[Xylakant]

Beware of the political spin!

The article cited is from 2008 and so nearly five years outdated. The rise has stalled and the trend has been reversing with a slight decline of 1% in 2012 [1]. The biggest problem I see is that the the article glosses over the reasons for such a change. There are multiple reasons why crime statistics change, some merely methodological, but chief among them are two factors:

* Changes in criminal law, classifying new kinds of behavior as a crime or decriminalizing some behavior. (Hello Marihuana legalization!)

* Willingness to report a crime. What used to be a run in among adolescents is nowadays often reported as a violent crime. Any kind of rape or sexual molestation used to be such a stigma on the victim that they were (and still often are) not reported.

Same goes for the rate of solved crimes: A figure of "6%" just glosses over the details. It seems low, but what's more interesting is which crimes get solved. Bike theft has a notoriously low rate of solving the crime (1%) [2] and is very common in some regions, skewing statistics. Same for petty theft. Drug abuse is often reported as a crime. There's no chance to ever solving such crimes on a significant level. Also, how does "6%" compare to the years before? Better? Same? Less?

So be weary when reading and citing those articles. Usually, if only one figure gets cited, you're being mislead.

[1] http://www.bra.se/bra/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statisti... [2] http://www.bra.se/bra/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statisti...

[draugadrotten]

I love your source.

>The rise has stalled and the trend has been reversing with a slight decline of 1% in 2012 [1].

From your source: "Since 2003, the number of reported offences has increased by approximately 147,000 (+12%). Since 1975, the trend in the total number of reported offences has been characterised by a continuous increase."

That a 1% decrease in the statistics of a single year represent any significant change in the trend since 1975 remains to be seen. I'm very skeptical but I will be very happy if it turns out to be true.

[Xylakant]

You're glossing over my main point: Picking a single number without context or interpretation from a statistic is devoid of any meaning.

The statistic measures "reported crimes" as a total value, not even per capita. That's a very long shot from "committed crimes". It's really just only what people report, if it's a crime or not. The number of reported crimes is most likely below the number of actual crimes for most crimes. It's a statistic which must be regarded with big caution. It's an indicator and as such has a value, but without context and analysis the number itself is basically meaningless. Take for example "fraud with help of internet" - that's a crime that basically didn't exist in 2003. It probably wasn't codified in law until much later and it's one of the fastest growing categories. Such changes skew the statistics, context is important. Even the reverse in trend may be due to external factors such as less people reporting drug abuse as a crime.

[draugadrotten]

I agree that crime statistics are highly context sensitive and must be handled with caution. Sweden's rape statistics are a good example. Sweden has more rapes per capita than most countries, it's even the second highest in the world. However, that's because Sweden's definition of rape is including so much more than any other country. Ask Julian Assange about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#Sweden

That new crimes are codified in law, such as "internet fraud", and is one of the fastest growing seems to causing more crimes, not fewer. It doesn't invalidate the comparison between years for all crimes, and unless you want to argue that newly codified crimes are less serious than old ones, I can't really see a problem with new laws being included in statistics, too.

I'd like to conclude saying that I appreciate your posts on this subject and have read them with interest.

[idupree]

Wikipedia's citation in that section[1] says that Swedes are more likely to report crimes, but have a similar actual amount of crimes.

"Sweden stands out within the entire area of crimes against the person in particular, because the registration of crime is more extensive than in the majority of other countries in Europe. This forms the background to, for example, the fact that ten times as many cases of assault are registered in Sweden as in Greece."

"But in the victim survey that exists that permits basic comparison between levels of exposure to sex crimes in ten European countries, Sweden does not top the list, as in the reporting statistics. Instead, Sweden is around the average mark, which is also the case for assaults and threats, despite the fact that compared to other countries, we have many such crimes reported. However, the fact that we are not any worse than many other countries does not mean that the situation is good. If any rape is committed, the level is too high."

[1] http://www.bra.se/bra/bra-in-english/home/news-from-bra/arch...

