Häktad eller omedelbart omhändertagen? : en studie om akuta frihetsberövanden av unga lagöverträdare

Sammanfattning: This thesis deals with the question of how Swedish society responds when juveniles commit crimes. The focus is social work co-operating with the legal system and the interaction between these two. The aim of this study is to make visible/analyse factors that affect the choice between treatment and correction of juveniles in an emergency situation, when there is a necessity to choose between immediate preventative custody on the one hand, and detention on the other. This study analyses the selection through outcome patterns. Theoretically the base is six concepts; system/practice, and treatment/correction. Together they form a model where the actors (the social services/the police/the attorney/county administrative courts/district courts) on this juvenile field can be situated. The strategies of the actors’ decision-making are implied by either norm-rational decision-making or goal-rational decision-making. Empirical data is studied through records of immediate custody and detention of juveniles aged 15-18 years old. The immediate denial of freedom represents, in the Swedish legislation, a process whereby social services and law enforcers meet and decide whether to treat or correct the juvenile. This selection is the focus of the empirical study of this thesis. In 1992, 1998 and 2003 a national overall survey was made of all juveniles aged 15-18 years that have been either in immediate custody or in detention or both. Documentation was obtained from the courts. The results show that the general denial of freedom of juveniles have increased greatly during the years 1992, 1998 and 2003, and especially from 1998 to 2003. Almost all of the acts concern boys, even though girls are making at break-through in 2003. There are differences between the groups that either have been in detention or in immediate custody in ways of “survey-year”, “ethnic background”, “age” and “categorising of crime”. This study shows a large discrepancy between legislation and the legal practice.