Exceptional measures, ordinary practice: Harm, power and resilience in pre-trial decision-making

The use of pre-trial detention under conditions akin to solitary confinement in Sweden has endured despite human rights criticism and political reform aimed at mitigating its harms. Drawing on interviews (n = 24) with judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers, this article examines this persistence by focusing on the decision-making processes authorizing such measures. The findings show how harms associated with remand and isolation are acknowledged yet rendered legally inconsequential and how procedural safeguards are neutralized by institutional power asymmetries that limit their capacity to function as tools of contestation. Rather than oversight or institutional failure, the analysis thus locates the persistence of these harmful practices in the lawful routines, power relations, and legal cultures through which they are produced and maintained.