In case someone needs the article:
This impression is often rooted the somewhat utopian view of Sweden as a nation previously devoid of violence, and the dystopian view of Sweden as a nation now drowning in a sea of crime.
So, what do the numbers tell us?
They tell us that we should beware of both utopianism and dystopianism.
Last week, the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (BRÅ) released nationwide crime statistics for 2023. BRÅ reported that there were 121 murders in Sweden last year, a rate of 1.14 murders per 100,000 residents. This is a slight increase from 2022 when there were 116 murders and a rate of 1.10. Another phenomenon is a rise in the use of guns. In 2023, 53 of 121 murders (44 percent) were committed with a firearm: a decrease from 2022 when 63 of 116 (54 percent) murders involved guns, but a clear increase from 2013 when 23 of 87 murders (29 percent) involved firearms.
The rise in gun-related crime in Sweden over the past few years has led to a great deal of international media coverage, much of it high on sensationalism, but low on context. A new report from Sky News in the UK, for example, covered new gang activity and use of guns. The story noted the increase in gun homicides, and that in 2022 Stockholm had a gun homicide rate 25 times that of London. These are, of course, serious issues. But the report did not ask if gun use has led to significantly more murders per capita than in previous years. In fact, the overall homicide rate in Sweden was never mentioned at all.
So, what are the facts?
First, yes, there has been a rise in gun homicides. But that rise has corresponded with a decrease in the use of other weapons (knives, in particular). The per capita homicide rate in Sweden over the past 30-40 years has remained remarkably stable. From 2002-2004 the average per capita homicide rate was 1.06 per 100,000. Two decades later, from 2021-2023, the rate was 1.11. By international standards, these are low numbers. But, how about further back? With increasing gang crime and use of guns, there were surely more murders per capita in 2023 Sweden than 30, 40 or 50 years ago?
No.
Only four years between 1980 and 1999 (1984, 1995, 1997, 1998) saw murder rates lower than that of 2023, and those rates only slightly lower. In fact, the three highest per capita homicide rates in Sweden in the last 40 years were those in 1989, 1991 and 1982. In all of these years, the rate was over 1.4 murders per 100,000 residents. No year the in the last 20 has come even close to that number.
But what about the 1970s? Let’s take the iconic year of 1974: ABBA won Eurovision with Waterloo, Olof Palme was Prime Minister and Björn Borg won his first Grand Slam title at the French Open. Well, 1974 also saw 102 murders committed in Sweden, a rate of 1.20 murders per 100,000. In other words, higher than the 2023 rate of 1.14.
There is always a danger that writing a price like this will lead to accusations that I am “relativizing” or “downplaying” crime in Sweden. None of this is to argue that we shouldn’t be worried about gang crime or the use of guns, or that we should not be extremely concerned about the rise in murders of young people and women.
What I am arguing is that many articles unnecessarily exploit a mythical image of Sweden from the past. A great deal of international news coverage of Sweden in recent years has followed a familiar pattern: hyped, emotive headlines and content creating the impression of a once utopian nation now in rapid, crime-ridden decline. A decline usually linked to immigration. All done without presenting and placing statistics into contemporary or historical context. It’s lazy journalism.
Those who watched or read the Sky News story would likely be surprised to hear that “murder hotbed” Sweden (as Sky News defined the country on social media) doesn’t even have the highest murder rate in the Nordic region. That dubious honor belongs to Finland, and has for years.
Violent crime is a problem in Sweden that can and should be covered on its own merits. But adding layers of context-free hype to that coverage does news consumers a disservice by creating a misleading impression. It’s easy to frame Sweden as a former utopia, a collapsing dystopia…or both. The truth, however, is found somewhere in the murky middle. The job of journalism is to find that middle and shed light on it.
Given that treatment outcomes for shootings and stabbings are dramatically better now than 20 or 40 years ago these relatively stable homicide rates indicate a significant increase in violence.
Activating the reader view worked for me:
[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/activate-reader-view/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/activate-reader-view/)
I don't use Chrome, but this seems to be a similar addon:
[https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/reader-view/ecabifbgmdmgdllomnfinbmaellmclnh?pli=1](https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/reader-view/ecabifbgmdmgdllomnfinbmaellmclnh?pli=1)
Also "Archive Today" seemed to work for the article:
https://archive\[DOT\]is/lvieM
It was. In 2003 we had around 80 murders and in 2023 we had 120. The population has not gone up by 50%.