[Xylakant]

That new crimes are codified in law, such as "internet fraud", and is one of the fastest growing seems to causing more crimes, not fewer. It doesn't invalidate the comparison between years for all crimes, and unless you want to argue that newly codified crimes are less serious than old ones,

There is no problem per se in including newly codified crimes in statistics. It's also perfectly fine that that this causes a rise in those statistics. It still compels caution when reading those statistics:

Let's best take a totally contrived example: Beginning with the first of December, eating Surströmming is forbidden due to new environmental protection laws. This will cause a sudden spike in the crime statistics because once acceptable behavior is now outlawed. It also causes the police to suddenly solve a higher percentage of crimes since the perpetrators are easily identifiable by their smell. Did the world get better? Worse? The statistic just tells us a naked number.

Something similar happens with fraud with help of the internet and probably more with illegal access to computer systems: People were doing it before, but it never showed up in the statistics since even though it was still as bad of a behavior as it is now, it was not illegal since there was no appropriate law.

Figures for rape and sexual molestation are rising? What does that mean? More people getting raped? Or does it mean that even though less people are raped, a higher percentage are in the position to report it? The definition of rape has - rightfully - been broadened in the last decade. In germany, rape in a marriage was only codified as "rape" in 1997 (!) (in words: nineteen nintyseven). That certainly causes a rise in the relevant statistics, but it doesn't mean that more women are raped - it just means that visibility has increased. (which, by the way, is a good thing in itself)

That's what I mean by "context matters". You can't derive any meaning from the naked numbers. In the extreme case, a rise in crime stats may "just" mean that the society decided to outlaw some specific behavior. In reality it's probably a mixed bag of a lot of reasons.

EDIT: Formatting for the quote.

[berntb]

>>However, [the statistics are the 2nd highest on the planet] because Sweden's definition of rape is including so much more than any other country.

I've seen that claim often, but never some real facts which compares data. You don't have any, either?

[hobbe80]

Between 2003 and 2013, the Swedish population grew by 7.8%, which should be taken into account when looking at absolute numbers of reported crimes.

[kzrdude]

> Hello Marihuana legalization

is it legal in Sweden?

[gnerd]

Very much the opposite. In Sweden, even alcohol is a controlled substance and you may recall pressure being put on NL for allowing foreign people to consume cannabis in coffee shops (mainly in Amsterdam), well that pressure was from Sweden who saw the practise as a way for Swedes to get around their laws by flying to Amsterdam for a weekend (although just across the border in Copenhagen, a Swede can buy cannabis at Christiana, it isn't legalized or officially decriminalized, but the police only enforce a few arrests every few years as long as there is no violence or other drugs, no such pressure was placed on Denmark).

It is a throwback to notions from the 19th century, puritanical christian Sweden where the notion was that Swedes have an 'addict gene'.

You can legally have sex with animals though, it isn't even seen as cruel, the thinking back in 1945 when bestiality was legalized with sodomy was why should an otherwise good man be plagued because he has sex with animals (or homosexual sex). Obviously this thinking wouldn't fly in other western nations as the concept of cruelty and consent are very different. I think they are in the process of changing this now, so maybe in a few years they will fall in line with other aspects of international policy as well.

[jeltz]

> It is a throwback to notions from the 19th century, puritanical christian Sweden where the notion was that Swedes have an 'addict gene'.

19th century Sweden was not "puritanical Christian". The ideas of absolute temperance entered through influences from the Anglo-Saxon world, local temperance organizations mostly advocated alcohol use in moderation.

I believe that the idea of Swedes being especially prone to addition also is something recent, but here I am out of my depth. I have not heard it used often by temperance activists and Christians either.

[dalke]

I agree that "puritanical" isn't appropriate for Swedish Lutheranism, but I suspect the previous poster was using "puritanical" more loosely, as a rough antonym to "hedonistic" and not as a specific religious movement or influence.

I'm not sure though about your statement "mostly advocated alcohol use in moderation."

There was the Swedish prohibition referendum in 1922. Just under 50% of the voters wanted an absolute prohibition on "rusdrycker". That includes spirits, wine, and strong beer. The referendum was "För eller mot införande av fullständigt rusdrycksförbud" - "for or against the introduction of the complete prohibition of intoxicating drinks."

