#swedish law

[sflow-er]

About the settlement in YR S3

A discussion with @scatteredpiecesofme a while back inspired me to look more closely into the settlement between August, Wilhelm and Simon. I already dabbled in criminal justice meta after S2, but I didn't account for a settlement back then, so it's time to update my info!

Posting this, I know it's a topic people have strong feelings about. If you choose to read below the cut, please keep in mind that it's not meant to be a moral judgment. It's an attempt to review the case as presented in the show and interpret it through what I've learned about law and procedure in real Sweden.

TL;DR: The offences being settled are defamation and unlawful breach of privacy. The settlement of 1.2 million kronor is dozens of times higher than what Simon could realistically expect from court.

Sources: Swedish Criminal Code (EN-SV), Code of Judicial Procedure (SV), preparatory documents for relevant laws (this and this), reference collection on kränkningsersättning, cases available online or in the media (e.g. this and this on dagensjuridik.se), legal blogs, articles and legal advice websites (e.g. lawline.se, Domarbloggen), discussion on treasonable offences (SvD column, expert exchange, motion to parliament, this and this tabloid article), guidelines/advice for prosecutors (e.g. on defamation, day-fines).

Disclaimer: I'm just a layperson and not even Swedish myself, so it's entirely possible I missed something! Respectful discussion and corrections are very welcome!

.

The facts of the case against August

Quick recap

August committed criminal offences by filming and posting the video.

Sara reported August to the police.

August, Wille, Simon and their legal counsels and parents negotiated a settlement at the royal palace with Jan-Olof presiding.

JO said they wanted to avoid a trial. Rickard claimed the evidence and testimonies would not be enough to secure a conviction, and the video was not likely to be considered explicit.

Simon's counsel said Wille's legal team had already decided not to pursue the matter in court.

They settled for 1.2 million kronor, presumably per plaintiff.

The offences on the table

“Spreading that kind of video could be considered gross defamation, gross unlawful breach of privacy, and possibly a CP offence. The penal value is prison, in any case.”

It's pretty clear August also committed intrusive photography, but that overlaps with unlawful breach of privacy, so that might be why it wasn't mentioned. Here's a complete list:

- intrusive photography (kränkande fotografering, covertly photographing or filming someone in a private space) - unlawful breach of privacy (olaga integritetsintrång, disseminating sensitive images in a way that's liable to result in serious harm) - defamation (förtal, disseminating information that identifies someone as a criminal or their way of life as reprehensible, or is otherwise liable to expose them to contempt) - treasonable offences (högmålsbrott, a clause that, among other things, makes some crimes more severe when committed against a member of the Royal House) -CP (I'm not writing this out so the post doesn't get caught in filters)

Unlawful breach of privacy was also mentioned by Rosh back in S2. It's a fairly new offence that entered into force in 2018, and very few cases lead to a conviction (only 27 out of the total 1,876 in 2021). Even when a perpetrator is identified, it's hard to prove it was them (and no one else) using the device. Proving an intent of serious harm isn't easy either, but the court usually considers whether the defendant should have known that was liable to occur.

The main angle in the show was defamation, which doesn't need to be untrue in Sweden. It's all about exposing someone to contempt - and if the defamatory statement is also liable to result in serious harm, it becomes gross defamation. This is why Rickard, who already called gross defamation in S2, argues in S3 that outing someone no longer counts as exposing them to contempt (he's refuting that it was defamation at all).

Another way off the hook would be to show that 1) the statement was true and 2) the defendant was “obliged to make it” or it was “otherwise justifiable to provide information about the matter.”

The treasonable offences clause is a bit of a legal minefield. It allows the public prosecutor to demand harsher punishments for some crimes when they are committed against members of the Royal House, but it also creates questions of whether the royals are even able to bring these types of charges the normal way. It clearly didn't come into play in YR, but I'll return to it in the conclusion.

A CP offence was also mentioned in S2 by Rosh and Rickard. Rosh reckoned it was a sure thing and could land August in prison, but Rickard only listed it as a possibility. He said the penal value was prison “in any case” because gross unlawful breach of privacy is always punishable by prison (more about the penal values in my now-obsolete post).

Still, this was dramatic exaggeration by the writers. August is 18, and persons under 21 could not be imprisoned unless there were very heavy grounds for it back in 2020/2021. Even the stricter law from 2022 mainly applies to violent and gang-related offences.

By the old law and practice, any sentence given to an 18-yo would be reduced to 50% of an adult's sentence, and August is also a first-time offender. If convicted, he'd be looking at some combination of fines, youth community service, and/or a suspended sentence.

That's another silly thing about the Alexander ploy in S2, although not as silly as Alexander forgetting he had already been caught with the drugs.

So that's the potential crimes listed. We'll get to the crimes that were actually being settled in a little bit.

Relevant facts about procedure

To understand how they got from Sara's police report to the settlement scene, it's useful to look at some intricacies of the Swedish justice system that may differ from other countries.

The right to press and pursue charges

By Swedish law, most crimes are subject to public prosecution by the state. The police are legally obligated to start what is known as a “preliminary” investigation when a crime is reported, and the prosecutor is legally obligated to consider charges and pursue them. Regardless of what the victim/plaintiff wants.

There are two notable exceptions. Charges for målsägandebrott (“plaintiff offences”) can only be brought by the plaintiff, and angivelsebrott (“offences subject to report”) must be reported for prosecution by the plaintiff. If an angivelsebrott is reported by someone else, the plaintiff decides if they want the case to go ahead.

These are also the only types of crimes where the plaintiff is able to withdraw the charges. If they do, neither they nor the public prosecutor can ever bring the same matter again.

In the YR case, defamation is målsägandebrott, the privacy offences are angivelsebrott, and CP is always subject to public prosecution.

It's also possible for angivelsebrott to be publicly prosecuted when public interest calls for it (e.g. gross unlawful breach of privacy is often considered serious enough to meet this bar). The same goes for målsägandebrott under certain circumstances, e.g. when the victim of defamation is under 18. Public prosecution also applies if there are multiple offences and one of the other offences is subject to it.

If charges are raised by public prosecution, the plaintiff becomes unable to withdraw them.

Concurrent offences and protective interests

When someone commits more than one offence by a single action, these are assessed for brottskonkurrens (concurrence of offences).

In some cases, the offence with the harshest punishments 'consumes' the others so they no longer count. For example, gross unlawful breach of privacy is always punishable by prison, so it often consumes defamation and even gross defamation.

