Crime and Punishment in Sweden and Scandinavia

7/31/2019 Crime and Punishment in Sweden and Scandinavia

1/30

284

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57

I . CRIME AND PU NISHMENT INSCANDINAVIA: AN OVERVIEW

Geograph ica l ly, t he Scand inav ianc o u n t r i e s ( h e r e m e a n i n g D e n m a r k ,Finlan d, Norwa y and Sweden) lie on t hemargins of Europe, and with the exceptionof Denmark ar e rat her spa rsely populated,wi th a to ta l popula t ion of a round 24million. All the coun tr ies bar F inland a reconst itut iona l monarchies, and a ll ar e bothprotestant and very homogeneous in term sof cultu re. It wa snt u nt il a few decadesago tha t t he Nordic coun tr ies began to feelthe impact of immigra tion, this level beinghighest in Sweden and lowest in Finland.The s tandard of l iv ing in the Nordiccoun tr ies is am ong th e highest in th e worldan d th e regions modern political historyha s been shaped on th e whole by thepr inciples of social democracy.

Comparative research into levels of welfare h as shown th at t here is a rat herclear-cut pat tern of na tiona l cluster s in theEU-member states of similari ty in thewe l fa re mix , a s we l l a s t he gene ra ldistributive outcome in material livingstan dar ds. The Eu ropean Union appearsto be divided in th ree homogeneous cluster s

(Vogel, 1997): a n o r t h e r n E u r o p e a n c l u s t e r

( i n c l u d i n g D e n m a r k , F i n l a n d ,Norway [not a mem ber of th e EU])an d Sweden exhibiting h igh levels of social expenditur e and labour marketpar ticipation an d weak family ties.In t erm s of income distr ibution this

cluster is cha ra cterised by r elativelylow leve ls of income and c lassinequality, and low poverty ra tes, buta h igh level inequality between t heyoun ger and t he older genera tions;

a s o u t h e r n E u r o p e a n c l u s t e r(including Greece, Italy, Portugal and

Spain ) cha ra cter ised by much lowerlevels of welfare state provision andlower r at es of employment, bu t bystr ong tra ditiona l families. Here wefind higher levels of income a nd classinequa lity an d of poverty, but lowlevels of int er-genera tion inequa lity;

a cen tral European cluster with anintermediate posi t ion ( includingAustria, Belgium France, Germany,

I r e l a n d , L u x e m b o u r g , t h eNetherlands and the UK). The UKborders on the southern cluster interms of its high levels of incomei n e q u a l i t y, p o v e r t y a n d c l a s sinequality.

A g a i n s t t h i s s k e t c h y b a c k d r o preasonably s implis t ic descr ipt ions of tr aditional crime in t he Nordic coun tr ies,an d these coun tr ies responses to crime, ar epresent ed in th e following.

1 . In t e rn a t io n a l Cr im e Vi c ti m sSurve ys ( ICVS)

Because of var ia t ions in the ru lesgovern ing the collection a nd production of s ta t i s t ics in d i ffe ren t coun t r ies , it i sg e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d b y e x p e r t s t h a tcompa risons based on crime s ta tistics donot in pr incipa l allow for th e possibility of making cross-na tiona llevel compa risons of crime (CoE, 1999b:13). For th is reason,

* Depar tment of Criminology, Stockholm University,Sweden

NOTES ON CRIME AND PU NISHMENTIN S WED EN AND S CANDIN AVIA

Hanns von Hofer*


2/30

285

115TH INTERNATIONAL TRAININ G COURSEVISITING EXPERTS PAPERS

when cross-na tional compa risons of crimeleve l s a r e cons ide red des i r ab le , t hein t e rna t iona l c r ime v ic t ims su rveys(Mayhew & Killias , 1990; Mayh ew & vanDijk, 1997) ar e a grea t h elp despite t heobvious met hodologica l d ifficulties whichface even these data sets. The dat a arecollected by mean s of telephone interviews(using standardised questions) based onrandom samples of between 1,000 and2,000 per sons from ea ch coun tr y. A tota lof nineteen coun tr ies have pa rt icipated inthe three surveys (1989, 1992 and 1996),whilst of the Nordic coun tr ies, Norway took

par t only in 1989, Sweden in 1992 and 1996and Finland in all thr ee. Denmark has notpar ticipated at a ll an d must th erefore beexcluded from the following presentation.The offence types covered in the su rvey are:car theft, motorcycle theft, bicycle theft,burglary a nd at tempted burglar y, robbery,th eft from t he p erson, sex offences an dassault/threatening behaviour.

Results from a ll th e sur veys between1989 and 1996, irr espective of how man y

times th e individual countr ies part icipated,

have been summa rised and are presentedin the t able below.

Generally speaking, the level of crimina lvictimisation is r eport ed t o be lower inFin land and Norway than in Sweden(however, the Norwegian data r efer to 1989only). For the most part , Sweden lies fair lyclose to th e Eur opean a verage. Similardifferen ces between th e Nordic count rieswere also foun d dur ing the 1980s whencomparisons were carried out on resultsfrom nat iona l victims sur veys produced inthese coun tries. At th at point t he results

from Denma rk were s imi la r i n man yrespects to th ose in Sweden (RS, 1990:146ff). Sweden distinguish es her self (alongwith the Netherlands) with respect t o thelevel of bicycle thefts, whilst the Nordiccountries on the whole present relativelylow levels of car vandalism, bur glary androbber y. However, th e Nord ic coun tr iesscore h igher on sex offences and h igh onassau lts/thr eatening behaviour. There hasbeen speculation that these differences

might in par t be explained by higher levelsTable 1

Vic t imisa t ion ove r the l as t year (percen tage v ic t im once o r more) ,1989, 1992 and 1996 accordin g to the ICVS project .

S o u r c e : Mayhe w & van D ijk (1997, Appen dix 4, Table 1).

n.a. = not availableFI (Finlan d): 1989,1992,1996; NO (Norway): 1989 only; SE (Sweden): 1992, 1996.EUR9: Austr ia, Belgium, Fr ance, England & Wales, (West)Germa ny, Ita ly, Nether lands, Spa in and Switzerland .

DK FI NO SE EUR9Car theft n .a . 0.5 1.1 1.5 1.2Theft from car n.a . 2.8 2.8 4.4 5.4Car vandalism n.a. 4.6 4.6 4.6 7.5Motorcycle theft n .a . 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.8Bicycle theft n .a . 4.4 2.8 7.9 3.5Burglary n.a . 0.6 0.8 1.4 1.9Attempted burglary n.a . 0.6 0.4 1.0 1.9Robbery n.a . 0.7 0.5 0.4 1.1Thefts of personal property n.a . 3.6 3.2 4.4 4.4Sexual incidents n.a. 2.3 2.2 1.9 2.3Assaults & threats n.a. 3.8 3.0 3.6 2.7All eleven offence types n.a. 18.7 16.4 22.8 23.3Num ber of completed interviews n.a . 6544 1009 2707 29903


3/30

286

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57

of awar eness an d lower levels of toleranceamong Scandinavian women when it comesto setting limits for the forms of inter-gender encount ers t ha t ar e consideredsocially acceptable (HEUNI, 1998:132 f,163, 349, 432).

Additiona l dat a from caus e of deat hsta tistics regarding th e mid-1990s indicat e(CoE, 1999:43) that levels of homicide inDenmar k, Norway an d Sweden a re on apar with those reported in centra l Eur ope(around 1.2 per 100,000 of population),whilst Finland still presen ts considera bly

higher frequen cies (around 3.0 per 100,000of popula tion), which ha d a lready beennoted in th e criminological litera tu re of the1930s (NCS, 1997:13).

A c c o r d i n g t o v a r i o u s e s t i m a t e s(EMCDDA,1997: Table 5 & 1998: Table 4;Reuband, 1998:332), national prevalencera tes of problem dru g use appear to be nearaverage in Denmark and below average inNorway, Finland and Sweden as compared

to cen t r a l an d sou th e rn Eur ope . Anaccoun t of the Nordic drug scene in t he1990s is given by Olsson et a l. (1997).

The ICVS project su rveys not only theextent of crimina l victimisat ion bu t a lsoother r elated phenomena such as levels of fear, cr ime-prevent ive measures , andat titu des towar ds an d experiences of th epolice. Asked whether t hey felt they wereat risk of being burgled in th e cour se of thefollowing year, responden ts from Finlandan d Sweden were ra nked low (Mayhew &van Dijk, 1997:50). Asked h ow safe th eyfelt outside in their own neighbourhoodafter dark, feelings of insecurity werelowest among respondents from Finlandan d Sweden t ogether with Switzerlan d(Mayhew & van Dijk, 1997:51). In responseto the ques t ion o f whe the r t hey hadinsta lled various kinds of an ti brea k-indevices (such as burglar alarms, speciallocks, or bar s on windows or doors ) Finland

an d Sweden a l so cam e out be low th eaverage (Mayhew & van Dijk, 1997:54).