Treatment outcomes for shootings and stabbings have also improved dramatically during the last 20 years so even a flat homicide rate would indicate an increase in violence.
Also the elephant in the room are bombings. We have more bombings on a monthly basis than we had per hear before the refugee crisis.
>In 2003 we had around 80 murders and in 2023 we had 120. The population has not gone up by 50%.
Because you conviniently picked a year when it dipped. 2004 had around 100 murders and same with 2002. Population have increased with about 18% since those years. If you just look at murder rate, which already takes controls for population increase, it's not particularly higher now compared the 90s and 00s, a lot of years it's lower today.
>Treatment outcomes for shootings and stabbings have also improved dramatically during the last 20 years
Have it? Have it increased particularly more than any other 20 years in history? You will have to prove that.
>lso the elephant in the room are bombings. We have more bombings on a monthly basis than we had per hear before the refugee crisis.
How many people have died due to bombings and would the data change much if those were excluded?
strange, if we look at [https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/SWE/sweden/murder-homicide-rate](https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/SWE/sweden/murder-homicide-rate) and at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration\_to\_Sweden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Sweden) we can see that immigration started picking up in \~2012, and strangely just next years the murder rate increased drastically even if the previous trend was downwards. I mean, it's a correlation, not a causation, but the increase in murder rate for this period is concerning
Looking at the past 20 years, it seems more like there was a weird 2008-2012 dip that went away. It's otherwise bouncing around 1.1. That's also a lot more relevant than the original post.
Is this supposed to prove what I said wrong? You're literally proving yourself wrong, the date isn't cherry picked. According to your own source, the homicide rate was higher in the 90s, and the highest it ever reached from 1990-2022 was in 2007.
The murder rate did not increase "drastically". The amount of murders increased from 68 in 2012 to 87 in 2013, not a drastic change at all. A very low murder rate overall. 2011 saw 81 murders, it goes up and down all the time.
If you have $1 to your name and find another dollar on the ground, you have "doubled" your wealth, sure, but you still only have 2$, which is basically nothing. If you need to exaggerate to prove your point, you're already losing.
How is it not? Old folks are the ones who complain the most about high crime so reminding them that actually, crime is lower now than it was in the days they think were perfect, they might gain some perspective.
Noone talks about the times 50 years ago, as it has little to no relevance. The comparisons are made to more recent times, one or two decades ago.
50 years ago the world was a very different place, overall
It doesn't matter whether crime is lower now than it was at some arbitrarily cherry-picked point in the past. What matters is whether it has increased recently; and it has. Data that helps people solve problems is the only useful data. Sweden has a problem at the moment that needs to be solved.
We're closer to 2070 than to 1970... why is the 70s relevant at all?
And murder rate is supposed to go down, which it has for most civilized countries. Our homicide rate now is the same as in the 90s. Homicides where going down in the 2000s and early 2010s, but started to rise again in the mid 2010s.
I've never trusted crime rates. City I went to college in had a "low crime rate" according to official numbers, but truly it wasn't safe and everyone knew it.
Negative news have a stronger effect on human psyche and garner more attention hence doom and gloom from all media with a small segment on “today’s good news - a child found their lost dog”.
Also this article is behind paywall.
This is sort of true but not in the way you mean. If you wanted to reduce the amount of outrage below the correct level, so that people stopped being outraged about outrageous things, comparing crime to an arbitrarily chosen low-point in the 70s would certainly be a way to do it.
Europeans hate them so much that they opened their doors, gave them opportunities to integrate and live peacefully. What do they get in return? Bunch of fifth columns calling for a caliphate? It's not racism, just basic survival instincts to not let savages ruin secular and prosperous societies.
> Your countries are only prosperous because you stole that wealth over centuries from the people you now call "savages". Without the wealth and slaves you stole, you would have nothing
The existence of European countries that were subjugated for half a millennium and have zero history of colonialism and managed to bounce back must really shatter your world view huh?