In other cases, all the offences count 'in concurrence'. One example is when the laws that were broken had different skyddsinteressen (protective interests). In the YR case, intrusive photography and unlawful breach of privacy have the same protective interest: both crimes infringe on the right to privacy and personal integrity. Defamation infringes on a person's honour and reputation, which is a different interest. Hence, unlawful breach of privacy of normal severity is often pursued and punished in concurrence with defamation (normal or gross), but less often with intrusive photography.

As for CP, Swedish law classifies it as an offence against the public order (not as a sex crime, although it can overlap with sex crimes such as using minors for sexual posing). The protective interest is twofold: the individual child's right to personal integrity, and the right of children at large to be safe from CP. So there is some overlap with the privacy offences, but it's also an offence that falls within a completely different area of law.

Note that the sentence is not given as the sum total of the concurrent offences! It's the sentence for the most severe offence, with increases for the concurrent offences (as determined by the judge).

Settlement vs. mediation

JO tells us the parties are doing förlikning (settlement) to avoid the matter going to trial. This is different from medling (mediation).

Settlement primarily applies to disputes, but it can also be a private, out-of-court resolution for some offences. In my understanding, these would be målsägandebrott or angivelsebrott, as the plaintiff agrees not to pursue the matter in exchange for compensation. The settlement also prevents public prosecution even if it is determined later on that the conditions for that are met.

Mediation is a process where a neutral party authorised by the court (not JO) brings the victim and perpetrator of a crime together. It can also be used for family law disputes, but this is less relevant for us. The parties can agree on compensation, but the main objective is just to discuss and process the matter. The perpetrator must admit their guilt in order for mediation to go ahead.

Mediation is separate from the court process, but the defendant's willingness to enter it and a favourable outcome may be taken into account. The prosecutor may bring less severe charges or even offer åtalsunderlåtelse (no-prosecution deal), whereby the offence goes on the guilty person's criminal record but they avoid trial and punishment. If a trial does happen, the judge may be more lenient.

How this all relates to the settlement scene in YR

Based on the above, the settlement in 3.01 must be for defamation, and very likely also unlawful breach of privacy. Intrusive photography is also possible, although the characters never mention it.

Defamation is målsägandebrott and privacy offences are angivelsebrott. Hence, the matter can be settled out of court.

It's hard to say if any of the offences could be gross, despite what Rickard said back in S2. The breach of privacy probably isn't, since it hasn't consumed the defamation or been publicly prosecuted. The defamation could certainly be (this would align with legal precedent for spreading sex tapes), but I think this type of gross defamation of the Crown Prince and another minor should already meet the threshold for public interest.

We don't know exactly when the settlement scene is set, or how long has passed between seasons. Offences involving minor parties must be investigated without delay, but it is possible that the prosecutor is still considering whether to claim public interest. If the settlement is finalised before public charges can be brought for these particular offences, that will no longer be possible.

The opposite is true for the potential CP offence. In my understanding, being able to settle out of court means that must already be off the table.

The police will have been legally obligated to open a preliminary investigation when they received a report about a legal (young) adult having filmed two minors in a sexual situation. Simon and Wille will have been notified of the privacy offences and defamation, and asked if they wanted the investigation to go ahead (since they didn't make the report themselves). But a CP offence is different. It's the kind of crime that must have been investigated even if the victims said they didn't want to press charges or refused to cooperate.

Based on the preliminary investigation, the prosecutor will have considered charges. August's age and development gap to Wille and Simon and the explicitness of the video will have been assessed. His defamatory (not sexual) intent and the other offences could have factored in as well.

I'm not going to guess any further at the reasoning, but no charges were brought. CP is subject to public prosecution, and that also applies to any concurring offences. The settlement wouldn't be possible if it was still in the mix.

Instead, they could be having court-authorised mediation with a neutral party, but only if August already admitted his guilt. (This was actually the part that confused me the most when I first watched the show and wasn't aware of the difference between the processes.)

Anyway. Now that we know what was being settled, I also want to look at the level of compensation.

Compensation compared to court sanctions

The settlement was for 1.2 million kronor. Presumably per plaintiff, as that was the number Simon's counsel gave him. Both he and Rickard described it as generous.

So how does the sum actually compare to what the court might have awarded Simon or handed down as a punishment to August?

Fines

If convicted in court, August could be sentenced to dagsböter (day-fines). The sum ranges from 50 to 1,000 kronor per day, and the minimum number of fines is 30. The maximum is 150, or 200 for multiple offences.

In this case, there are indeed multiple offences (two or three depending on whether intrusive photography still counts), so the absolute maximum is 200,000.

Now for some speculation!

A day-fine is the person's annual income divided by a thousand, adjusted for net wealth and debt. August is a cash-poor student with no job. He must get a bit of income from the estate and possibly some other investments, but if he can't afford to pay Simon back for the drugs and alcohol, it can't be much.

So, the base sum will be low. It gets raised by 50 kronor for every 500,000 of net wealth over 1.5 million, but then there's also a reduction for significant debts. If August truly has to sell his estate to free up 2.4 million, it can't be valued very high and/or he must be in serious debt. His day-fine will land in the hundreds, but I doubt it reaches 1,000.

It's hard to say how many day-fines he would get, but I don't think it would be anywhere close to 200. In examples found online, 40 seems pretty common for each of these crimes at normal severity. In one case, a man convicted of unlawful breach of privacy and gross defamation got a suspended sentence + 80 day-fines, which changed to 100 day-fines for just gross defamation on appeal.

Although the parties in these cases are all adults, while August is in the young offenders bracket. For example, he might get those 80 day-fines but no suspended sentence, or he might get something else entirely. Compare with a case where an 18-yo boy (17 at the time of the crime) spread a film of his friend having sex with a woman: he was convicted of both intrusive photography and unlawful breach of privacy but only sentenced to 35 hours of youth community service.

However, the boy did have to pay compensation.

Compensation payable to the victim

An injured party is often entitled to apply for compensation. In these types of crimes, it's called kränkningsersättning (compensation for infringement/suffering), and there is no cap on it.

However, there are some relevant sample cases online.

The boy in our previous example had to pay 25,000 to the woman.

A person who spread a sexual film showing a 14-yo girl was convicted of gross defamation and had to pay 25,000.

A man who secretly filmed an 8 to 12-yo girl in the bathroom was convicted of a CP offence and had to pay 25,000. The reference collection of cases says it's worth noting this happened before intrusive photography was criminalised as its own offence.

A woman who filmed a 16-yo boy having sex with his girlfriend and posted the video online was convicted of unlawful breach of privacy and gross defamation and had to pay 30,000.

A man who spread sexual photos of his ex to her friends and employer was convicted of gross defamation and had to pay 50,000.

A man who uploaded films of his ex on an adult site was convicted of gross unlawful breach of privacy and had to pay 60,000. In a very similar case before the privacy offences were criminalised, a man was convicted of gross defamation and had to pay 70,000.