2. Tre n dsSince th ere a re n o victims su rveys (at

either the na t iona l or Eur opean level)covering the post-war per iod, descriptionsof crime t rends have to be based on r ecordsof crimes report ed to th e police. Despiteth e well kn own sh ortcomings of officialcrime st at istics, the use of such st at isticsto compar e crimet r ends is an acceptedmethod (CoE, 1999b:13).

The nu mber of crimes r eport ed to thepolice ha s r isen in a ll the Nordic coun tr iesat least sin ce the beginnin g of th e 1960s.The smallest increase is found in thenu mber of reported incident s of homicide(the nu mber of such reports h as doubled,except in Finlan d where th ey seem to haverem ained a t more or less the sam e level).The largest increase (between seven an dtwelve times) is to be foun d in the num berof report ed robberies, this being par tly due

to the fact t ha t a t t he end of th e 1950srobbery was more or less un hea rd of inthese countr ies , a total of only 1,200robberies being registered in th ese fourNordic countries in 1960 (NCS, 1997:72).The increase is probably linked in par t t othe upward tr end in juvenile crime an d inpart to the emergence of a group of sociallyma rgina lised ma les (NCS, 1997:31). It isnonetheless worth noting that according toth e ICVS, robbery leve ls in F in lan d ,Norway and Sweden still remain low in aninternational perspective (see Table 1supra ). The report ing of other offence types(assault , rape and theft) has increasedbetween t wo an d six times over th e sameperiod. When the coun tr ies ar e ranked onthe basis of increases in f ive offencecategories (homicide, assault, rape, robberyan d th eft), Sweden presen ts increases of t h e g r e a t e s t m a g n i t u d e , w h i l s t t h eincreases ar e least mar ked in Finland.


4/30

287

115TH INTERNATIONAL TRAININ G COURSEVISITING EXPERTS PAPERS

Crime trends in the Nordic countries ar eon th e whole much the same as those foundin o ther cent ra l European count r ies .West felt (1998) recently compa red crimetrends in Scandinavia with those in Aust ria,England & Wales, France, (West) Germanyand the Netherlands. He foun d tha t allcountries reported increases in crime, event h o u g h t h e r e w e r e p e r i o d i c a l l o c a l

differences. Figur e 1 clear ly sh ows thestriking similarity between t he tr end inregistered assault and theft offences in theNordic coun tr ies an d th at in the count riesof centra l Europe. The similar ities in crimetrends have previously been noted by writerssuch as Heidensohn & Far rel (1991), Eisner(1994), Killias (1995), Joutsen (1996), andMarsha ll (1996).

ASSAULT

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 20000

2

4

6

8

EUR5NORD4

Figure 1aAssau l t o ffence t rends in the Nord ic and some European coun t r ies ,

1950(63)-1996. Sca led se ries , pe r 100,000 of pop ula tion .S o u r c e : Wes tfe lt (1998; up da te d).

EUR5 = Austr ia, England & Wales, Fran ce, (West) Germa ny an d th e Nether lands

Figure 1bThef t o ffence t rends in the Nord ic and some European c ount r ies , 1950-1996.

Scale d ser ies , per 100,000 of popu lat ion.S o u r c e : Wes tfe lt (1998; up da te d).

EUR5 = Austr ia, England & Wales, Fran ce, (West) Germa ny an d th e Nether lands

THEFT

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 20000

1

2

3

4

5

EUR5NORD4


5/30

288

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIE S No. 57

It ha s been suggested tha t th eft tr endsin t h e 1990s may be i n t he p r oce s s o f c h a n g i n g d i r e c t i o n . U p t o n o w, t h eobservations on which su ch sta temen ts a rebas ed rem ain too few for u s to be able tos p e a k w i t h a n y d e g r e e o f c e r t a i n t y -par ticular ly in light of the fact t ha t we donot h ave good t heories a vai lable whichwould be able to explain such a break incrim e tr ends (cf. Steffensm eier & Ha rer,1999).

The tr end in juvenile crime const itut esa special case. The issue ha s recently been

s tu d ied by Pfe i ffe r (1998) and Es t ra da(1998). Accor ding to Es tr a da , levels of juven ile cr ime (i.e. most ly aga in st pr oper ty)i n c r e a s e d i n a l l t e n o f t h e E u r o p e a nco u n t r i e s s t ud i ed (Denmark , F in l and ,N o r w a y, S w e d e n a s w e l l a s A u s t r i a ,E n g l a n d , ( W e s t ) G e r m a n y , t h eNeth erlands, Scotlan d, and Switzerlan d)with out exception in th e decades followingth e Second World War. In m an y of th esecoun tr ies th is upward t r end was broken

however, probably at some point betweent h e m i d - 1 9 7 0 s a n d t h e e a r l y 1 9 8 0 s .Avai lab le s ta t i s t i cs sugges t tha t therefollowed somet h ing of a levelling off. Inth ree coun tr ies, however, England, Finlan dan d Germa ny no such brea k is visible in

ju ve n ile cr im e t r en ds, a n d t h e in cr ea sesha ve s imply cont inued . The t r ends inlevels of violent offences committed by

juveniles d iffer som ewhat from t he gener alcr i m e t r e n d . H e r e v ir t u a l ly a l l t h ecount ries present increases du ring th e lastt en - f i f t e en yea r s (w i th t he pos s ib l eexception of Finland an d Scotlan d).

3. Th e R e sp o ns e to Cr im e a n d t h eSys tem of Sanc t ions

The number of pol ice per 100,000 of popula tion is lower in th e Nordic coun tr iestha n in either southern or centr al Eur ope

(dat a for Germa ny are una vailable). In themid-1990s th e Nordic coun tr ies reported at o t a l o f 1 8 3 p o l i c e p e r 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 o f populat ion, whilst centr al Eu rope report ed291 (although th e Nether lands were on ap a r w i t h t h e N o r d i c c o u n t r i e s ) a n dsouth ern Eu rope 395 (CoE, 1999b:78). Asis the case in other E ur opean coun tr ies ,however, the clear up rate has droppedconsidera bly over t he yea rs (see Figur e 2).E x a c t l y h o w t h i s d r o p o u g h t t o b e

inter pret ed is not altogeth er clear : pur elyas a fall in police efficiency, for examp le, oras a resul t of increases in t he n umber of offences which wer e alwa ys un likely to beclear ed, or a s a combina tion of su ch factors(cf. Balvig, 1985:12).

Figure 2Clear up ra tes (a l l o ffence s covered by respe c t ive pena l codes ) in Denm ark ,

Finlan d, Norway a nd Sw ede n, 1950-1997 (eve ry f i fth ye ar) .S o u r c e : NCS (1997, Tabl e 9; up da te d).

Percentage

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 20000

20

40

60

80

10 0

SEDKNOFI


6/30

289

115TH INTE RNATIONAL TRAININ G COURSEVISITING EXPERTS PAPERS

The ICVS show th at th e level of publicsat isfact ion with th e pol ice is m ixed inFinland an d Sweden (data ar e una vailablefor Denma rk a nd Norway). Sweden topsthe l i s t as regards the ex ten t to whichmember s of th e public report crimes t o th epol ice (Mayhew & van Dijk, 1997:40) .Concern ing the way persons repor t ingcrime feel the police ha ve acted at th e timet h e c r i m e w a s r e p o r t e d , F i n l a n d a n dSweden pr esent a h igher t ha n a verage levelof satisfaction in compa rison with th e oth ercountries (Mayhew & van Dijk, 1997:44).However, in th e ma tt er of how sat isfied the

r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e w i t h t h e p o l i c e i ngenera l, confidence seems t o be avera ge inSweden and be low average in F in land(Mayhew & van Dijk, 1997: 47).

The ICVS ha ve also assessed at ti tudesto the k ind of senten ces dealt out in respectof crimina l offences. The respondent s wereasked to choose which of a var ie ty o f san ctions th ey felt to be most s uita ble fora 21 year old male ha ving committ ed his

second bu rgla ry, stea ling a colour t elevisionse t i n t h e p r oce s s . G iven t h e choi ceb e t w e e n f i n e s , a p r i s o n s e n t e n c e o rcomm un ity service, just un der 50 per cento f t h e S w e d i s h r e s p o n d e n t s c h o s ecomm un ity service, 24 percent prison, an dfour teen percent fines (Mayhew & van Dijk,1997:56). The corr espond ing figur es forFinnish r espondent s were 47, 16 and 16percent, an d for th e Norwegians 47, 14 an d2 3 p e r c e n t . T h e vi e w i n t h e N o r d i c

coun tr ies does not s eem t o deviate t oo muchf r o m t h e E u r o p e a n a v e r a g e , w i t h t h eexception of th e En glish sp eak ing na tions,where pr ison s entences ar e advocat ed to agreater extent.

