Opinion pieces, columns and debate articles in newspapers, magazines and public forums.
Opinion article claiming that wrongful rape convictions occur due to overreliance on narratives and insufficient scrutiny of evidence, warning of a broader rule-of-law crisis.
This article claims that Swedish policing and criminal investigations increasingly operate on a presumption of guilt, particularly in sexual crime cases. Citing statements from police representatives and examples from investigations, the piece argues that suspects are often treated as guilty from the outset, with the burden effectively shifting onto them to prove their innocence. The article frames this as a systemic departure from fundamental legal principles such as the presumption of innocence, suggesting that ideological commitments and political pressure have reshaped investigative practices rather than evidence-based reasoning.
(Although published as news-style content on Samnytt, the article advances a clear normative argument and critique of the justice system rather than balanced reporting or original research.)
Debate article asserting that many young men are convicted of rape on weak evidence in ‘word-against-word’ situations and calling for systemic review of legal safeguards.
Debate article describing relatives’ activism on behalf of people they believe are wrongfully convicted, highlighting the human cost of imprisonment, stigma, and prolonged legal processes.
Opinion article describing parental fear that a son might receive a long prison sentence on weak evidence, using it to critique how sexual-offence prosecutions proceed in Sweden.
Opinion article arguing that courts may weigh subjective credibility over objective evidence in rape cases, warning that the presumption of innocence is weakened and calling for a return to strong proof standards. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}
Opinion piece arguing that some sexual-offence convictions in Sweden do not meet the traditional standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, raising concerns about fairness in legal practice.
Debate article contrasting harsh prison sentences in rape cases with lenient outcomes in other contexts to highlight perceived arbitrariness and lack of proportionality in sexual-offence judgments.
Opinion piece comparing Sweden and Norway regarding access to retrials, arguing that Sweden’s exceptionally high threshold makes it difficult to correct miscarriages of justice, particularly in sexual-offence cases.
Debate article arguing that Sweden’s government bears responsibility for systemic weaknesses in sexual-offence adjudication, where courts allegedly convict without sufficient evidence. :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}