The settlement sum of 1.2 million is 17 to 20 times higher than the highest examples. It's also 40 times higher than the example of the 16-yo boy and his girlfriend, which I think is a remotely similar case (although the place of filming was less private and the dissemination was less broad and damaging than in YR). On August's side, the 2.4 million is many times higher than the day-fines plus compensation, even if we don't know the exact numbers.

So that gives us some idea of the level of compensation and monetary punishment that Simon and August could realistically expect, but those aren't the only factors Simon might consider.

Conclusion: a trial could get very complicated

As mentioned above, Wille's legal team had already decided they would not be going to court. It's unsure if that could have even been done in the normal way.

Some legal experts believe the treasonable offences clause prevents members of the Royal House from bringing normal charges at all if they are victims of målsägandebrott or angivelsebrott, because they are considered a stately institution. Others think it should be possible if they just waive their right to treasonable offences, but the royals have never tried.

Instead, the public prosecutor may ask the government to authorise a treasonable offences charge. In theory, the government could say yes even if the victim themself said no, but that's extremely unlikely (for example, when a teen threw a cake in the real king's face in 2001, it was considered the king's decision). The prosecutor who handled the matter in YR could have already asked and been denied, or they could have decided against it if they knew Wille would object.

If Wille had decided to try and bring normal charges, his legal standing would have become a hot topic. If treasonable offences had been charged, the charges would have been public. Either way, the case would have gained a lot of media attention.

Wille being one of the plaintiffs could have also lead to a more stringent punishment for August. Especially for treasonable offences; the real cake-thrower was sentenced to 100 day-fines for harassment, which is a big sentence for a 16-yo (an adult could've got up to four years in prison). Even if they were normal charges, Wille was the one August intended to harm, which would have made the crimes all the more severe.

The level of compensation could have been higher too...at least for Wille. It's frankly beyond my comprehension as a layperson whether his and Simon's cases could have even been tried together due to their wildly different circumstances.

Simon is like any other person in the legal system. If the case did go to trial and August was convicted, he would receive compensation in line with the above. August would also have to pay his legal fees, as well as the potential fines.

It's hard to say how good the chances of a conviction were. Rickard was just defending August when he said identifying someone as gay was no longer considered defamatory, but that is true for Swedish society at large. However, it can still be defamatory if you out someone to people who can be expected to react with contempt (e.g. a religious group). For both defamation and privacy offences, it should also matter how widely the information was disseminated and how bad the consequences were (although you won't be rewarded for causing less harm than expected/intended).

We never actually heard if Rickard had a defence in mind for Simon's particular circumstances. On the one hand, Simon was already out, and he wasn't the target of August's harmful intent. On the other hand, surely August should have known he was liable to suffer serious harm by association. Their lawyers could argue these and other standpoints, and it could get complicated, especially if Wille couldn't be involved after settling.

For argument's sake... Let's say Rickard was right about the evidence and testimony not being enough, and Simon lost the trial.

He would have to pay both his and August's legal feels. Those are probably covered by the Erikssons' home insurance, but there will be a deductible of about 20%, and a cap of two, three hundred thousand. I assume this would normally be enough, but going up against “one of Sweden's best criminal lawyers” could still be a daunting prospect. Rickard might be representing his stepson for free at this early stage, but if the case went to trial and he was very confident they could win, that might change.

And leaving the financial stuff aside, Simon says he just wants the whole thing to be over. He doesn't want to have to rehash it all in court against August and Rickard, and although it's Wille's side who complain about the media storm, that isn't fun for Simon either. On the contrary, he's the one who's been targeted for hate and scrutiny.

The proceedings would likely be held behind closed doors since Simon is a minor, but an anonymised version of the court decision would still be public. At any point, word could get out about the case, which would quickly be connected to Wille because they were on the video together, and the media would be all over Simon again.

All that considered... Settling out of court for a comfortable sum of money he can use to move on with his life might not be the path of “maximum justice” for Simon, but it is a very understandable choice.

[riesenfeldcenter]

Presenting: Sweriges Rijkes Siö-Lagh (Maritime Law of the Swedish Realm, 1667)!

This is the first code of Swedish maritime law, which was in effect in Sweden until 1864. The illustrated half-title page features a flag of Karl XI (r. 1660-1697), who enacted the law. Below, Poseidon escorts Mother Svea (the personification of Sweden) into the Stockholm harbor.

The back of the book is covered in cut marks, suggesting that the book may have been used as a substitute cutting board at sea. Fittingly, the only underlined text in the book relates to a provision of bread to a ship’s crew:

“A Skipper is obliged to provide food for his Crew three times a Day, Morning, Noon and Evening, with such food and ship drink as may be reasonable; If someone wants more, he may, standing by the Tap, enjoy a thirst quencher and be content with the Bread that may be in the basket and then return to his Work; and no one has the Power to demand more or grumble about it under penalty of a fine.”

Our guess is either the rule was modified aboard or a hungry crew member was making a point!

[beautifulsnake2162020]

Swedes I need your help.

I'm currently doing legal research on International laws which allow Human Composting as an alternative way of disposing human remains apart from cremation and traditional burial. Plenty of the mainstream articles I've read always cite that this has been legal in Sweden since 2005.

I need your help in finding the actual law that states this. It's okay if the original text is not in English, I just need the actual provision that clearly states that it is allowed. Or please reply in this post what are the legal swedish terms that is used to refer to Human Composting or Human Decomposition.

Thank you so much for your help :)

[huariqueje]

Interior with the artist's daughter in law - Johannes Grenness , 1936.

Swedish , 1875-1963

Oil on canvas , 52 x 55 cm.

[badninken]

Law generating gamma rays and wielding them like a blade in his bare hand to destroy Doflamingo.

Obsessed with Law's absolutely feral expression in that top panel, combined with Doflamingo screaming, falling to his knees and coughing up billows of smoke as his internal organs and bone marrow suffer massive radiation burn. Have some cell death, Mingo.

Now, it's been a while since my last physics class and this is all based on basic google research and vibes, but, gamma rays are kind of a big deal. NASA says they're generated by the hottest and most energetic objects in the universe, like Law and supernova explosions for example. They're also generated by atomic bombs.

They're also used to kill bacteria and tumors in nuclear medicine!

And there's just something about one-armed, several times gunshot-wounded feral Law being able to generate and control radiation that can disintegrate the human body from within, and the fact that with that same power he could use irridation to sterilize his surroundings and medical equipment as well as perform radiosurgery to treat cancer, like the gamma knife that his attack is named after, all with his bare hands.