(I'm uncertain how to translate 'rusdryck.' I think 'intoxicating drinks' is best, vs. "drinks with alcohol." A rusdryck is currently defined in Sweden (since 1944) as drinks with at least 2.25% alcohol by volume. I don't know what it meant in 1922. IOGT put it at 2% back in the late 1880.

For comparison, in the US the 1919 Volstead Act set the limit as 0.5%, while the 1933 Cullen-Harrison Act raised it to 3.2% by weight (=4% by volume), just a few months before the amendment overturning Prohibition. For that short time, US prohibition laws were less strict than what Sweden would have had.)

In any case, I don't think it's the same as saying that the temperance movements advocated for "alcohol use in moderation." Most of the temperance movements seem to have been for the ban, and relatively fewer temperance organizations (like the "Landsföreningen för folknykterhet utan förbud" - "National Association of Public Temperance Without Prohibition") against it.

As for the Christian influence, from what I can tell, while there were Christian organization in the early 1800s which advocated less alcohol use, it wasn't until the the "new" temperance movements of the late 1800s, with strong US influences, that people advocated for a complete ban. Some, like NGTO, were more specifically Christian than others. I think the modern IOGT-NTO is not Christian, though there are still Christian-based temperance movements in Sweden. As I recall, most people in the more religious area of Sweden voted for the ban, but that could also be an agriculture/small-town vs. industrial/big-city divide.

The modern temperance movement is, as you say, not the same as 100 years ago. IOGT-NTO advocates for reduced use of alcohol, and for the existence of alcohol-free places (like meeting halls). It does not advocate for the ban of alcohol.

[gnerd]

As the other poster mentioned, I was using puritanical to mean strict religious ideas and not the Puritan movement. You will notice I capitalised Sweden but not the word puritanical as it was not a proper noun.

[dalke]

"puritanical" is an adjective, not a noun. :)

I also noticed that you referred to an "addict gene" as a 19th century notion, but the term "gene" wasn't coined until the 20th century.

In any case, no I wasn't aware of a 19th century Sweden based on strict religious ideas. Could you tell me more? My understanding is that the state was working to suppress Pietism in the Lutheran church, and persist with rationalism.

Pietism and Puritanism are similar, and Pietism is a forerunner to the modern evangelical movement in the US, which is why I didn't think that 1800s Sweden had those same sorts of strict religious ideas about one's daily life.

Rather, there were strict religious laws, yes, but they were strict in asserting how Lutheranism was the official church and that there is no other church. Quoting Wikipedia:

In order to curb Pietism several Royal Decrees and Acts of Parliament were proclaimed in the 18th century, which forbid Swedish citizens to practice any religion besides mandatory Lutheran Sunday Mass attendance and daily family devotions. Without the presence of a Lutheran clergyman public religious gatherings were forbidden. It remained illegal until 1860 for Lutheran Swedes to convert to another confession or religion. From then, and unto 1951, it was legal to leave the Church of Sweden for the purpose of becoming a member of another officially recognised religious denomination.

I'm interested in Swedish history, though I don't know all that much about it, so I look forward to your explanation.

[gnerd]

Yes, puritanical is an adjective but the Puritan movement is a proper noun as it is the name of a movement. That is the point I was making. In English the phrase 'proper noun' does not mean I was implying the word puritanical was a noun, it means I was saying it is not a name (which we capitalize and call proper nouns), and therefore I was using it as an adjective. I hope that clears up your confusion.

As for the "addict gene", again, this was supposed to be a synonym phrase for a notion of hereditary weakness, I was not implying it has a genetic basis or that genetics was known before Crick. The phrase "addict gene" was quoted because I have heard it in Sweden (in modern times) when discussing these issues.

I'm hardly an expert on Swedish history, just a person who asks questions when I travel. What I know of Swedish history could be written on the back of a postage stamp. I'm afraid I wasted more time on Roman history in school (as you can imagine, Swedish history doesn't come up very often).

[Xylakant]

Don't thinks so, but I wanted to cite a real-world example of decriminalization that is actually happening in at least some jurisdictions on that planet. That was the first one that came to my mind. Others include

* decriminalization of same-sex intercourse (gay, lesbian).

* general decriminalization of drugs (think portugal)