Sh inka i & Zvekic (1999:120) claim t ha tpublic at t i tudes t o pun ishment generallyconform to the actual sentencing optionsavailable. This seems to hold tru e for th eNordic countries, where fines and otherforms of sanction are most common and

where pr ison sent ences a re em ployed lessfrequ ent ly. This is of cour se due pr imar ilyt o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e l a rg e m a j o r i t y o f offences wh ich lead to convictions ar e of aless or moderat ely serious n atu re a nd t hedema nd for pr oportionality between crimea n d p u n i s h m e n t m e a n s t h a t p r i s o nsen tences should be rese rved for moreserious offences.

The following br ief descript ion of choicesof sa nction concern s t hose imposed for a llo ffences aga ins t the pena l code takentogeth er (NCS, 1997:78 ff). A more de ta iled

descript ion looking at different offencecategories would not have been feasiblegiven t he br evity of th is overview. Sinceth e ma jor ity of offences commit ted a gain stth e penal code ar e proper ty offences of onekind or another, the sanctions describedh e r e a r e i n p r a c t i s e p r i m a r i l y t h o s eimposed for theft offences an d th e like. Thefigur es refer to 1995. In t he case of Norwa y,the dat a h ad in par t to be estimated sincemisdemeanours ar e not included in theirent irety in the Norwegian st at istics (NOS,1997: Table 40).

Finlan d convicts far more people tha nth e o the r Nord i c coun t r i e s (1 , 238 pe r1 0 0 , 0 0 0 , a s c o m p a r e d w i t h 9 2 7 i nD e n m a r k , 7 3 1 i n S w e d e n a n d 5 4 4 i nNorway). Finland s un ique position m aybe par t ia l ly explained by the legal is t icappr oach char acter istic of Finn ish judicialpractise, with its rather strict observance

of ma nda tory prosecut ion (J outsen , [1999])and also, as ha s been intimated by Finnishexpert s, by the fact tha t clear u p rat es havebeen consistent ly higher in Finlan d th anin th e rest of Scan dinavia.

I n c on t r a s t t o t h e o t h e r c ou n t r i e s ,however, 81 percen t of th ose convicted inFinlan d r eceive fines (th e corr espondingp ropo r t i ons i n Denmark , Norway an dS w e d e n b e i n g 5 9 , 5 3 a n d 4 3 p e r c e n trespectively). Other sanctions (excluding


7/30

290


prison sent ences) ar e used m ost often inS w e d e n ( 4 2 p e r c e n t a s a g a i n s t 2 3 i nDenma rk a nd Norway and eleven percenti n F in l a nd ) . Th i s ve ry rough ou t l inen o ne the l e s s c ap tu r e s a number o f t heessent ial cha ra cter istics of th e san ctioningcultur e of the N ordic count ries: Swedens t i ll appea r s a s t h e coun t ry whe re t hephilosophy of individual prevention, basedon a wide var ie ty of sanct ions, is mostpronounced, whilst F inland most clear lyfollows t he clas sical t ra dition of imposingfines and pr i son sen tences as th e mos tcomm on forms of sa nction. Ir re spective of

th ese differen ces, fines a re u sed extensivelyth roughout t he Nordic coun tr ies.

When i t comes t o t he u se o f p r i sonsent ences, th ese ar e imposed more oftenin Denmar k a nd Norway - both in relativean d in absolute term s - th an in Sweden andF i n l a n d . O n t h e ot h e r h a n d , p r i s ons e n t e n c e s a r e l o n g e r i n S w e d e n a n dF in l an d . Th i s somewha t comp l i ca t edpictu re s erves a s a good indication of th e

difficulties faced when t rying to mea sur ean d compar e the r elat ive punitiveness of th e san ction systems of differen t coun tr ies(cf. Peas e, 1994).

In addition, we could n ote t ha t Swedenmore or less aban doned th e use of pr isont e r ms a s a means o f s anc t i on ing non -paymen t of fines at th e beginn ing of the1980s (Sveri, 1998) an d th at since th e mid-1990s electr onic tagging h as been us ed as

an a l te rn a t ive for ce r ta in ca tegor ies o f offender sen tenced to up to th ree m ont hsimpr isonm ent (Bish op, 1995; BR , 1999).In 1998 a lmost 4,000 individua ls servedth eir sen ten ce in t his wa y, of whom lessth an 200 dropped out of th e progra mme(KOS, 1998:45).

4. Th e P ri so nsDespi te th e above d iffe ren ces in t he

f r e q u e n c y a n d l e n g t h o f t h e p r i s o nsent ences imposed in t he N ordic coun tr ies,

the i r jud ic ia l sys tems resu l t in p r i sonpopulat ions of a similar size. The Coun cilof Eur ope (CoE, 1999a:13) report s th at th einmat e population in t he N ordic coun tr ies(measu red on 1 Sep tem ber 1997) is low ina E ur opean p erspective (58 prison inm at esper 100,000 of popu lat ion; th e level beinglowest in Norwa y at 53 per 100,000 an dhighest in Denma rk a t 62 per 100,000).T h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g f i g u r e f o r c e n t r a lE u r o p e w a s 8 9 p e r 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 , a n d f o rsouth ern Eu rope 100 (with Greece includeda l though sh e dev ia t es qu i te d r as t ica llyf r o m t h i s f i g u r e w i t h a l o w i n m a t e

p o p u l a t i on of 5 4 p e r 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 ). T h ep e r c e p t i o n t h a t p r i s o n s e n t e n c e s a r eha rmful and should thus be avoided asmu ch a s possible stil l ha s a great deal of c u r r e n c y i n t h e N o r d i c c o u n t r i e s(Bond eson, 1998:94).

U n l i k e i n m a n y o t h e r E u r o p e a ncoun tr ies, th ere is n o genera l problem of p r i s o n o v e r c r o w d i n g i n S c a n d i n a v i a( a l t hough such p rob l ems can a r i s e i n

s p e c i a l t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , C o E ,1999c:115 ff). As a r ule, prisons in t heNordic coun tr ies are sma ll (between 60 an d100 inm at es), modern a nd char acterised byhigh staffing levels (CoE, 1999a:51 ff).O p e n p r i s o n s , w h e r e s e c u r i t yarr angements a imed at preventing escapea r e k e p t t o a m i n i m u m , a c c o u n t f o rbetween twen ty percent (Sweden) an d fort yper cent of pr ison places (Denm ar k). Forth is reason th e Nordic coun tr ies, with th e

exception of Fin lan d, report high levels of escapees in compa rison with th ose of oth ercountries (CoE, 1999a:41).

There ar e very few persons u nder t heage of eighteen in Nordic prisons (suchindividuals account for way below onepercen t of the p r i son popula t ion , CoE,1999a :16 ). The p ropo r t i on of f ema leprisoner s lies - as in man y oth er coun tr ies- between five and six percent , whilst th eproport ion of foreign citizens am ong prison


8/30

291


inma tes var ies quite consider ably - beinglowest in Finlan d at 4 per cent, an d highestin Sweden a t 26 per cent (CoE, 1999a:18).

The a verage length of sta y in pr ison canbe estimated (cf. NCS, 1997:82 f) to beshortest in Norway (2.9 mont hs in 1995)an d longest in Sweden (5.2 month s). Asregards th e nu mber of individuals servingl ife sentences, on a cer t a in day in 1998th ere were t welve such lifers in Denmar k,59 in F in land a nd 78 in Sweden (KOS,1999:102). The l ife sen ten ce ha s beenabolish ed in Norwa y.

O v e r t h e l a s t 5 0 ye a r s , p r i s onpopulat ions h ave been fairly sta ble in th eDenma rk , Norwa y and Sweden (see Figure3). The increases of th e last t en year s arenot th a t l a rge when seen in a Eur opeanper spec t ive (CoE, 1999c:17) . F in lan dconst itut es a rema rk able exception to thet r end t owards r i s i ng i nma te number s .There the pr ison populat ion ha s shru nk qui te consider ably s ince the mid-1970s

( 1 9 7 6 : 1 1 8 i n m a t e s p e r 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 o f populat ion) and is today on a pa r with th atof her Nordic neighbours . The r oots of th epast high Finnish population m ay be tra ced

b a c k t o t h e c i v i l w a r ( 1 9 1 8 ) a n d i t sa f t e r m a t h (C h r i s t i e , 1 9 6 8 :1 7 1 ). T h epolitical m echa nisms un derlying t he recentdecrea se h ave been d escribed by T rnudd(1993) and Lappi-Sepp la (1998), who -among oth er t hings - concludes t ha t t hedecrea se of th e prison population ha s notchan ged th e Finnish cr ime pictur e in a nun favour able way as compa red t o oth erNordic countries (p. 27).