His actual medical skills and powers so rarely get to shine. It's all patch jobs off-screen after battles or it's stuff he doesn't want to deal with, like everyone getting diarrhea in Wano. He 100% could have treated Kin'emon and Bepo but just imagine the grueling task of surgically purging people's bowels from food poisoning, using a cursed sword and telekinesis. Where does he put the shit afterwards?? Don't imagine it, it's really gross.

Wouldn't it have been cool if Law got to clear some poisoned food and water in Wano though? Instead of stealing from the enemy? He drew multiple generation's worth of accumulated lead out of his own feverish, beaten and traumatized body at age 13, don't tell me he couldn't clean a polluted fish if he waved his hand around for a bit.

[submalevolentgrace]

one of the funnier aspects of australia is like, watching a video of someone overseas putting together a nice backyard garden with some cute lil plants, and you go, 'oh that flower looks nice, i wonder if it could grow in the climate here?', so you look it up and find every state and territory department of agriculture going "THIS IS A WEED OF NATIONAL CONCERN WITH A DEDICATED BIOCONTAINMENT ORDER FOR THE ENTIRE REGION. ANY SALE, IMPORT, BARTERING, TRADE, RELOCATION, OR GIFTING OF THIS PLANT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW. ALL CITIZENS ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO DESTROY ALL SPECIMENS AND THEIR SEEDS ON SIGHT, FAILURE MAY INCUR PENALTIES INCLUDING FINES UP TO $50,000 OR 25 YEARS JAIL TIME UNDER THE NATIONAL BIOTERRORISM ACT" and you just have to go 'oh okay, i guess i will try to find a different cute lil purple flower to go in that pot then'

[im-not-a-l0ser]

*Lipschitz Twins and Partners driving to relatives in Ohio* Trevor: *on the phone* Mom, where are we supposed to be? Mama Lipschitz: Well tell me what you see? Rudolph: All I can see is corn. Mama Lipschitz: Then you're there. Have fun! *hangs up* Max: *jokingly* What's not fun about corn? Richie: No, no... Rudolph: Take it back, Max... Trevor: *glares at him* Really? Max: ...What? Trevor: You throw away the outside, cook the inside, eat the outside of the inside then throw out the inside of the inside. It's STUPID. Max: I wasn't really expecting an answer... Rudolph: Yeah, neither was I when I asked. Richie: He's always been like this about corn, I don't know why!

[young-royals-confessions]

Alexander Skarsgård explains the Jante Law: https://youtu.be/FhdcWYmFdX4?feature=shared

[coochiequeens]

Recommended Books

This page provides a list of recommended books about prostitution, pornography, the global sex trade, and surrogacy.

Prostitution

Pornography

Surrogacy

By and for men

Sex dolls

Prostitution

ANY GIRL by Mia Döring

“Any Girl is a ferociously honest, intensely tender and utterly unforgettable book that is as thought-provoking as it is timely.”

BODY SHELL GIRL by Rose Hunter

“Body Shell Girl is incredible. It is a captivating and honest account of a woman’s experiences, thoughts, and feelings in the sex trade.” – Cherry Smiley

The Sex Economy by Monica O’Connor

Drawing on extensive research, O’Connor challenges the idea that the sale of women’s bodies as commodities is acceptable and that men have a right to buy sexual acts from another person. She shows that ‘sex work’ is not a lucrative occupation for impoverished women and girls, and  exposes the harm that normalising the sex trade does on women’s lives, gender equality and society as a whole.

Being and Being Bought by Kajsa Ekis Ekman

“This is a riveting analysis of prostitution and surrogacy that shatters the great wall of lies about these two institutions. Brilliantly analyzing the parallels, Kajsa Ekis Ekman wages a multi-pronged attack on sexism and classism that leaves the reader with hope for change.” Melissa Farley, PhD.

See: A brief history of the ‘Sex work is work’ movement

Paid For: My Journey Through Prostitution by Rachel Moran

“The best work by anyone on prostitution ever, Rachel Moran’s Paid For fuses the memoirist’s lived poignancy with the philosopher’s conceptual sophistication. The result is riveting, compelling, incontestable. Impossible to put down. This book provides all anyone needs to know about the reality of prostitution in moving, insightful prose that engages and disposes of every argument ever raised in its favor.” Catharine A. MacKinnon

Last Girl First! Prostitution at the intersection of sex, race & class-based oppressions

A study into how all over the world and throughout history, women and girls from the most discriminated communities are over-represented in prostitution. Poor, Indigenous, migrant, asylum-seeking, displaced women, those from the lowest castes and from ethnic, religious and racial minorities are the first victims of pimps and sex buyer

Pimp State: Sex, money and the future of equality by Kat Banyard

Skilfully weaving together first-hand investigation, interviews and the latest research, Pimp State powerfully argues that sex trade myth-makers will find themselves on the wrong side of history.

Prostitution Narratives: Stories of Survival in the Sex Trade edited by Melinda Tankard Reist and Caroline Norma

This book documents the reality of prostitution through the lived experience of women who have survived it.

Exit! by Grizelda Grootboom

Grizelda Grootboom’s life was dramatically changed when she was gang raped at the age of nine by teenagers in her township. Her story starts there. It is a story about the cycle of poverty, family abandonment, dislocation and survival in the streets of Cape Town. She reveals the seedy and often demonised life of a prostitute and her ultimate escape from it.

Read our review >>

Body for Rent by Anna Hendriks and Olivia Smit

Childhood best friends Anna and Olivia were just 15 years old when they met Ricardo. He was older, charming and good-looking – and Anna and Oliva were easy prey. Manipulated, groomed and abused, within three years he had pimped the girls into the neon-lit windows of Amsterdam’s red light district.

Read our review >>

Shadow’s Law: The True Story of a Swedish Detective Inspector Fighting Prostitution by Simon Häggström

Detective inspector Simon Häggström is head of the Stockholm Police Prostitution Unit. He tells the true stories of the people he meets every day; young girls facing dangers they did not foresee, seven foreign women working and living together in a one bedroom apartment, Lovisa, born into a life of drugs and prostitution, and of course, the men who buy sex.

Not a choice, Not a job by Janice G Raymond

“This book dispels the smoke and mirrors and uncovers the horrific and complex truths of prostitution and the global sex trade. This is a must read for those who want to understand the facts about the harsh realities that so many experience.” Vednita Carter

The Pimping of Prostitution: Abolishing the Sex Work Myth by Julie Bindel

“Bold, brilliant and brave. This is Julie Bindel at her best, demolishing the myths around prostitution and asking us to listen to survivors, the women and men who know the ugly reality first-hand.” Joan Smith

The Nordic Model by Trine Rogg Korsvik and Ane Stø

In this book, feminists activists write about their enduring struggle for the abolition of prostitution. The authors offer valuable insights into the movement’s strategies, as well as its allies and opponents. The book unmasks the pro-prostitution lobby and confronts the myth that the Nordic model is harmful to women in prostitution.

