Ungdomskriminalitet og den kriminelle lavalder: En tekstanalyse af politiske tekster, der omhandler ungdomskriminalitet og den kriminelle lavalder

Abstract

Børne- og ungdomskriminalitet er et emne som ofte er i mediernes søgelys, og i de fleste tilfælde drejer det sig om chokerende og enkeltstående hændelser, der skaber en bølge af politiske reaktioner og efterspil. De seneste år har de politiske reaktioner på disse enkeltsager ofte resulteret i en diskussion om, hvorvidt den kriminelle lavalder i Danmark bør nedsættes samt en diskussion af, hvordan vi som samfund skal reagere og håndtere børn og unge som begår kriminalitet (Jappe, 2006, s. 9). Da Lars Løkke Rasmussen åbnede Folketinget i oktober 2006 udtrykte han i sin åbningstale bekymring for børne- og ungdomskriminaliteten i Danmark. Han sagde blandt andet: "Vi skal have fat i kraven på de unge, som er på afveje. Vi skal vise dem, at det samfund, de vender ryggen, ikke har opgivet dem. Det gør vi ikke ved at lægge hovedet på skrå og se bekymrede ud. Det gør vi gennem konsekvent handling. Derfor foreslår vi en sænkning af den kriminelle lavalder til 14 år". (Rasmussen, 2009) I 2010 sænkede VK-regeringen således den kriminelle lavalder fra 15 år til 14 år, og brød dermed med over 100 år med en kriminel lavalder på 15 år i Danmark (Beim, 2012). Men sænkelsen af den kriminelle lavalder fik meget kritik, særligt fordi beslutningen var truffet stik imod et flertal af VK-regeringens egen Ungdomskommission og fordi, at en lang række af eksperter advarede mod at behandle børn på samme måde som voksne i retssystemet (Justitsministeriet, 2012). I stedet for at nedsætte den kriminelle lavalder anbefalede Ungekommissionen, at man skulle effektivere indsatsen over for børn under den kriminelle lavalder gennem styrkelse af de ikke-strafferetslige reaktionsmuligheder. Ungekommissionens bekymring gik særligt på, at en sænkelse af den kriminelle lavalder kunne forventes at have en negativ kriminalpræventiv effekt på målgruppen (Justitsministeriet, 2012). Da Danmark ved valget i 2011 fik en ny regeringen med Helle Thorning-Schmidt i front (statsministeriet.dk, 2015), blev lovændringen, der medførte en sænkelse af kriminelle lavalder, tilbagerullet. I sin åbningstale af Folketinget i oktober 2011 sagde Helle Thorning-Schmidt: "Jeg vil sige klart og tydeligt, at jeg står ikke i spidsen for en regering, der sender børn i fængsel." (Thorning-Schmidt, 2011). Den 5. november 2014 fremsatte Karsten Lauritzen (Venstre), Peter Skaarup (Dansk Folkeparti), Simon Emil Ammitzbøll (Liberal Alliance) og Tom Benhke (Det Konservativ Folkeparti) et forslag til folketingsbeslutning om etablering af en ungdomsdomstol for børn og unge mellem 12-17 år samt nedsættelse af den kriminelle lavalder til 12 år (bilag 1). På tidspunktet hvor lovforslaget blev præsenteret, var den daværende regering stærkt imod nedsættelse af den kriminelle lavalder, og lovforslaget så derfor ikke ud til at vinde indpas. Dette ændrede sig dog, da Venstre efter folketingsvalget i juni 2015 blev Danmarks nye regering. Debatten om den kriminelle lavalder er derfor endnu en gang på den politiske dagsorden, og en sænkelse af den kriminelle lavalder kan derfor meget vel blive aktuel. De politiske partier har forskellige syn på og holdninger til den kriminelle lavalder, og fremstiller både målgruppen og problematikken omkring ungdomskriminalitet forskelligt. I kraft af politikernes magtfulde positioner i samfundet, er de i høj grad med til at påvirke måden, hvorpå den enkelte borger taler om og forstår børn og unge, der begår kriminalitet. I dette speciale ønsker jeg derfor at undersøge, hvilken retorik politikerne anvender i deres fremstilling af børn og unge som begår kriminalitet, samt lave en analyse af, de argumenter politikerne fremsætter i debatten for og imod en nedsættelse af den kriminelle lavalder. Afslutningsvist vil jeg redegøre for, hvilke kriminologiske tankegange kan identificeres i de fremsatte argumenter.