5. Su m m aryThis sh ort overview of the st at e of th e

cr ime l eve ls a nd pena l sy s t em s o f t h e

Nordic coun tr ies, as portr ayed by a vailablesta tistical sour ces, indicates th at th e crimelevel in Scandina via (as r egards t ra ditiona loffences) is on a par with or lower th an th atof other Eur opean coun tr ies. Dru g abu setoo appears to be less widespread in theNordic coun tr ies. Increa ses in crime ra tesdur ing the post-war period h ave been verysubsta ntial in t he Nordic coun tr ies just ast h ey have been e l s ewhe re i n Eu rope -indicat ing tha t t he r ecorded increases of

t r ad i t i ona l cr ime i n Eu rope may havecommon roots out of rea ch for var yingna tional welfare an d crimin al policies. The1990s may ha ve witnessed a sta bilisation

Figure 3Pr i son popula t ions in Denm ark , F in land , Norway and Sw eden ,

1950-1998 (eve ry fifth yea r). P er 100,000 of popu latio n.S o u r c e : NCS (1997; up date d)

Per 100,000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

0

50

100

150

200

NOSEDKF I


9/30

292


i n t h e f t r a t e s , a l b e i t a t a h i g h l e v e l .Increasing equality between th e sexes ha sprobably cont ributed t o an increase in t herep ortin g of violent an d sexu al offencesaga ins t women (an d ch i ld ren) , ma kingth ese offences more visible. The syst em of formal control in the Nordic countries ischarac te r i sed by re la t ive ly low pol iced e n s i t y, a f a l l i n g c l e a r u p r a t e , t h eimposition of fines in a h igh pr oport ion of crimina l cases a nd low prison populations.

The inter na tiona l crime victims su rveys(no data being available for Denm ar k an d

Norway) ind ica te tha t fea r o f c r ime i scompa ra tively low in Finlan d an d Sweden;an d t ha t (for th is rea son) people do not feelthe need to ta ke special precau tions a gainstth e possibility of crime t o any grea t exten t.Respondents appear to be fairly satisfiedwith t he per form an ce of the police an d a lsos u p p o r t l i m i t s o n t h e u s e o f p r i s o nsentences.

I t sh ould be remembered that debates

on crime policy in th e ma ss media or am ongpoliticians a t t he na tiona l level ar e ra relybased on a compara t ive c ross -na t iona lper spective. Conclusions su ch as thosedrawn in HEUNI s Profiles of CriminalJustice Systems (1998), for examp le,

on Denmar k : In genera l , th erefore , theda t a (wh ich i s adm i t t ed ly lim i t ed )suggest a relat ively low crime pr oblemin Denmar k (p. 134)

or on Sweden: All in a ll , th erefore, t heimage one receives from the data oncrime a nd crimina l just ice is tha t, atleast in the international comparison,Sweden h as been r elatively successfulin i ts cr ime pr event ion an d cr imina l

ju st ice policy (p. 434)

would be rejected by ma ny editorials an dp ol it i ci a n s a s a r t e f a ct s . I n s t e a d , t h escena r ios pa in t ed a r e no t un comm only

quite clear in th eir inclinat ion t owar ds lawand order an d the n eed for t ougher a nt i -crime measu res.

ReferencesS u m m a r y c r i m e a n d c o r r e c t i o n a l

statistics regardin g the Nordic coun tries are fou n d in CoE (1 999a , 1999b) an d N CS(1997). S um m ary prof i les o f c r imin a l

ju st ice system s are presen ted by H E UN I (1999 ) and i n t he Wor ld Fac tbook o f C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e S y s t e m(w w w. oj p . u s d o j . gov / b j s / a b s t r a ct s / wfcj .htm ). EU R OS TAT (1997) providesvaluable dem ographic and social d ata for the period 1986-1996.

Balvig, F., Crime in Scandinavia: Trends,Exp l ana t i ons , an d Consequen ces . I n :Bishop, N. (Ed), S candinavian CriminalPolicy and Crim inology 1980-85 , pp. 7-17.C o p e n h a g e n : S c a n d i n a v i a n R e s e a r c hCouncil for Cr imin ology, 1985.

Bishop, N. , Intensive supervis ion with

e l e c t r o n i c m o n i t o r i n g : a S w e d i s halterna tive t o imprisonment . Penological

In form ation Bu ll etin . Nos. 19 an d 20, pp.8-10. Council of Eu rope, 1994-1995.

BR , In tensivverva knin g m ed elek tron isk kontroll. En utv rdering av 1997 och 1998 r s r i k som fa t t and e fr sksve rksam he t [ In tens ive superv is ion wi th e lec t ron icm o n i t o r i n g . An ev a l u a t i o n of t h enationwide trial period 1997 and 1998].

Br -Rapport 1999:4 [with a sum ma ry inEn glish]. Stockh olm: Brott sf rebyggander det, 1999.

B o n d e s o n , U . , G l ob a l Tr e n d s i nCorrections, A n n ales In tern at ion ales d eCriminologie 36 (1/2), pp . 91-116, 1998 .

Chr i s t i e , N. , Changes in Pena l Values ,S candin avian S tud ies in Crimin ology 2 ,pp. 161-172, 1968.


10/30

293


CoE, Counci l o f Europe Annual Pena lS tatistics S PACE I. S urvey 1997. PC-CP(99) 3 REV. Str as bourg, 5 J uly 1999a.

CoE, E u ropean S ou rcebook of Crim e a nd Criminal Justice Statistics . PC-S-ST (99)8 REV. Str as bour g, 7 Ju ly 1999b.

CoE, R apport fin ale d activ it . Conseil decoop ra t ion p nologique. CDCP (99) 18Addendu m I . S t r asbourg , l e 13 ju l li e t1999c.

van Dijk, J .J .M., Mayh ew, P. an d Killias ,

M., E xperiences of Cr im e Across t he World :

Key Findings of the 1989 Internat ionalCrime Su rvey . Deventer : Kluwer.

E i s n e r , E . , T h e E f f e c t s o f E c o n o m i cStr uctur es an d Ph ases of Development onCrim e. In : Council of Eu rope, Crime and econom y . P roceedings. Reports presen tedto the 11th Criminological col loquium(1994) . Cr imin ological r esea r ch, Vol .XXXII, pp. 13-51. St r a sbour g: Coun cil of

Eu rope Pu blishing, 1995.

EMCDDA, Annual R eport on the S tate of the Drugs Problem in th e Eu ropean Un ion1997 . Eu ropean Monitor ing Centr e forDru gs and Dru g Addiction. Lisboa, 1997.

EMCDDA, Annual R eport on the S tate of the Drugs Problem in th e Eu ropean Un ion1998 . Eu ropean Monitor ing Centr e forDru gs and Dru g Addiction. Luxembour g:

Off ice for Off ic ia l Publ icat ions of theEu ropean Commun ities, 1998.

EUROSTAT, Yearbook 97 . Luxembourg:Off ice for Off ic ia l Publ icat ions of theEu ropean Commun ities, 1997.

Estr ada . F., J uvenile Crime Trends in Post-Wa r E u r o p e . E u r o p e a n J o u r n a l o nCrim inal Policy an d R esearch 7 , pp. 23-42, 1999.

Heidensohn , F. an d Fa r r e l , M. (Eds),Crime in E urope . London: Routledge, 1991.

H E U N I , P r of i l es o f C r i m i n a l J u s t i c eS ys t em s i n E u rope and N or th A m er i ca1990-1994 . K. Kangaspu nta , M. J outsen ,N. Ollus an d S. Nevala (Eds). Eu ropeanInst itute for Crime Pr event ion a nd Control,a f f i l i a t e d w i t h t h e U n i t e d N a t i o n s .Publication Series No. 33. Helsinki, 1999.

J ou tsen , M., R ecen t Tren d s in Crim e inWestern E urope . Paper p resen ted a t theFifth Eu ropean Colloquium on Cr ime an d

C r i m i n a l P o l i c y , L j u b l j a n a , 2 5 - 2 7September 1996.

J ou t sen , M., F in land . In : G. Newman(Ed.), World Factbook of Crim inal J usticeSystems . Internet: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ pub/ascii/wfbjfin.t xt [Last modified: 02/23/ 99].

Killias , M., Crim e Policy in th e Face of thethe Developm en t of C r im e i n t h e New

E u rop ea n L an d sca pe . Report from th eF i f t h C o n f e r e n c e o n C r i m e P o l i c y.Str as bour g: Coun cil of Eur ope, 1995.

KOS, Krim inalvrdens Officiella S tatistik [ O ff ic ia l S t a t i s t i c s o f C o r r e c t i on s ] .Norrk ping, 1999.