River of Flesh and Other Stories edited by Ruchira Gupta

Twenty-one stories about trafficked and prostituted women by some of India’s most celebrated writers: Amrita Pritam, Bibhutibhushan Bandyopadhyay, Indira Goswami, Ismat Chughtai, J. P. Das, Kamala Das, Kamleshwar, Krishan Chander, Munshi Premchand, Nabendu Ghosh, Qurratulain Hyder, Saadat Hasan Manto and Siddique Alam, among others.

Not for Sale: Feminists resisting prostitution and pornography edited by Christine Stark and Rebecca Whisnant

This collection of essays connect feminist perspectives on the sex industry with radical critiques of racism, poverty, militarism, and unbridled corporate capitalism, and shows how the harms of prostitution and pornography are amplified by modern technologies.

The Natashas: Inside the new global sex trade by Victor Malarek

They’re the third most profitable black market commodity, after illegal weapons and drugs. They are women and girls, some as young as 12. They are sold into prostitution and kept enslaved; those who resist are beaten, raped, and sometimes killed as examples. In many cases, the men who should be rescuing them –from immigration officials to police officers and international peacekeepers – are among their aggressors.

The Johns: Sex for sale and the men who buy it by Victor Malarek

This book dispels the myths that justify prostitution and puts on display the rationales of ordinary johns, their beliefs, their behaviours, and their astounding brotherhood. It also shows us the darker side: the rise of sex tourism, the predators, the role of the Internet. Lambasting the pro-prostitution lobby, he explains why legalising prostitution can lead only to the greater enslavement of women.

The Industrial Vagina by Sheila Jeffreys

“This is an insightful analysis into the globalization and industrialization of the modern sex industry. Sheila Jeffreys makes the connections between prostitution, marriage, pornography, strip clubs, and sex tourism and how they all combine to exploit women who are most harmed. This book opens a window on global sexual exploitation and the institutions that support it.” Janice G. Raymond

The Idea of Prostitution by Sheila Jeffreys

This book investigates the claims of the pro-prostitution movement and the burgeoning sex industry, arguing that the sex of prostitution is not just sex; the work of prostitution is not ordinary work; and prostitution is a choice for the men who abuse rather than for the prostituted women.

See The Idea of Prostitution: Q&A with Sheila Jeffreys and Rose Hunter.

And Life Continues: Sex Trafficking and My Journey to Freedom by Wendy Barnes

Wendy Barnes was introduced to sex trafficking by her first love, the father of her children. And Life Continues is her story: how she became a victim of human trafficking, why she was unable to leave the man who enslaved her for fifteen years, and the obstacles she overcame to heal and rebuild her life after she was rescued.

Pornography

Pornland: How porn has hijacked our sexuality by Gail Dines

“Dines brilliantly exposes porn’s economics, pervasiveness, and impact with scholarship as impeccable as her tone is reasonable. This book will change your life. Ignore it at your peril.” Robin Morgan

He Chose Porn Over Me edited by Melinda Tankard Reist

“Shattering the popular myth that porn is harmless, the personal accounts of 25 brave women in “He Chose Porn over Me” reveal the real-life trauma experienced by women at the hands of their porn-consuming partners – men who were supposed to care for them.”

Read our review >>

Your Brain on Porn by Gary Wilson

“Your Brain on Porn is written in a simple clear language appropriate for expert and layperson alike and is rooted firmly within the principles of neuroscience, behavioural psychology and evolution theory … As an experimental psychologist, I have spent over forty years researching the bases of motivation and I can confirm that Wilson’s analysis fits very well with all that I have found.” Professor Frederick Toates, Open University.

Read our review >>

Big Porn Inc: Exposing the Harms of the Global Porn Industry edited by Abigail Bray and Melinda Tankard Reist

“With contributions from leading world experts and activists, Big Porn Inc offers a cutting edge exposé of the hidden realities of a multi-billion dollar global industry that promotes itself as a fashionable life-style choice.

“Unmasking the lies behind the selling of porn as ‘just a bit of fun’ Big Porn Inc reveals the shocking truths of an industry that trades in violence, crime and degradation. This fearless book will change the way you think about pornography forever.”

Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity by Robert Jensen

In our culture, porn makes the man. So argues Robert Jensen in Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity. Jensen’s treatise begins with a simple demand: “Be a man.” It ends with a defiant response: “I chose to struggle to be a human being.” The journey from masculinity to humanity is found in the candid and intelligent exploration of porn’s devastating role in defining masculinity. You can download a free PDF of this book from Robert Jensen’s website.

Surrogacy

Surrogacy: A Human Rights Violation by Renate Klein

A radical feminist introduction to the reality of surrogacy as the commissioning / buying / renting of a woman into whose womb an embryo is inserted and who thus becomes a ‘breeder’ for a third party and how it is being heavily promoted by the stagnating IVF industry which seeks new markets.

Towards the Abolition of Surrogate Motherhood edited by Marie-Josèphe Devillers and Ana-Luana Stoicea-Deram

“In this eloquent and blistering rejection of surrogacy, a range of international activists and experts in the field outline the fundamental human rights abuses that occur when surrogacy is legalised and reject neoliberal notions that the commodification of women’s bodies can ever be about the ‘choices’ women make.”

Read our review >>

By and for men

The End of Patriarchy: Radical Feminism for Men by Robert Jensen

“The End of Patriarchy asks one key question: what do we need to create stable and decent human communities that can thrive in a sustainable relationship with the larger living world? Robert Jensen’s answer is feminism and a critique of patriarchy. He calls for a radical feminist challenge to institutionalized male dominance; an uncompromising rejection of men’s assertion of a right to control women’s sexuality; and a demand for an end to the violence and coercion that are at the heart of all systems of domination and subordination. The End of Patriarchy makes a powerful argument that a socially just society requires no less than a radical feminist overhaul of the dominant patriarchal structures.”

The Macho Paradox: Why some men hurt women and how all men can help by Jackson Katz

“With integrity and courage, Jackson Katz  has taken his message – that the epidemic of violence against women is a men’s issue – into athletic terms, the military and frat houses across the country. His book explains carefully and convincingly why – and how – men can become part of the solution, and work with women to build a world in which everyone is safer.” Michael Kimmel.

Sex dolls

Sex Dolls, Robots, and Woman Hating by Caitlin Roper

“Sex Dolls, Robots and Woman Hating exposes the inherent misogyny in the trade in sex dolls and robots modelled on the bodies of women and girls for men’s unlimited sexual use. From doll owners enacting violence and torture on their dolls, men choosing their dolls over their wives, dolls made in the likeness of specific women and the production of child sex abuse dolls, sex dolls and robots pose a serious threat to the status of women and girls.”