Juvenile delinquency is an issue, which is frequently discussed in society and media. Often, isolated incidents, where young people have committed a shocking criminal act, end up receiving immense media attention resulting in political discussions about juvenile delinquency. People have different views on how to prevent juvenile delinquency and often disagree on how society should handle juvenile offenders. This disagreement also exists among Danish politicians. The last couple of years, the subject of the age of criminal responsibility has gained increased attention, and in 2010, the liberal government lowered the age of criminal responsibility from 15 to 14 - a law, which has not been altered in 100 years. This amendment was largely criticized, not only by the opposition, but also by the government’s own Youth Commission. After the election in 2011, the new, democratically elected government repealed the amendment, and the age of criminal responsibility was yet again raised to the age of 15. The political parties still disagree on the subject matter of the age of criminal responsibility, and nearly a year before the Liberal Party (Venstre) won the election in 2015, they (and other liberal parties) submitted a motion to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 12. The motion has once again raised the debate, and a lowering of the age of criminal responsibility may once again become a reality. Due to the politicians’ powerful positions in society, their language and rhetoric about the subject matter have a strong influence on the way in which we all speak of and understand juvenile delinquency. The aim of this thesis is to provide the reader with new and critical perspectives on the politicians’ rhetoric and arguments in the debate about the age of criminal responsibility in Denmark. This thesis contains a rhetorical analysis and an argument analysis of carefully selected political articles based on The Toulmin Method, and features from the critical discourse analysis. First, the thesis contains an analysis of the rhetoric that the liberal parties and the Social Democrats use in their portrayal of children and juveniles who have committed a crime. The first part of the thesis also contains an analysis of the arguments, which the liberal parties and the Social Democrats present in the debate in favor of or against lowering the age of criminal responsibility. The analysis of the liberal parties and the Social Democrats’ rhetoric and their arguments shows, that the parties portray children and juveniles who have committed a crime very differently. The liberal parties categorize these young people as young criminals, whereas the Social Democrats use the expression children and young people who have committed a crime. The liberal parties argue in favor of lowering the age of criminal responsibility with the following arguments: The liberal parties believe that there is a great need for lowering the age of criminal responsibility because there is a large group of 14 year-old criminals, which the current social system cannot handle. They also argue that it is important that young people experience that breaking the law has consequences - regardless of age - and that criminal actions must have consequences, especially for the sake of victims and people's general sense of justice. The liberal parties also argue that a lowering of the age of criminal responsibility will increase the children's legal rights. Contrary to the liberal parties, the Social Democrats argue against lowering the age of criminal responsibility with the following arguments: The Social Democrats’ main argument is that children should not be put in jail and should not be placed among adult criminals in the Danish prisons. Instead of legal consequences, the Social Democrats argue, that social services should be involved when children commit crimes. The party also believes that it is more important to focus on preventing crime than to focus on the consequences of crime. The Social Democrats do not believe there is any evidence that juvenile delinquency will be reduced by a lowering of the age of criminal responsibility. Based on the results of the analysis, it can be argued that the liberal parties portray the children and young people who have committed a crime, in a more negative way than the Social Democrats, which can result in moral panic. By creating moral panic, the liberal parties improve their chances of getting the public to support their motion. In the liberal parties’ arguments, thoughts from the criminological theory, Broken Windows, can be identified. The theory and the liberal parties both argue that serious crime can be prevented by consistently punishing less serious crimes. Thoughts from the theory Rational Choice, can also be identified in the liberal parties’ arguments. By lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 12, the liberal parties believe that they are increasing the costs of committing a crime. Like the theory, the liberal parties focus on the circumstances surrounding the criminal act rather than the perpetrator's social and personal circumstances. Contrary to the liberal parties, the Social Democrats focus on the offender’s social circumstances. These thoughts are similar to the line of thinking in the theory Social Bond. The Social Democrats focus more on the sociological aspects of juvenile delinquency than the liberal parties do. In their arguments, the Social Democrats mention social programs where parents, schools, the police, and the social services work together in order to help and prevent that the young people commit another crime. In the analysis it was also concluded that the liberal parties are generally more conservative in their way of thinking and in their portrayal of children and young people who have committed a crime than the Social Democrats.

A master thesis from Aalborg University

Ungdomskriminalitet og den kriminelle lavalder: En tekstanalyse af politiske tekster, der omhandler ungdomskriminalitet og den kriminelle lavalder

[Juvenile Delinquency and the Age of Criminal Responsibility : A rhetorical and argument analysis of political articles regarding juvenile delinquency and the age of criminal responsibility]