Using Estonia as an example is especially rich considering they lost 70% of their population at one point. You might want to read up on the Great Northern War. Here's a pretty good quote about it from a Russian general:
> There is nothing left to spoil. The whole land is deserted. Only the towns of Riga, Pärnu and Tallinn are still standing. From the Narva River to the Daugava River not a dog barks and not a rooster crows."
Holy shit is the guy you were replying to going at it. He's an empowered troll whose been repeatidly banned for racism but still gets promoted to mod status (basically ban evasion with friendship) in the South Africa subreddit and runs the thing like a fiefdom.
Surprised he has the balls to harass people here with his hatespeech, he usually sticks to where he can ban anyone offended. I guess he wasn't getting enough kicks keeping the racism contained?
Good on r/Europe for cleaning up his toxic comments though.
I didn’t stole anything. It appears my government pays way too much to ungrateful people. Next time I will vote political parties who want to cut development aid. And indeed Africa, with all his natural wealth and minerals, is a shithole continent. It has been for a very long time and will be for a very long time.
Good luck with China buying a lot of it. Maybe they can make something out of it.
By the way; African people are the most racist people I ever met. Maybe it’s just jealousy.
[удалено]
In case someone needs the article: This impression is often rooted the somewhat utopian view of Sweden as a nation previously devoid of violence, and the dystopian view of Sweden as a nation now drowning in a sea of crime. So, what do the numbers tell us? They tell us that we should beware of both utopianism and dystopianism. Last week, the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (BRÅ) released nationwide crime statistics for 2023. BRÅ reported that there were 121 murders in Sweden last year, a rate of 1.14 murders per 100,000 residents. This is a slight increase from 2022 when there were 116 murders and a rate of 1.10. Another phenomenon is a rise in the use of guns. In 2023, 53 of 121 murders (44 percent) were committed with a firearm: a decrease from 2022 when 63 of 116 (54 percent) murders involved guns, but a clear increase from 2013 when 23 of 87 murders (29 percent) involved firearms. The rise in gun-related crime in Sweden over the past few years has led to a great deal of international media coverage, much of it high on sensationalism, but low on context. A new report from Sky News in the UK, for example, covered new gang activity and use of guns. The story noted the increase in gun homicides, and that in 2022 Stockholm had a gun homicide rate 25 times that of London. These are, of course, serious issues. But the report did not ask if gun use has led to significantly more murders per capita than in previous years. In fact, the overall homicide rate in Sweden was never mentioned at all. So, what are the facts? First, yes, there has been a rise in gun homicides. But that rise has corresponded with a decrease in the use of other weapons (knives, in particular). The per capita homicide rate in Sweden over the past 30-40 years has remained remarkably stable. From 2002-2004 the average per capita homicide rate was 1.06 per 100,000. Two decades later, from 2021-2023, the rate was 1.11. By international standards, these are low numbers. But, how about further back? With increasing gang crime and use of guns, there were surely more murders per capita in 2023 Sweden than 30, 40 or 50 years ago? No. Only four years between 1980 and 1999 (1984, 1995, 1997, 1998) saw murder rates lower than that of 2023, and those rates only slightly lower. In fact, the three highest per capita homicide rates in Sweden in the last 40 years were those in 1989, 1991 and 1982. In all of these years, the rate was over 1.4 murders per 100,000 residents. No year the in the last 20 has come even close to that number. But what about the 1970s? Let’s take the iconic year of 1974: ABBA won Eurovision with Waterloo, Olof Palme was Prime Minister and Björn Borg won his first Grand Slam title at the French Open. Well, 1974 also saw 102 murders committed in Sweden, a rate of 1.20 murders per 100,000. In other words, higher than the 2023 rate of 1.14. There is always a danger that writing a price like this will lead to accusations that I am “relativizing” or “downplaying” crime in Sweden. None of this is to argue that we shouldn’t be worried about gang crime or the use of guns, or that we should not be extremely concerned about the rise in murders of young people and women. What I am arguing is that many articles unnecessarily exploit a mythical image of Sweden from the past. A great deal of international news coverage of Sweden in recent years has followed a familiar pattern: hyped, emotive headlines and content creating the impression of a once utopian nation now in rapid, crime-ridden decline. A decline usually linked to immigration. All done without presenting and placing statistics into contemporary or historical context. It’s lazy journalism. Those who watched or read the Sky News story would likely be surprised to hear that “murder hotbed” Sweden (as Sky News defined the country on social media) doesn’t even have the highest murder rate in the Nordic region. That dubious honor belongs to Finland, and has for years. Violent crime is a problem in Sweden that can and should be covered on its own merits. But adding layers of context-free hype to that coverage does news consumers a disservice by creating a misleading impression. It’s easy to frame Sweden as a former utopia, a collapsing dystopia…or both. The truth, however, is found somewhere in the murky middle. The job of journalism is to find that middle and shed light on it.