The Macho Paradox: Why some men hurt women and how all men can help by Jackson Katz

“With integrity and courage, Jackson Katz  has taken his message – that the epidemic of violence against women is a men’s issue – into athletic terms, the military and frat houses across the country. His book explains carefully and convincingly why – and how – men can become part of the solution, and work with women to build a world in which everyone is safer.” Michael Kimmel.

[ratatatastic]

thinking about roddy being one of the only guys to consistently call forsy “gussy”

[randomisedmongoose]

that nice* feeling when I finally decide to yeah, it's time to pursue testosterone, and then realise that if everything goes perfectly, I will start in. 5 years.

[sflow-er]

YR Season 3 speculations: a layperson’s take on the criminal justice side

I’ve been considering making this kind of post for a while, because I’ve seen a lot of hopeful takes on how things are going to play out now that Sara has called the police, and I feel like I could add some perspective for those less familiar with the Swedish justice system. I hesitate to do it because I’m just a layperson and not even from Sweden but the next country over - but our justice systems are reasonably similar, I’ve spent a lot of time poring over relevant sources on Swedish law and justice, and @scatteredpiecesofme encouraged me to do this after our conversation yesterday.

So, here goes, haha.

As usual, I could very well be wrong about some things, and I welcome any additions or corrections!

Part 1: The system

Let’s start with a cultural observation: the criminal justice system in Sweden strives to be rehabilitative (restorative) instead of strictly punitive (retributive). This is especially true for young and first-time offenders, who are yet to develop a ‘criminal lifestyle.’ Fines, suspended sentences, and sentences on the lower end of the scale are the norm unless the crime is very serious. (See for example this text in Swedish about how the brain only fully matures at 25 and how young people experience punishments more severely.)

Swedish law recognises three different age brackets for offenders: 15 to 18, 18 to 21, and over 21 (adult). The punishments for young adults were harshened in Jan 2022 for some severe crimes (mostly to counter gang violence), but YR is set in the autumn of 2020 and spring of 2021. With that in mind, let’s review the situation that should apply in the show.

Firstly, the now-outdated law and practice include something known as ungdomsrabatt (juvenile discount). Any sentence given to an 18-year-old is normally reduced to 50% of an adult’s sentence, and a sentence given to a 16-year-old is reduced further so they get about 20-25% of an adult’s sentence. This can either mean a reduced version of the same sentence, or an alternative, more lenient sentence. Punishment can also be waived entirely for juveniles sentenced to minimal fines for minor offences (e.g. minor narcotics offences).

Secondly, there are some punishments specifically designed for young offenders. Ungdomstjänst (youth community service) and ungdomsvård (youth/juvenile care) mostly apply to those under 18 but can also apply to those under 21 where appropriate. The latter is for those in need of social service intervention; it’s an open arrangement where the juvenile continues living at home. Sluten ungdomsvård (institutional youth care) only comes into play in very serious cases. It’s the primary punishment for minors who would otherwise face imprisonment and, under the old law, also for those under 21, unless there are very heavy grounds for prison time.

There is also something called ungdomsövervakning (youth supervision); basically youth care with more restrictions. However, it was only introduced in Jan 2021, which means it cannot be applied to crimes committed earlier (for example in YR S1).

As mentioned, juveniles can also be sentenced to reduced versions of the same punishments as adults. For young adults, that most likely means a suspended sentence and/or community service and/or fines. These fines are often dagsböter (day-fines), which can range from 50 to 1000 kronor based on the defendant’s income, wealth, and debts for example. The minimum number is 30 fines, the maximum is 150, or 200 for several crimes. There can also be some other financial consequences, e.g. a 1000-krona payment to the Crime Victim Fund or compensation for the victim (these are much lower sums than in the US, for example).

Here’s a made-up example from Domarbloggen: three people aged 16, 18 and 22 beat someone up together. The 22-yo gets 4 months’ imprisonment, which means the 18-yo should get 2 months. Instead, she gets a suspended sentence and 75 hours of community service. The 16-yo should get 1 month, but that is commuted to 50 hours of youth community service. Social services are (and must be) involved for the 16 and 18-yo but find that they are not in need of any services.

Thirdly, juveniles are processed differently from adults. If someone younger than 21 is suspected of a crime, the police investigation that starts when the crime comes to light must be conducted without delay. For those under 18, there’s a time limit of 6 weeks from the initial police report to the decision to prosecute. In many cases, the prosecutor can simply decide not to bring charges and hand the matter over to social services instead. (See for example this Q&A document on the old law, in English.) 

Young offenders are also often eligible for förundersökningsbegränsning (limitation of preliminary investigation) and åtalsunderlåtelse (no-prosecution deal). In the former, the police and prosecutor decide not to investigate the crime, and in the latter, the suspect confesses their guilt to avoid being charged or tried for that particular crime. There are specific circumstances in which these can come into play - for example, when there are several crimes being investigated/charged and the crime in question would not affect the sentencing, or the sentence would be minor anyway. Here’s more info on the reasoning in Swedish, but it’s basically done to save resources for other crimes. The sentence for all the crimes committed is determined as a whole; it does not necessarily match the sum total of all the individual sentences. Accepting a deal means the crime will still go on the person’s criminal record.

If sufficient evidence is found and the matter does go to trial, the court can decide to hold it behind closed doors if the parties are young and/or to protect them from negative publicity. The judge must also be specialised in juvenile cases if the defendant is under 18.

Trials in this corner of the world are usually rather boring compared to what you see on TV. There’s no jury or heated cross-examination. The facts are presented, the injured party, defendant, and witnesses are heard, and the court considers the case. (Here’s a detailed description and even a 24-minute film in Swedish.) 

The bar for detaining young offenders before and after the trial is higher than for adults, but it can happen if they are considered dangerous or there’s a risk of them destroying evidence/influencing the witnesses (for minors, the social services usually watches over them instead). There is no bail system.

Oh, and if someone is sentenced to prison after all, they are not necessarily taken away directly after the trial. Serving the sentence may be postponed until the period of appeal runs out (often 3 months after the sentence enters into force, according to the Prison and Probation Service).

So, now that we know the framework, let’s take a look at the crimes that could come into light in YR S3! Not just those committed by August, but also those committed by Simon and Wilhelm.

Part 2: The crimes committed by the mains in YR

All excerpts quoted are from an English translation of the Swedish Criminal Code. I will include some of my own interpretations in the context of the show - but while reading those, please keep in mind that I’m just a layperson and could well be completely mistaken!