Lappi-Sepp l, T., R egu lat in g the Pri sonPopulation. Experiences from a Long-TermPol icy in F in land . Na t iona l Resear ch

I n s t i t u t e o f L e g a l P o l i cy. R e s e a r c hComm un icat ions 38. Helsink i, 1998.

Mayhew, P. an d van Dijk, J .J .M., CriminalVic t imisa t ion in E leven Indus t r ia l i sed Coun tr ies . Key f ind ings from th e 1996

I n t ern a t i on a l C r i m e Vict i m s S u r v ey .Onder zoek en beleid 162. WODC, 1997.

Mar sha ll Ha en, I., How Exceptional Is th eUnited States? Crime Trends in Europea n d t h e U . S . , E u r op ea n J ou r n a l on


11/30

294


Criminal Policy and Research, 4 (2), pp. 7-35, 1996.

NCS, N or d ic Crim in a l S ta t is t ics 1950-1995 . Hanns von Hofer (Ed). Stockholm:Depar tm ent of Crimin ology, 1997.

NOS, Kr imina ls ta t i s t ikk 1995 [OfficialS ta t i s t i cs o f Norway, Cr ime S ta t i s t i cs1995]. C 392. Oslo-Kongsvinger, 1997.

Olsson, B., Stymn e, A., Ha kk ar ain en, P.,Schmidt, D., Skr ett ing, A. an d Valss on, K.S., The Nordic drug scene in the 1990s:

recent t r ends, N ord ic S tu d ies on Alcoh ol

and Drugs 14 (En glish Supplemen t), 1997.

Pea se, K., Cross-National Impr isonm entRates. Limitations of Method an d PossibleC o n c l u s i o n s , B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f Criminology 34 , pp. 116-130.

Pfeiffer, C., J uven ile crim e an d violence inEu rope. In : M. Tonry (Ed), Cr ime and

J u st ice: A R eview of R esea rch 23 , pp. 255-

328. Chicago, IL: Un iversit y of ChicagoPr ess, 1998.

Reuban d, K.-H., Drug P olicies an d Dru gPr e va l ence : The Ro le o f Demand andSupply, E u rop ea n J ou rn a l on Crim in a lPol icy an d R esearch 6 (3), pp. 321-336,1998.

RS , Nordisk k r imina ls ta t is t ik [Nordiccr im ina l s ta t is t ics] . In: R t t sst a t is t isk

rsbok 1990 [Yearbook of J udicial St a tist ics1990] . Officia l S t a t i s t i cs o f Swede n .Stockholm: Sta tist ics Sweden , pp. 142-152,1990.

Shinka i, H. an d Zvekic, U., Pu nishm ent.In : G. Newman (Ed) , Global Report onCrim e and J ustice , pp. 89-120. Pu blishedfor the United Nat ions Off ice for DrugCont rol an d Crime Prevent ion. Centr e forIn t e r na t i ona l C r ime P r even t i on . Ne wYork/Oxford: Oxford U niver si ty P r ess ,

1999.

Steffensm eier, D. an d Har er, M.D., Mak ingSens e of Recent U .S. Crim e Tren ds, 1980to 1996/1998: Age Composition Effects an dOther Explanations, J ou rn al of R esearchin Crim e and Delinqu ency 36 (3), pp. 235-274, 1999.

Sveri, K., Incar cera tion for Non-paym entof a F i n e . I n : H . J . Al b r e c h t e t a l . ,

I n t e r n a t i o n a l e P e r s p e k t i v e n i nKrim inologie un d S trafrecht . Festschrift

f r Gn ther Kaiser , pp. 681-690. Ber lin:

Duncker & Hu mblot, 1998.

Trnudd, P., Fift een Years of DecreasingPr i sone r Ra t e s i n F in l and . N a t i o n a lR e s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f L e g a l P o l i c y.Research Commu nica t ion 8. Hels ink i ,1993.

Vogel, J ., L iv in g con dit ion s a nd in equ al it yin the European Union 1997 . Euros ta tWorkin g Pa pers . Populat ion an d social

conditions. E/1997-3. [Working document].1997.

Westfelt, L., Utvecklingen a v registr era deb ro t t unde r e ft e rk r i g s t iden . Sver ige ieu rope i sk be ly sn ing [Deve lopmen t o f regis tered offences dur ing th e post-warperiod. Sweden compa red with Eur ope].In : H. von Hofer (Ed), B rot t s l igh et en i

E u rop e [Crime in Eu rope] , pp. 20-40.Lund: Studentlitteratur, 1998.

II . THE SWEDISH P RISON SYSTEM

1. Incarcera t ion in Sw edenSince the end of th e 1980s, th e Swedish

pena l system ha s been officially based ona m odel of just desert s (cf. Lundquist, 1990;T h a m , 1 9 9 5). T h i s m e a n s t h a t t h eperceived gr avi ty of the offence, or th epena l value , is th e most import an t factorin t he decision of an a ppropriat e san ction

for the crime. This does, however, not


12/30

295


imply that th ere is a heavy relian ce on t heuse of impr i sonment as a sanc t ion forcr imes. Quite the contr ar y: the modernofficial view is that, preferably, peopleough t n ot to be locked up. To deal witho f f e n d e r s b y k e e p i n g t h e m i n t h ecommunity is cons idered t o be the best wayof getting t hem to lead crime-free lives (Basic Fa cts, 1997: 1). Thu s, probat ion,communi ty se rv ice , c iv i l commitment(contr act tr eatm ent), suspended senten cesand f ines a re the pre fe r red methods of pun ishment . This is fur th er empha sizedby a special provision in t he Cr imina l Code

which pr escribes th at in all cases t he cour ti s r e q u i r e d t o g i v e n o t i c e t o a n ycircumstance or circumstances suggestingth e imposition of a sen ten ce milder th animprisonment .

In 1998, about 125,000 people (or 1,400per 100,000 populat ion) were foun d guiltyfo r a v a r i e t y of c r i m i n a l a c t s . T h ebreak down of san ctions imposed was asfol lows: 77 ,000 f ines ; 15 ,000 pr i son

sent ences (of which 4,000 were conver tedin to electronic monitoring , see below);1 0 , 0 0 0 p r o b a t i o n o r d e r s ( i n c l u d i n gsupervis ion of young offenders) ; 8 ,000penal war nings (suspended sentence), andless tha n 400 comm it ta ls to psychiat r iccar e. In addit ion, the public prosecutorwaved p rosecution for 14,000 people. 1

All prison s ent ences ar e for a fixed ter mor for life, depen ding on th e gra vity of the

offence. The minimu m prison sen ten ce is14 days . Mos t of ten the ac tua l p r i sonsent ence is for a rela tively short period.Dur ing 1998, a t ota l of 9,497 persons wereadmitted to prison, of whom 30 percentreceived a sen ten ce of two month s or less

a n d 3 3 p e r c en t b e t w ee n t w o a n d s i xmonth s. The avera ge prison populationamounted to 5 ,156 pr isoners (of whom1,071 were r eman d prisoners) or t o a totalof 58 prisoners per 100,000 population.Pr isoners released in 1998 had ser ved anaver age of 154 days in pr ison.

2 . Th e P r i s on S y s t e m : An O v e rv i e wThe Min istr y of Just ice is resp ons ible for

es tab l i sh ing pr i son po l icy, bu t has noau th ority to inter fere in t he da ily work of th e prisons a nd pr obat ion ser vice centr allyor r e g i on a l ly. T h i s is , i n s t e a d , t h e

res posibility of The Swedish Pr ison an dPr obat ion Service (SPPS), which is hea dedby a government appoin ted board tha tconsists of trusted citizens (members of p a r l ia m e n t , c h a r i t a b l e org a n i z a t i on s ,l a b o u r u n i on s , a n d s o f or t h ) . T h egovernm ent a lso appoint s th e Director-General.

All prisons a nd gaols (rem an d prisons)in Sweden a re sta te cont rolled an d ther e

ar e no coun ty jails. Pr ivatizat ion of pr isonsi s a n o n - i s s u e i n S w e d e n , d e s p i t eP a r l i a m e n t s d e c i s i o n , i n 1 9 9 8 , t h a tau th orized privat e secur ity firms m ay beused, un der special circumsta nces, to car ryo u t f u n c t i o n s s u c h a s t r a n s p o r t i n gp r i s o n e r s o r g u a r d i n g h o s p i t a l i z e dprisoners.

The penal a dministrat ion of the coun tryis divided int o five regiona l un its. The

regional off ices are responsible for thea d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f g a o l s a n d p r i s o n s ,a f t e r ca r e a nd non -cus t od i a l s en t en ces(super vision). In October 1998, th e SP PSemployed a pproxima tely 7,800 persons, 42percent of whom wer e female; 4,487 of sta ff were employed in pr isons and 1,553 ingaols . In 1997 , th e s ta ff/inm at e ra t ioamount ed to 0 .9: 1 in th e pr isons a nd t o1 .4 : 1 in the goa ls . The to ta l budge t ,including expendi tu re for r equiremen tssuch a s non-inst itut iona l car e, for t he 1998

1 If not otherwise stated, all statistical data are t aken

from the following official sources: Crime and

Criminal J ust ice Stat istics 1998 and Correctional

Sta tistics 1998. The Swedish population amoun ted

to 8.85 million people in 1998.