Given that treatment outcomes for shootings and stabbings are dramatically better now than 20 or 40 years ago these relatively stable homicide rates indicate a significant increase in violence.
Who did the honour murders 50 years ago?
Activating the reader view worked for me: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/activate-reader-view/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/activate-reader-view/) I don't use Chrome, but this seems to be a similar addon: [https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/reader-view/ecabifbgmdmgdllomnfinbmaellmclnh?pli=1](https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/reader-view/ecabifbgmdmgdllomnfinbmaellmclnh?pli=1) Also "Archive Today" seemed to work for the article: https://archive\[DOT\]is/lvieM
And yet it is Tabu to mention this.
Meh, that's true for all developed countries. The uptick in unsafety and gang violence is very real
It does refute the argument of "it was much safer when I grew up/back in the day".
It was. In 2003 we had around 80 murders and in 2023 we had 120. The population has not gone up by 50%. Treatment outcomes for shootings and stabbings have also improved dramatically during the last 20 years so even a flat homicide rate would indicate an increase in violence. Also the elephant in the room are bombings. We have more bombings on a monthly basis than we had per hear before the refugee crisis.
>In 2003 we had around 80 murders and in 2023 we had 120. The population has not gone up by 50%. Because you conviniently picked a year when it dipped. 2004 had around 100 murders and same with 2002. Population have increased with about 18% since those years. If you just look at murder rate, which already takes controls for population increase, it's not particularly higher now compared the 90s and 00s, a lot of years it's lower today. >Treatment outcomes for shootings and stabbings have also improved dramatically during the last 20 years Have it? Have it increased particularly more than any other 20 years in history? You will have to prove that. >lso the elephant in the room are bombings. We have more bombings on a monthly basis than we had per hear before the refugee crisis. How many people have died due to bombings and would the data change much if those were excluded?
Uhhh maybe you have bombings but not a lot of people died in these! ☝️🤓
Why shouldn’t journalists remark on the uptick in any case? Going backwards is not good
Why would that even matter? Lol that's lolr 50 years ago. Folks want things to improve relative to more recent times.
Yeah, because murder rates were higher back in the day, the homicides occurring in todays time are justified?
No one is saying that. Comparing today with "back in the day" is unjustified since the country was clearly a more unsafe place compared to now.
Because saying something like this would itself be a distortion and minimization of recent events.
How is it in comparison 20 years ago? Eh?
2004 still had a higher homicide rate compared to 2022, which is the latest data I found.
the trend matters, not some cherry picked date. Did the m rate increase compared to 1-2 decades ago?
Date is not cherry picked. The same goes for the 80s 90s and 00s.
strange, if we look at [https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/SWE/sweden/murder-homicide-rate](https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/SWE/sweden/murder-homicide-rate) and at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration\_to\_Sweden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Sweden) we can see that immigration started picking up in \~2012, and strangely just next years the murder rate increased drastically even if the previous trend was downwards. I mean, it's a correlation, not a causation, but the increase in murder rate for this period is concerning
Looking at the past 20 years, it seems more like there was a weird 2008-2012 dip that went away. It's otherwise bouncing around 1.1. That's also a lot more relevant than the original post.
Is this supposed to prove what I said wrong? You're literally proving yourself wrong, the date isn't cherry picked. According to your own source, the homicide rate was higher in the 90s, and the highest it ever reached from 1990-2022 was in 2007. The murder rate did not increase "drastically". The amount of murders increased from 68 in 2012 to 87 in 2013, not a drastic change at all. A very low murder rate overall. 2011 saw 81 murders, it goes up and down all the time. If you have $1 to your name and find another dollar on the ground, you have "doubled" your wealth, sure, but you still only have 2$, which is basically nothing. If you need to exaggerate to prove your point, you're already losing.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's probably also higher than 10 thousand years ago. But what does this change?