Kränkande fotografering (intrusive photography): August

A person who unlawfully, by means of a technical device, covertly records an image of a person who is indoors in a home, or in a toilet, dressing room or other similar space, is guilty of intrusive photography (Swedish Criminal Code, Chapter 4, Section 6a)

Scale of punishment for adults: fines or prison up to 2 years.

I don’t think this should be very hard to prove now that Wille has admitted to being on the video. August could of course claim it was someone else using his phone, but I think it should definitely be someone other than Alexander, who had already been caught with the drugs.

Olaga integritetsintrång (unlawful breach of privacy): August

A person who intrudes into the private life of another person by disseminating: 1. an image of or other information about a person’s sexual life; (...) 4. an image of a person in a very vulnerable situation; or 5. an image of a person’s wholly or partially naked body is, if the dissemination is liable to result in serious damage to the person whom the image or information concerns, guilty of unlawful breach of privacy (Swedish Criminal Code, Chapter 4, Section 6c)

Scale of punishment for adults: fines or prison up to 2 years for normal severity, prison from 6 months to 4 years for gross offences.

This is the revenge porn clause. In reality, sadly few cases lead to a conviction; for example in 2021, only 27 out of 1876 cases. The perpetrator can always claim their device/account was hacked, for example, and it’s hard to disprove that. We’ll see if Sara’s testimony and August having admitted his guilt to Wilhelm are enough.

Förtal (defamation): August

A person who identifies someone as being a criminal or as having a reprehensible way of life, or otherwise provides information liable to expose that person to the contempt of others is guilty of defamation (Swedish Criminal Code, Chapter 5, Section 1)

Scale of punishment for adults: fines for normal severity, fines or prison up to 2 years for gross offences.

Note that defamation does not have to be untrue in Sweden! It’s the ‘exposing that person to contempt’ that matters. However, if the defendant can show that the information was true and they were a) obliged to make this kind of statement or b) it was “otherwise justifiable to provide information about the matter”, they are not held responsible. August’s lawyer would probably argue that spreading the video of Wille was a matter of national importance.

A note on aggravating or special circumstances:

Both unlawful invasion of privacy and defamation can be considered gross if the information or image or the method of dissemination was liable to result in serious damage. This bumps up the potential consequences.

Normally, charges can only be brought for the above crimes by the injured party. The prosecutor may also choose to bring charges on their own, but only when public interest calls for it. The same goes for defamation if the injured party is under 18 or reports the crime themself. If public charges have been brought, it doesn’t matter even if the injured party wants to drop them. So, in my view, any resolution in S3 where Wille and Simon decide to drop the charges should be written carefully to exclude the possibility of public prosecution.

There’s also another interesting angle that I haven’t seen thrown around much. It was first brought to my attention by a friend on ao3, and I can’t believe it’s still a thing in 21st century Sweden, but it is.

Högmålsbrott (treasonable offences): August

A person who commits an offence referred to in Chapters 3–5 that involves abuse of the King or another member of the Royal House, or of a person discharging the duties of the Head of State as regent, may be sentenced to imprisonment for at most four years if the offence can otherwise result in imprisonment for at most six months, and for at most six years if the offence can otherwise result in imprisonment for more than six months but at most four years. (Swedish Criminal Code, Chapter 18, Section 2)

Yes, really. Wille being one of the injured parties could complicate things for August when it comes to the above crimes, because they belong to chapters 4 & 5. He’s not actually going to get six years in prison for gross defamation, that’s just the maximum for adults, but it’s an interesting angle and a potential aggravating factor.

Next up, the elephant in the room.

CP: August

I don’t think I need to describe what this means; you can look it up in Chapter 16, Sections 10a and 10b. I’m not going to write it out so this post doesn’t get flagged.

Scale of punishment for adults: fines or prison up to 6 months for minor offences. Prison up to 2 years for normal severity.

Rickard did say that this could land August in prison, but I am highly sceptical. For comparison, consider this case, where an 18-yo who had 540 images in his possession, 98 of those particularly graphic, was only sentenced to 60 hours of youth community service, despite having disseminated some material on social media on two occasions. Or this one, where an 18-yo who was in possession of a video sent to him via SnapChat for a few months, was sentenced to 45 hours of the same - although he was 17 at the time of the crime.

August was 18, but on the other hand, the video he made and disseminated was short, not very graphic, and meant to defame the people in it rather than arouse those who view it. By law, the age and developmental gap between the victim(s) and perpetrator must also be taken into consideration, and as we know, it’s only two years. I’m inclined to think August is only looking at a minor offence - if charges are even brought at all.

So, the fandom should probably prepare for a more lenient sentence than many are hoping for! Ironically enough, the opposite is true for the next crime, which also applies to Simon and, to a lesser degree, Wille.

Narkotikabrott (narcotics offence): August, Simon, Wilhelm

Any person who unlawfully 1. transfers narcotics, 2. manufactures narcotics intended for misuse, 3. acquires narcotics for the purpose of transfer, 4. procures, processes, packages, transports, keeps or in some other similar way handles narcotics which are not intended for personal use, 5. offers narcotics for sale, keeps or conveys payment for narcotics, mediates contacts between seller and purchaser or takes any other such measure, if the procedure is designed to promote narcotics traffic, or 6. possesses, uses or otherwise handles narcotics shall, if he has acted wilfully, be sentenced for a narcotic drug offence (Penal Law on Narcotics, Section 1)

Scale of punishment for adults: prison up to 3 years for normal severity. Fines or prison up to 6 months for minor offences.

Swedish law is strict on narcotics crimes. Both Simon and August are guilty of several of the above, while Wille is only guilty of use. Wille’s offence would be considered minor, and the punishment might even be waived. However, I think it’s quite likely Simon and August might be looking at normal severity, and Rickard would probably advise August against bringing it up just to spite Simon.

If August went against that advice or the matter came out another way, he would probably get a harsher sentence than Simon on account of his age - although he could provide mitigating circumstances for the selling by saying that Simon coerced him...

In any case, Simon wouldn’t get off with a slap on the wrist either. He sold drugs on two separate occasions - ADHD drugs (which are amphetamine derivatives) and possibly also strong painkillers. Micke’s back pain was specifically mentioned in S1, we saw Simon steal Tramadol (which is an opioid) when he first got pills for August, and there was clearly more in that bag than just the ADHD meds. Amphetamine derivatives and opioids are specifically classified as narcotic drugs due to their potential for misuse, even if the drugs in question (Tramadol and lisdexamfetamine) aren’t as bad as some others.

Furthermore, Simon also committed:

Stöld (theft): Simon

Pretty self-explanatory. Chapter 8, Section 1 of the Criminal Code.