13/30

296


f isca l year was 4 ,150 mi l lion SwedishK r ono r (SEK) ( abou t 460 mi l l i on USD ol l a r s ) . The da i l y cos t pe r i nm a t e ,depending on the pr i son ca tegory ( seebelow), ha s been calculat ed a t between 200US Dollars in open pr isons an d 300 USDollar s in ma ximu m-secur ity prisons.

T h e m a n a g e m e n t s t y l e i n S w e d i s hprisons is organic , rat her t han militaristic.Arm ed guar ds do not exist. In very seriousu n r e s t s i t u a t i o n s , t h e l o c a l p o l i c edepart ment is conta cted an d au thorized todeal with t he situa tion. However, riots a nd

oth er form s of un rest a re extremely rar eevents in Swedish pr isons . In 1994 a ma jorincident occur red a t t he ma ximu m securityTidah olm prison, when inma tes set fire topar ts of th e prison.

P r e s e n t l y a n i n c r e a s i n g n u m b e r o f pr ison officers ar e requ ired to ma inta incont act with a s pecified num ber of inma teson a daily basis. The pu rpose of th is cont actresponsibi l i ty is to ass is t inmates with

t r e a t m e n t , e d u c a t i o n a n d a c t i v i t yp l a n n i n g , a s w e l l a s t o a s s i st i n t h egran ting of routine par ole. The minimumrequ iremen ts for a position a s corr ectiona lofficer is at least two years of senior highschool education or th e applican t m ust beat least 26 year s of age with at least fouryears of work experience. In a ddition toth e gene ra l educa t i ona l r equ i r emen t s ,p r o s p e c t i v e c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s a r erequ ired to have at least t wo year s of senior

h i g h s c h o o l t r a i n i n g i n t h e E n g l i s hl a n g u a g e , S w ed i s h a n d i n t h e s o ci a lsciences. Hirin g is based on persona l jobint erviews with pr ospective officers.

2.1 Pr iso n Class i f icat ionI n S w e d e n t h e r e a r e f o u r d i f f e r e n t

securi t y categories for pr isons. Pr isonca t egor ies I t o I I I a r e kn own a s closedp r i s o n s a n d c a t e g o r y I V p r i s o n s a r econsidered open prisons . This system wasintr oduced in th e first h alf of the 1990s.

B e f o r e t h a t , a d i s t i n c t i o n w a s m a d eb e t w e e n n a t i on a l a n d l o ca l , o rneighbourhood prisons. Na tional an d localpr isons could be open or closed pr isons .National prisons were usually maximum-secu r i t y p r i sons bu t cou ld va ry f romm a x i m u m t o m i n i m u m p r i s on s .N e i g h b o u r h o o d p r i s o n s w e r e u s u a l l yminimum or medium secur ity prisons.

C a t e g o r y I p r i s o n s a r e s i m i l a r t om a x i m u m - s e c u r i t y p r i s o n s i n o t h e rcoun t r ies . They a r e des igned with th ehighes t level of secur ity possible, given t he

current state of technology and securitymet hodology, in order to preven t es capesan d release attempt s. The only differencebetween category II an d category I pr isonsi s tha t ca tegory I I p r i sons do no t ha ves e cu r i t y m e a s u r e s p r e v e n t i n g r e l e a s ea t t e m p t s . C a t e g or y I I I p r i s on s a r ebas i ca l l y de s igned t o t hwar t impu l see scape a t t emp t s . These p r i sons on lyp r o vi d e m i n i m u m s e cu r i t y m e a s u r e saga ins t escap es . F in a l ly, ca tegory IV

prisons, known as open pr isons , have nophysical bar riers or t echn ology aimed atprevent ing escape. The only barr iers toescape a re t he (un ar med) prison officersth emselves. Per sons convicted of dru nk endr iving a nd less serious offences a re oftensen t to ca t egory IV pr i sons . Pr i soner ss e r v in g t i m e i n t h e s e p r i s on s m a y b eallowed to pur sue em ployment or edu cat iondur ing the da y out side of the prison.

In 1998, the a verage nu mber of availablep r i s o n b e d s ( i n c l u d i n g g a o l s ) w a sapproximate ly 5 ,600 wi th the na t iona la v e r a g e b e i n g a t a b o u t 8 7 p e r c e n t o f occup an cy. On a vera ge, six percent of th epr isoner s were placed in category I prisons;18 percent in category II pr isons; 30 percenti n c a t ego ry I I I p r i sons ; 21 pe r cen t i ncat egory IV prisons; an d 26 percent werereman d prisoners.

F r o m a n i n t e r n a t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e ,


14/30

297


Swedish prisons are modern, expensive,an d sma l l. The la rges t p r i son , Kumla ,which is a ma ximum-secur ity prison, ha sabout 260 (nomin al) beds and only 177were in use dur in g 1998 . The typ ica lSwedish pr i son h as fa r fewer th an 100beds. Single celling at night is th e rule an dover -crowdin g does n ot occur.

In 1998, no escap es were r eported fromcat egory I an d II prisons, 36 escapes fromcategory III pr isons, 155 escapes fromcat egory IV prisons an d no escapes fromgaols . Over and above th ese nu mbers ,

another 178 abscondings (in connectionwith fur loughs, du ring t ra nsport, etc.) werereport ed. By official Swedish st an dar ds,th is level of securit y is cons idered high.

3 Th e S w e di sh Pri so n P h ilo so ph yEven i f senten cing in Sweden is n ow

based on a just deserts model, treatm ent,p r e sen t l y c a l l ed spec i a l p r o g r a m m e sa c t i v i t i e s i s s t i l l an exp l i c i t g oa l o f corr ection. Accord ing to th e cur ren t P rison

Trea tm ent Act of 1974 (PTA), th e pr ima rygoal of the prison sentence is to promotethe inmat e s adjustment to the commu nityas wel l as t o coun tera ct t he detr imentaleffects of impr isonm ent . Alread y in th ePr ison Trea tm ent Act of 1945, the view wasexpressed th at th e deprivation of freedomi t s e lf shou ld be r ega rded a s t h e pena lelement of a pr ison sent ence and not th eactua l prison experience itself. Thu s, th ePTA of 1974 sta tes explicitly tha t a n inma te

sha ll be trea ted with r espect for h is or h erhu ma n dignity.

The PTA o f 1974 i s ba sed on fou rprinciples:(i) impr isonmen t a s la s t r e sor t , t h a t is ,

the u sual pun ishment sh ould be a fineo r a c o m m u n i t y s e n t e n c e , s i n c ei m p r i s o n m e n t n o r m a l l y h a sdetrimen ta l effects;

(i i) normalization, that is, the same rulesconcern ing social an d medical car e an d

other forms of public service shouldapply to prisoner s just as t hey applyto ordinary citizens;

(iii) vicinity, tha t is, the pr isoner should beplaced in pr ison as close a s possible tohis or h er h ome town; an d

(iv) co-operat ion, mean ing that all parts of th e cor r ect iona l sys tem (proba t ionservice, gaols a nd prisons) should work closely togeth er in individual cases a swell as in general.

D u e t o a g e n e r a l s h i f t i n S w e d i s hcriminal policy towards a pro-active and

m o r e r e p r e s s i v e m o d e l , i n c r e a s i n gempha s i s ha s been p l aced on s ecu r i t yduring th e late 1980s an d th e 1990s withth e result t ha t t he vicinity principle is nowobsolete. Recent ly, the a im of th e prisonsystem ha s been officia l ly descr ibed a sfo l l ows : T h e c o r r e c t i o n a l s y s t e m sopera t ions sha l l be charac te r ized by ahu ma ne a tti tu de, good care of an d a ctiveinfluen ce u pon th e pr isoner, observing ahigh degr ee of secur ity as well as by due

deferen ce to th e prisoner s integrity an d todue process. Operat ions sh all be directedtowar ds m easur es , which in fluence th eprisoner n ot to commit furt her crimes. Theo b j e c t i v e s h o u l d b e t o p r o m o t e a n dm a i n t a i n t h e h u m a n e t r e a t m e n t o f offender s with out jeopar dizing secur ity (author s tra nslat ion). Or in th e words of th e SPPS itself : The Pr ison a nd P robationService ha s two ma in goals. To cont ribut eto the redu ction of crimina lity, and to work

to incr ea se sa fety in society. To a chievet h e s e g o a l s w e w o r k w i t h s e n t e n c e dp e r s o n s i n o r d e r t o i m p r o v e t h e i rpos s ib i l i t i e s o f l i v ing a l i f e w i thou tcommitting new crimes.