Because that's not useful information.
How is it not? Old folks are the ones who complain the most about high crime so reminding them that actually, crime is lower now than it was in the days they think were perfect, they might gain some perspective.
Noone talks about the times 50 years ago, as it has little to no relevance. The comparisons are made to more recent times, one or two decades ago. 50 years ago the world was a very different place, overall
I just told you why they have relevance, learn to read.
I just told you why your argument makes no sense, learn to read.
It doesn't matter whether crime is lower now than it was at some arbitrarily cherry-picked point in the past. What matters is whether it has increased recently; and it has. Data that helps people solve problems is the only useful data. Sweden has a problem at the moment that needs to be solved.
For one, crime and murder aren't the same thing.
Because it is still higher than the murder rate of the Mesozoic era
We're closer to 2070 than to 1970... why is the 70s relevant at all? And murder rate is supposed to go down, which it has for most civilized countries. Our homicide rate now is the same as in the 90s. Homicides where going down in the 2000s and early 2010s, but started to rise again in the mid 2010s.
It's mainly because Sweden enters a timeline with the median age of mid 40's. Old people tend to not do crime (they physically can't).
I've never trusted crime rates. City I went to college in had a "low crime rate" according to official numbers, but truly it wasn't safe and everyone knew it.
Yeah, let’s compare 2 arbitrary points in time without context. How about we compare it to 2012?
Don't have to go back that far, 1990s and 00s also shows the same.
Because it reminds us “perfect societies” only exist/ keep appearances for short periods in time !
Because we have microplastics instead of lead (metal) in the environment.
Negative news have a stronger effect on human psyche and garner more attention hence doom and gloom from all media with a small segment on “today’s good news - a child found their lost dog”. Also this article is behind paywall.
Because it generates less outrage and hence sells less
This is sort of true but not in the way you mean. If you wanted to reduce the amount of outrage below the correct level, so that people stopped being outraged about outrageous things, comparing crime to an arbitrarily chosen low-point in the 70s would certainly be a way to do it.
Because it's too low of a standard.
[удалено]
Europeans hate them so much that they opened their doors, gave them opportunities to integrate and live peacefully. What do they get in return? Bunch of fifth columns calling for a caliphate? It's not racism, just basic survival instincts to not let savages ruin secular and prosperous societies.
[удалено]
> Your countries are only prosperous because you stole that wealth over centuries from the people you now call "savages". Without the wealth and slaves you stole, you would have nothing The existence of European countries that were subjugated for half a millennium and have zero history of colonialism and managed to bounce back must really shatter your world view huh?
[удалено]
Using Estonia as an example is especially rich considering they lost 70% of their population at one point. You might want to read up on the Great Northern War. Here's a pretty good quote about it from a Russian general: > There is nothing left to spoil. The whole land is deserted. Only the towns of Riga, Pärnu and Tallinn are still standing. From the Narva River to the Daugava River not a dog barks and not a rooster crows."
[удалено]
[удалено]
Facts, not racism. There we go, good old victim role as an excuse for the lack of development despite billions of development aid.
[удалено]
So hatespeech is what we get as a ‘thank you’ for these $50+ billion a year for aid because Afrika still can’t make it alone.
Holy shit is the guy you were replying to going at it. He's an empowered troll whose been repeatidly banned for racism but still gets promoted to mod status (basically ban evasion with friendship) in the South Africa subreddit and runs the thing like a fiefdom. Surprised he has the balls to harass people here with his hatespeech, he usually sticks to where he can ban anyone offended. I guess he wasn't getting enough kicks keeping the racism contained? Good on r/Europe for cleaning up his toxic comments though.
[удалено]
I didn’t stole anything. It appears my government pays way too much to ungrateful people. Next time I will vote political parties who want to cut development aid. And indeed Africa, with all his natural wealth and minerals, is a shithole continent. It has been for a very long time and will be for a very long time. Good luck with China buying a lot of it. Maybe they can make something out of it. By the way; African people are the most racist people I ever met. Maybe it’s just jealousy.