[ad_1]
Published:
Updated:
Published:
Updated:
It is no feeling that the woman has been liberated.
Keeping your son locked up for 28 years is testimony to a profound human tragedy, but it is not necessarily a crime.
“The woman who was arrested for probable cause on suspicion of unlawful deprivation of liberty, serious bodily injury and serious bodily injury has now been released.”
Thus began a press release from the Public Ministry, which was telegraphed a few hours ago.
It may seem extraordinary. Almost 30 years in isolation. Serious physical injuries in a man who is now over 40 years old and who stopped going to school at twelve. We simply shouldn’t talk about mental injuries.
But there is no reason to have high blood pressure because of the decision of the prosecutor Emma Olsson. For a couple of reasons.
First, suspicions are not thrown away. After the man was questioned, they themselves weakened, but the investigation continues.
Photo: JERKER IVARSSON
The mother was released on Wednesday afternoon.
Now, the police continue to try to resolve circumstances dating back to 1992, when Carl Bildt was prime minister, Philips launched its first CD player and ended the Cold War. It will take time.
And secondly, why keep the mother locked up?
One reason for arresting a person is that there is a risk that crime will continue. That risk hardly exists in this case.
Another reason is to fear that the person under investigation is fleeing. Sorry, but it would be surprising if a person in their seventies who barely moved out of the area of origin for a long time suddenly fled to some strange place where there is no extradition agreement with Sweden.
Then there are research reasons. Have a suspect take action to influence the preliminary investigation. Destroy evidence, try to influence witnesses. It could be a reason to bring the woman before a detention judge.
In this case, it is in itself conceivable to try to persuade the son not to talk to the police or cut his story, but preventing this from happening is not difficult.
The law says the state, if possible, should avoid keeping people incarcerated. That is a good beginning.
And after all, the police may be more assisted by the woman receiving the care she seems to need rather than being locked up in the Kronoberg detention center.
For those who want to, of course, there is the opportunity to start gossiping or insulting lax prosecutors and poor laws.
Let me then point out that the opposite of the release of persons suspected of serious crimes is much more common, namely that persons are deprived of their liberty for fragile reasons.
Some would probably be horrified if they knew how little it may take for arrest or even detention.
Now there may be no protests. There is reason to believe that reactions in some circles would have been much stronger had it been a Muslim who had kept his daughter in prison.
The purple Swedish mother and son are, in terms of ethnicity and the relationship between the sexes, another matter.
Finally:
An illegal deprivation of liberty presupposes that someone is kidnapped or imprisoned.
But if the man is not mentally handicapped or physically inferior to his 70-year-old mother, he should be able to leave the house if he so wishes. After all, he is an adult.
The crime requires intent, which means that the woman must have understood that the son did not want to live with her and by force or threat of violence forced him to stay. “You go everywhere” is not enough.
The same goes for other titles. Generally, a person is not required to seek care for injury or illness.
It is possible to affirm that the woman deformed her son as a child and that the manipulation continued until the end.
But it is the law in high school that could pass to the Supreme Court and eventually land in Strasbourg and the European Court.
This criminal investigation could be closed soon. But that does not mean the tragedy should be buried. Much is strange in the sad fate of these two people. The lessons can be reasonably learned.
Published:
Published:
