedish term “artbrott”). Artbrott remains as a historical, surviving remnant designed to allow the utilization of deterrent penalties for certain crimes that are of intermediate seriousness. Neither the legislature nor the preparatory works for the statute defines artbrott. The provision is solely rationalized on the basis that some type of crimes are to be given short prison sentences since they are believed to have severe consequences and are more susceptive to deterrent effects. This legal figure composes a derogation from justice as it diverges from the principle of proportionality and also since the offender is used as a mean to affect the demeanor of others.

The overarching purpose of this thesis is – in light of the foregoing – to propose a reduction strategy by examining whether the circumstances that currently are being used by the courts to constitute ground for invoking imprisonment as a result of artbrott status, instead can be included in the assessment and consideration of the seriousness of the offence (i.e. on penal value considerations). A model of such is believed, due to its factual premise, to provide rather clear guidelines and principles for when operationalizing this institution, thus delimiting many of its negative consequences. The results of the analysis suggests that the proposed strategy to a large extent is both feasible and workable, but at the same time would necessitate the legislator taking responsibility by altering the relevant statutory provisions so that the artbrott criteria is based on the same ideological foundation and values as the regulation of Swedish sentencing policy in general.