When an offender is convicted of multiple crimes at the same time, the Swedish law gives a reduction on the total punishment. This means that instead of adding each crime with each other into a total punishment, the most severe crime func-tions as an outset where smaller portions of each additional crime are added to the total punishment. For example, two murders will not result in a sentence equal to the punishment for one murder multiplied by two. Instead, the punish-ment for one murder is the outset and the second murder only adds a portion to the total punishment. The punishment for the second murder gets a reduction. This is to avoid sentences that adds up to inhuman and unproportionate levels, such as a 100 year long imprisonment. However, in the case of recidivism the sentence may instead be harsher. This means that as long as there is a verdict in between crimes, the sentence may be higher due to the recidivism. The situations when it comes to multiple crimes and recidivism are equal, but the law treats them opposite. The question is: Why?One of the reasons why multiple crimes and recidivism are treated opposite within The Swedish Penal Code could be because they are historically based on different penal theories and principles. A harsher punishment for recidivism is mainly motivated by individual crime prevention, such as rehabilitation and inca-pacitation. Reduction for multiple crimes, however, is motivated by the principles of humanity and proportionality. This to avoid for example that several thefts result in the same sentence as one murder. Since The Swedish Penal Code essen-tially is based on humanity and proportionality, it does somewhat explain why reductions are made for multiple crimes. What it does not explain, is why the reduction levels are what they are and if they really are proportionate. Neither does it explain why harsher punishment for recidivism is motivated and further-more, why it seems to have been excepted from the principles of humanity and proportionality.By comparing recidivism and multiple crimes with each other from a theoret-ically and principally perspective, this essay aims to answer the questions why these two different orders exist and if they are consistent with the principles of humanity and proportionality.