4 S pe cifi c As pe cts o f th eCorrec t ion a l Sys tem

4.1 Medical Treatm en t of Pr iso ne rsA l l n e w l y r e c e i v e d i n m a t e s a r e

questioned about t heir sta te of health byth e adm ittin g pr ison official. In th e event


15/30

298


of an y hea lth compla int s, th e prison officialsends them to a prison nu rse. In 1998, atota l of 163 nu rs es were employed by thePr ison Ser vice. Typically, a ll new inm at esar e exam ined by a pr ison nu rse within 24hour s of a r r iva l . Any pr i soner who i sident i f ied as possibly having a ser iousm e d ica l p r ob l em i s t h en r e fe r r ed t o aphysician for a closer examina tion an d, if necessar y, any fur th er referra ls are ma de.I n t h e e v en t t h a t a n i n m a t e r e q u i r e sspecia l ized t rea tm ent , the t rea t ment i sobtained from outside medical services.Inma tes tha t r equire hospita l izat ion a re

tr an sferred t o an outs ide hospi ta l for a slong a s n ecessa ry.

Inm at es ar e offered th e opport un ity tohave an HIV test performed upon entryint o th e facility. Pr isoner s who ar e ser o-positive or wh o have th e Aids viru s m ayrequest separation from other prisoners.On April 1, 1998, 25 inmat es were clas sifiedas HI V-posit ive.

I n 1 9 9 8 , t h r e e p r i s on e r s a n d s e v enrema nd pr isoners were r eported t o ha vecommitt ed suicide. In 1994 th e Eur opeanCouncil s Committee for th e Pr event ion of To r t u r e a n d I n h u m a n o r D e g r a d i n gTrea tm ent or Pu nish men t (CPT) criticizedSw e den for k eep ing r em an d p r i sone r su n d e r e x c e s s i v e r e s t r i c t i o n s a n d i nisolation. 2 Recent ly, Pa rliamen t decided toe a s e r e s t r i ct i on s a n d t h a t , a s a r u l e ,r e m a n d p r i s o n e r s m u s t b e g i v e n t h e

oppor tun i ty to s tay wi th o ther remandprisoners.

4.2 Pr iso n LabourA l l i n m a t e s m u s t p a r t i c i p a t e i n

p r o g ram mes ac t i v it i e s i n one form or

a n ot h e r . T h e p r o gr a m m e s i n cl u d econventional work , educat ion, specializedrehabili tation or treatment programmes,day r eleases for t he pu rsu i t of s tu dy orwork ou t s ide the pr i son du r ing norma lbusiness hours , intern al service, tha t is ,k i t c h e n d u t i e s , b u i l d i n g a n d g e n e r a lma in t enance , and f i na l l y, t r a i n ing i neveryday soc ia l sk i l l s , l ike how to dolaundry, maintain a c lean l iving space,cooking, and pla nn ing a persona l budget.I n 1998, work p rogra mmes compr i s eda b o u t 4 7 p e r c e n t o f a l l p r o g r a m m e sactivities, education formed 20 percent,

s e rv i ce and ma in t enance p rog rammescompr ised 15 percen t , spec ia l ized re -habi li ta t ion an d t reat ment pr ogrammes,six percent, a nd oth er a ctivities 12 percent.

T h e i n d u s t r i a l p r i s o n w or k i sadministra ted by a special unit kn own asKrimP rod. This uni t is resp onsible form a n u f a c t u r i n g o p e r a t i o n s w i t h i n t h ep r i son sy s t em an d a l so fun ct i ons a s asup pl ier to c iv il i an compan ies o r se l l s

various prison products directly to ret ailersa n d w h o le s a l e r s . K r i m P r od e m p l oy smodern m an agerial work ethic principles.T h e e m p l o y m e n t f i e l d s t r a d i t i o n a l l ya v a i l a b l e t o i n m a t e s a r e i n d u s t r y ,a g r i c u l t u r e , h o r t i c u l t u r e , f o r e s t r y ,c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d v a r i o u s s e r v i c eoccupa t i ons . Those i nma te s who a r eemployed in th e convent iona l employmentsector receive a wage of about 1 .20 USDollar s per hour. Pr isoner s par ticipatin g

in educa t i ona l p r og ramm es a r e pa id aspecific allowan ce of about 1 US Dollar sper h our.

4.3 Disciplinary and Secu rity Measu resU n l i k e o t h e r c o u n t r i e s , s o l i t a r y

con f inemen t , a s a form a l d i s c ip l ina rypun ishment , is not used in th e Swedishp r i s o n s y s t e m . H o w e ve r , s o li t a r yconfinemen t can be r esort ed to under th osespec i a l c i r cums t ances (d i s t u rb ing t hegenera l order, being under th e influence of

2 T h e S w e d i s h G o v e r n m e n t h a d r e q u e s t e d t h e

publication of this report an d it is a vailable from

the CPT s website ( www.cpt.coe.fr/ cpt/ swe.htm ). -The CPT paid a new visit t o Sweden in Februa ry

1998.


16/30

299


i n t ox ica t i n g s u b s t a n ce s , a t t e m p t s t oe s c a p e , i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f b r e a c h o f discipline). In 1998, a tota l of 2,100 cas esof solita ry confinemen t were r eported.

Acco rd ing t o t he l aw, amended onJ an ua ry 1 , 1999 , th ere a re t wo officia lsan ctions th at prison officials ma y imposeupon a prisoner for violating pr ison r ules,a l t h o u g h , s e r i o u s v i o l a t i o n s w h i c hcons t i t u t e a c r im ina l o f f ence , c an bebrought before a cour t . The pr in cipa lsanction available for use by the prisonofficials is a decision t ha t u p to 15 da ys of

re lease can be pos tponed . The seconds a n c t i o n i s a f o r m a l w a r n i n g t o t h eprisoner. In 1998, 3 ,700 war nings and1,600 cases of postponed r elease wer e filed.The a verage nu mber of days additiona llyspent in prison a mount ed to 3.6 days.

A n o t h e r i n f o r m a l , b u t d o c u m e n t e ddisciplina ry mea sur e is the u se of a pr isont r a n s f e r . I f a p r i s o n e r s e r i o u s l ymi sbehaves , t he p r i son o ff i c i a l s may

t r a n s fe r t h e u n r u l y in m a t e t o a n ot h e rprison. In 1998, th e number of tr an sfersa m ou n t e d t o 3 3 0 ca s e s . D e s p i t e t h eavailabili ty of these sanctions, informaldiscussions with th e fra ctious prisoner ar et h e u s u a l m e t h o d o f d e a l i n g w i t hinfractions un less th e infraction is of anespecially serious n at ur e (Bishop, 1991).

The i l legal use of drugs in pr ison orw h i l s t o n f u r l o u g h a n d e s c a p e s o r

at tempt ed escapes a re th e most comm onrea sons for imposing disciplinar y mea sur eson an inma te (Bishop, 1991). It sh ould ben o t e d t h a t e s c a p e s f r o m p r i s o n o ra t tempted escapes a re no t v iewed as acrimin al offence in Sweden . Ther efore, nofur th er sa nct ions can be imposed on a nescapee oth er t ha n t he official disciplina rysanctions. However, disciplinary problemsar e not a pr ior i ty issue in debat es aboutSwedish pr isons. Nor is violence betweenprisoners a nd pr ison em ployees, between

prisoners amongst t hemselves or pr isonra pes a ma jor issue. In 1998, a tota l of 241employees, including staff of gaols andafter-car e services, report ed th at th ey hadbeen sub j ec t ed t o t h r ea t s o r v io l encep e r p e t r a t e d b y i n m a t e s o r c l i e n t s .Appr oximately 45 percent of the r eport sreferr ed to int ent iona l violence, while 55percent were r eport s of differen t form s of th rea ts. However, since 1993, at least fourprisoners were k illed by oth er pr isoner s.No prison killings ha d ever been r eport edpr ior t o 1993. All ki l l ings occur red inma ximu m-secur ity prisons.

4.4 Complain ts proce dure sThe complain ts pr ocedur es ar e laid down

in th e Pr ison Treat men t Act (PTA) an d th ePrison Treat ment Ordinance. In genera l,th e role of the cour ts is down played in th eS w e d i s h s y s t e m . O n l y d e c is i on s of individual cases , decided by t he centr alp r i s o n a d m i n i s t r a t i o n(kriminalv rds styrelsen), can be sent ona p p e a l t o t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o u r t .

Statistical data on the number and n atu reof prisoner s complaints an d t he outcomeof compla int s ar e not ava ilable.