Scale of punishment for adults: fines or prison up to 6 months for minor offences, prison up to 2 years for normal severity, prison from 6 months to 6 years for gross offences.

It’s hard to say what the severity would be. On the one hand, it was just a few boxes and bottles of pills, and the value of the stolen goods should generally be over 1000 kronor to even be considered normal severity (case from 2009). On the other hand, committing theft as part of “criminal activities conducted systematically” is an aggravating circumstance. But I think the prosecutor would be lenient with a 16-yo like Simon and just focus on the narcotics crime (åtalsunderlåtelse for the theft).

Let’s proceed to the last crime, which is something I haven’t really seen a lot of people mention.

Olaga hot (unlawful threat): Wilhelm

A person who threatens another person with a criminal act in a manner that is liable to occasion serious fear in the person threatened for the safety of their own or someone else’s person, property, liberty or peace is guilty of making an unlawful threat (Swedish Criminal Code, Chapter 4, Section 5)

Scale of punishment for adults: prison from 9 months to 4 years for gross offences. Fines or prison up to 1 year for normal severity.

It’s highly unlikely that Wille’s shotgun waving would come out unless someone accidentally let it slip when questioned about the other offences. So the risk is slim, but I think it still deserves to be included, because an unlawful threat usually becomes a gross offence when a weapon is used. It’s also a publically prosecutable offence, which means August wouldn’t have the power to drop the charges. Note that the ‘treasonable offences’ clause doesn’t apply, because August has not officially been appointed as next in line by Parliament.

Like I said, I don’t think there’s any reason for August to sour his relationship with the Crown by dropping Wilhelm in it. I just wanted to include the threat to be thorough and show how much of a mess this could theoretically become.

Phew, that’s all of them! Thank you so much for reading all this way!

I guess the main point I wanted to make with this marathon post was that I really, really hope the criminal justice side is handled realistically in S3 now that a police investigation probably can’t be avoided. We shouldn’t expect anyone to be locked up with the key thrown away, due to the young age of everyone involved and the leniency built into the system. Also, the severest consequences could well come from the crimes that don’t sound as serious on the surface, such as the drug stuff - and Wille being one of the injured parties. (Or the potentially gross unlawful threat, but I doubt that’s going to come out.)

I’m intrigued to see what Lisa and co have in store for us, because they have a very real chance to highlight some interesting questions here.

Which (if any) of the potential crimes will August, who can liquidate enough money to pay for a great legal team, actually get punished for? Will he get off with fines and maybe some youth community service? Will the Alexander defence actually work when it really shouldn’t? Will social services get involved and maybe make August get some help for his issues? How will his social standing be affected when people learn it was him behind the video? Will the consequences finally teach him some accountability (which he definitely hasn’t learned growing up; see my analysis post about his upbringing and background)?

How about Simon? Can he avoid getting harshly punished for his dealing? How will social services treat him and his family if they get involved? Will his future and education be affected? Will he feel victimised again when the video matter is investigated (which could involve more publicity due to Wille’s involvement)? Could Micke try to claim he forced Simon to carry the drugs and sell them, to provide mitigating circumstances (and would Simon let his estranged dad risk imprisonment for him)?

And finally, is it fair that Wille being one of the injured parties could make the crimes more severe and extract “more justice”? Even though Simon was the one who couldn’t just deny being on the video to escape the negative consequences?

We shall see.

[norsesuggestions]

19th century factory owning millionares be like:

"And here is my collection of pieces of archeological chinese artifacts made of bronze"

Wtf

Actual ancient chinese china (if i remember the signs correctly these were from about 800 years old to about a 1000 years old)

Wtf

It is not that i am surprised, 19th rich europeans have such thing. But, the fuck you got your hands on this Hallwyl hmmm? In 1890s? Hmmm

(I mean i know how but this isnt right)

[notalotgoingonatthisinstant]

Just another ramble in the tags

[huariqueje]

Lilly, Girl in green blouse - Åke Göransson , 1926-28.

Swedish , 1902-1942

Oil on canvas attached to panel, 34 x 25 cm.

[badninken]

Law vs Blackbeard reaction 4 of 4

Like I said in the first of these posts, I already knew that Law would get defeated in this fight and that the Polar Tang would get destroyed. Some things are just impossible to avoid seeing. I'm glad I was prepared so I wouldn't have to take that emotional hit. Turns out there were even bigger emotions waiting.

So Law is on the ground bleeding, clearly having been through a long difficult fight, not having any more to give. I was very satisfied to see that Blackbeard seemed to be worn out and in pain too and that Law didn't go out easy. But we learn that his ship has been sunk and his crew is scattered, dying or already dead.

But Bepo is nearby.

And of course I start to cry immediately. I can't take Bepo laying well out of reach, desperate to save his captain but barely being able to move. All while a pack of genuinely horrifying men are about to kill Law and take his powers.

And then there's a flashback of Chopper giving Bepo a mysterious bag of medicine and my heart rate picks up so fast. I felt robbed of Sulong-Bepo in Wano when all the other minks got to transform but this, this was certainly the time to save that moment for.

I get shivers just looking at this screenshot. I can't properly explain how intensely I silent-screamed my way through this entire scene.

FERAL BEPO!!!!!!!

KICKING BLACKBEARD'S UGLY ASS!!!!

Until he's all out of feral T__T

But he's not out of regular Bepo love and ohmygoddddd he's such a hero >__< So he manages to grab his captain and his sword and escapes out into the ocean with Law on his back.

Law who tells him to go back again, because of the crew.

Because Law can't leave his friends behind.

And this is where I start clawing at my own face because of course he can't! He loves his friends! He cares about them so so much he'd die for each and every one of them, even the ones he doesn't know very well, and it's been kinda obvious since way back, even though the very word friend seems to offend him. Except now he's using it so easy and I'm chewing on electrical chords.

Law says to go back for the crew, but Bepo says: "No I won't! Trust them, Captain! From the extremely cold port of the north till now… we've always survived! So… none of us will die here! We've overcome so much together! So, Captain! Don't die!"

And then they get swept under the surface

And I'm crying my fucking eyes out because BEPO and because the North Blue and the significance of the day and the place where they met and all the things they've been through since then, and their ship and BEPO!

And all that hit me a lot harder than I thought it would, considering I knew what would happen. I didn't know about the Bepo rescue and the whole fiercely protective polar bear friend hit me right in the childhood.

So I went to get Vitis, my own protective polar bear:

Since I've brought him up several times I felt I should introduce him properly. I also really needed a polar bear hug after that episode <3

Now I will calm down, have some tea, process all of this and eventually write some kind of wrap-up post about my overall One Piece experience. It has been intense.