Scandinavian Prison Models vs. Global Incarceration Systems

Scandinavian prison models are considered to be among the most effective in the world. The penal system there, unlike those in other parts of the world—including the United States—is regarded as humane and is designed so that prisoners live more or less like regular citizens. With sunbathing facilities, vocational courses, and other amenities as standard features, some prison systems like those in Norway could be mistaken for comfortable retirement community centers. How effective such incarceration facilities are in the control of crime is a valid topic for examination and analysis. This is especially true given that, from a common-sense perspective, prison conditions are often assumed to need to be harsh enough to discourage inmates from reoffending.

That assumption appears to be the basic ideology behind most incarceration facilities across the globe—from the U.S. to Canada to Kenya. What impact would incarceration facilities designed to reduce interpersonal conflict and ease psychological pressure have on crime control? How do the recidivism rates of Scandinavian countries compare with those of other countries? Do prison conditions have a positive or negative impact on readmission rates? This paper focuses on the Scandinavian prison systems and relates them to those in other parts of the world.

For many observers, the Nordic states represent a model that should be admired and embraced by other nations. This is particularly true given their low inequality levels and highly effective prison systems. Countries such as Canada, the United States, and the majority of African nations appear to favor punitive excess and penal populism when compared to countries such as Sweden, Finland, and Norway. Sentence lengths in Nordic penal states are relatively short in comparison to those in other parts of the world, and imprisonment rates are quite low. Penal systems in most parts of the world, including the U.S. and Canada, are considered tough on convicted criminals. However, in comparison to Scandinavian penal systems, these models appear broken and in dire need of review.

Some countries, like the United States and Guatemala, have very high incarceration rates (Grant, 2012, p. 375). One would expect these countries to be safer. Using the United States as an example, however, enhanced incarceration rates do not necessarily improve public safety. This is particularly evident given the country's significantly high recidivism rates and overall crime rates (Kenis et al., 2010, p. 321). Most political systems advocate for the escalation of punishment in an attempt to bring down crime rates—an approach that rarely pays off. In contrast, it has been demonstrated that Nordic penal systems are more effective when it comes to deterring criminal activity (Walmsley, 2008, p. 104).

It is important to note that although each of the Nordic countries—comprising Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and Norway—has its own penal models and laws that vary slightly, the entire penal system of these countries differs fundamentally from that of nations with higher rates of recidivism and incarceration. This, according to Walmsley (2008, p. 112), has resulted in better outcomes in offender education and rehabilitation.

It is understandable that the image most people outside Scandinavia have of a prison is largely based on media portrayals, personal experiences, and cultural beliefs. It is therefore difficult for citizens of, say, America to conceptualize a prison system that is not grounded in strictly punitive measures. According to Pratt (2008, p. 212), the key focus of Nordic prison systems is the rehabilitation of inmates, while simultaneously addressing recidivism. The average number of inmates held by Nordic prisons is approximately 100. The idea is to maintain small prison facilities distributed across the country, keeping inmates closer to their home environments and, by extension, their families. Most countries outside Scandinavia tend to have centralized facilities holding thousands of inmates at any given time. This is particularly evident in low-income countries like Haiti, where prison overcrowding is among the worst in the world. Other countries notorious for overcrowding include the Philippines, Venezuela, Uganda, and Sudan.

Scandinavian prison facilities can generally be divided into two types: open and closed prisons. Those convicted of offenses are typically first housed in closed prisons and later serve the remainder of their sentences in open facilities. While closed prisons are more restrictive, open facilities offer a more relaxed and rehabilitative environment. Most open prisons, according to Pratt (2008, p. 228), permit inmates to move freely within the grounds. As Kenis et al. (2010, p. 327) note, this relaxed environment enhances the socializing behavior of inmates. A facility such as Halden Prison in Norway has no razor wire or menacing watchtowers. Its atmosphere is largely peaceful, and the attitude of guards toward prisoners is notably positive. By contrast, prison conditions in some parts of the world are inhumane and cruel. Federal facilities in the U.S. have, for instance, been accused of harboring degrading and dangerous conditions, with prisoner rape being reported as rampant and inmate medical care being extremely poor.

Prison systems in America and other parts of the world view harsh living conditions as an additional form of punishment intended to reform offenders. This stands in direct contradiction to Scandinavian systems, where—as the Finnish Department of Prison and Probation has stated—punishment does not necessarily comprise the withdrawal of basic needs; rather, it concerns the loss of liberty. This effectively means that, compared to their counterparts elsewhere, offenders in Scandinavian countries retain their basic rights while having their independence limited as prison authorities administer rehabilitative services designed to deter future criminal behavior.

The prison staff in most Nordic prisons also differs from those found in other criminal justice facilities across the world. According to Pratt (2008, p. 223), in an attempt to further enhance outcomes for offenders, the composition of guards working within the prison perimeter is carefully considered. These facilities engage guards who are diverse in terms of educational background, age, and gender. The author further notes that many people in Scandinavian countries view prison guard positions as a desirable vocation, and it has, over time, become a competitive profession. The training of prison staff also differs from that adopted in other countries. Future guards are actively mentored and required to develop a sound understanding of the political dimensions of punishment as well as rehabilitative models (Pratt, 2008, p. 221). In some countries—particularly developing nations like Uganda and Venezuela—"prison guards are a joke, because only a handful of guards are mentally and physically qualified for the position" (Delgado, 2007, p. 403).

Crime and incarceration rates in Nordic countries such as Sweden are far lower than those in other parts of the world, including the United States. As Lappi-Seppala (2012, p. 136) observes, "the Nordic countries have not only much lower incarceration rates but also fewer offenders under supervised control, lower levels of fear and punitive demands, less serious violence." Nordic prisons are oriented toward the rehabilitation of offenders rather than punishment. There are prisons in the United States where the number of incarcerated individuals is twice that of Finland's entire prison population (Kenis et al., 2010, p. 318). The situation is even more extreme in some countries such as Uganda, where facilities designed to hold a specified number of people now house up to ten times that number (Delgado, 2007, p. 403).