Like every other citizen, pr isoner s a lsoh a v e t h e o p t i on t o a p p e a l t o t h eombudsm an . Dur ing th e per iod 1 J u ly1997 to 30 J un e 1998, the ombudsma nconcluded a tota l of 410 comp laint s in t hefield of cor rections, of which 32 cases led toa d m o n i t i o n s o r c r i t i c i s m b y t h e

ombudsman.

Inma tes in Swedish pr i sons h ave ther i gh t , gua r an t eed by law, t o mee t an ddiscuss issues of mu tu al interest a nd topresent their views to the war den of thep r i s on . P r i s on e r s ca n h o ld r e g u l a rmeetings, un at tended by the prison sta ff to discuss th e pert inent issues. Pr oposalsemana ting from such inma te community meetings ar e discussed with th e warden bya specially elected coun cil of inm a tes . The


17/30

300


inmate counc i l i s e lec ted by the o therinmates and represents them.

Swedish pr isoner s ar e entit led to votein t he gener al elections.

4.5 Visi ts and Other Contacts w i ththe Outs ide World

From an interna tiona l perspective, theSwedish pr ison p olicies rega rdin g visitsan d fur loughs ar e quite libera l. Regularcont act with th e out side world is officiallyviewed as a n importa nt component in th et rea tment o f the offender. Inma tes a re

granted fur loughs, or short- term leave,out side of the pr ison, on a r egular ba sis.The a verage length of a n orm al furlough isth ree days. Special fur loughs a re a lso givenon a cas e by case basis. Before regu larfur loughs ar e gra nt ed, inmat es must prove t h e mse lve s du r ing va r i ous qua l i f y ingperiods. In 1998, 18,500 norm al an d 33,000special fur loughs were gran ted.

In 1998, i t was r eport ed tha t a bout 1.3

percent of normal furloughs an d 0.2 percentof spec ia l fu r loughs had been abused .A b u s e d m e a n s t h a t t h e s p e c i fi cstipu lations of th e individua l fur lough wer eviolat ed su ch as dru g or alcohol abuse whileon fur lough or tha t the inmate d id no treport back to the prison at t he end of th eperiod of leave, thereby constituting anescape from pr ison.

Visits m ay ta ke place un at tended by a

pr ison officer. However, th e visitor may besearched prior t o th e visit as is th e inmat eafter th e visit is concluded, all in a n effortto squelch t he importat ion of dru gs ando t he r unau tho r i zed ma te r i a l s i n to t heprison environm ent . If necessar y, prisonofficials an d t he p olice per form backgroun dchecks on th e visitors of inma tes t o as sessthe secur i ty th reat . In cases where it i sbelieved tha t t he char acter of th e visitor isdoubtful, th at is, he or sh e may at tempt t osmuggle in con t raband for the inmate ,

visits ar e su pervised by a pr ison officer.Fa cilities for r egular conjugal visits ar e alsoma de avai lable for t hose pr isoner s whoha ve a pa rt ner. Anoth er form of visit ist h e r egu l a r v i s i t s pa id by member s of orga nizat ions like t he Red Cr oss, Amn estyIn te rn a t iona l , the Chu rches , and so on .S p e ci a l v i s it i n g a p a r t m e n t s , i n c l os ep rox imi ty t o t h r ee o f t he p r i sons , a r eavailable to facili tate children s cont actwith their imprisoned pa rent.

4 .6 Opening the Pr i sonsDue to the c lass i f i ca t ion scheme of

S w e d i s h p r i s o n s , t h a t i s , s e c u r i t yclas sifications I t o IV, the only prisons t ha tar e consider ed completely open a re t hecategory IV facilities. Policies regar dingfrequency of fur loughs a re a lso more liberalin th e open faci li t i es than a t th e oth erlevels. Pr ovision for da y-releas e are ma defor prisoners in open prisons in order topu r sue ou t s i de emp loymen t , ma in t a int h e i r r e g u l a r j o b , o r p u r s u e o u t s i d eeducat iona l activities. In 1998, about 640

s u c h d a y - r e le a s e c a s e s w e r e g r a n t e d .F u r t h e r m o r e , in a b o u t 1 7 , 00 0 ca s e s ,inma tes were a l lowed to par t i cipa te invar ious social activities outs ide th e pr ison.A n o t h e r 6 7 0 i n m a t e s w e r e p l a c e d i ntr eat ment facilities for dr ug abu sers or infoster homes.

4.7 Ear ly Relea seInm at es, who are ser ving a time-limited

s e n t e n c e o f m o r e t h a n 1 m o n t h a r e

condi t ional ly re leased when 2/3 of thesent ence ha s been served. The length of t h e t e s t pe r i od , upon ea r l y r e l ea se , i susu ally commensu ra te with t he length of th e origina l senten ce, but of at least oney e a r . D u r i n g t h e t e s t p e r i od , t h econd itiona lly relea sed per son can be placedunder superv is ion . Pr ior to J anu ar y 1 ,1999, inma tes with sen tences of more th an2 year s could be r eleased a fter 1/2 of thesent ence ha s been served. This possibilityis now abolish ed an d th e 2/3-ru le applies.


18/30

301


5 S pe c ia l Ca te g ori e s o f P r is o ne rs5 .1 Pr i soners in Maximum Sec ur i ty

Section 7(3) of the P rison Trea tm ent Actsta tes th at an y prisoner wh o is serving asent ence of at least four years or ser ving asent ence of at least t wo years for eith er a naggravated drug offence, any attempt atconspiracy or aggravated drug smuggling,m u s t s e r v e t h e s e n t e n c e i n a c l o s e d ,ma ximu m security na tiona l prison, if th erei s reasonable cau se to bel ieve tha t th eprisoner will at tempt to escape before t heminimu m sent ence is served. This sectionof the P TA was p romu lgated on 1 J uly 1988

after t he escape of a Swedish spy who hadbeen s en t enced t o l i f e impr i sonmen t .Usu al ly, one-third of those pr isoner s t owhom s. 7(3) applies ar e in fact placed in aclosed, ma ximum -secur ity pr ison. On 1October 1998 there were a total of 338Section 7(3) pr isoner s . Ha lf of th em wereconvicted for dr ug offences.

Fu rt her more, s. 20 of th e PTA providesfor th e separ at ion of prisoners in ma ximu m

secur ity. Section 20 stat es tha t a pr isonerma y be separa ted from th e genera l prisonpopula tion if: (a) th e convicted per son isan imminent thr eat t o nat iona l securi ty;(b) i f the inmate ser iously disrupts thenorma l order an d genera l discipline withinth e prison; (c ) if th e inma te cont inu es toengage in cr imina l act ivity an d th ere isr ea son t o be l ieve t ha t t he i nma t e w i llat temp t t o escape; an d (d) if it is necessar yto separ at e the inma te in order t o prevent

cr imin a l a c t ivi t i es whi le in t he p r i sonenvironmen t. This section of th e PTA alsosta tes th at , if th e dura tion of the separ at ionfrom t he genera l prison populace is likelyto be lengthy, th e convict ma y be placed ina special maximum-security wing withinth e prison.

A p r i s o n e r i n a m a x i m u m - s e c u r i t yfacility ma y be tran sferr ed to a minimum -securit y facility four mont hs before t he en dof t h e s e n t e n c e i n o r d e r t o fa c i li t a t e

prepar at ion for release int o the commu nity.Inm at es, who are ser ving time a s s. 7(3)p r i s o n e r s , a r e n o t a f f o r d e d t h e s a m er e g u l a r f u r l o u g h s a s o t h e r p r i s o n e r s .Section 7(3) pr isoners will only r eceive th eirfi rs t fur lough af ter one-quar ter of theirsent ence, or t wo years of their sen ten ce,has been served, whichever comes first .Special leave ma y also be grant ed to s. 7(3)pr isoner s a t th e discret ion of th e pr isonau th orities. Those prisoners who wouldnorma lly not be given a furlough, th at is,serious offender s a nd lifers , ar e a llowed,what is known as a breath ing space leave.

This t ype of leave is very r estr ictive relat ivet o t h e n o r m a l t h r e e - d a y fu r l ou g h . Apr isoner, who receives special leave of th iskind, is accompa nied by two pr ison officers,who are dr essed in casu al civilian cloth es,for th e ent ire dura tion of th e leave. Thedur at ion of th is special leave is norma llyfor four hours an d can inc lude var iousactivities such as a visit to a shopping ma ll,a meal in a restaur ant or a walk thr ough apark. Prisoners in maximum security are

of necessity m ore str ictly contr olled th anthose se rv ing t ime in medium or openprisons, thereby inevitably reducing theamount of contact these pr isoners havewith th e outside world.

Section 7(3) ha s been crit icized as beingun fair an d was cha nged on 1 J an ua ry 1999.Current ly, individual ized decis ions arema de for ea ch case, spelling out exactly thespecial conditions and restrictions of the

prison term.

5.2 Long -Term P rison ersPr isoners who are serving a sen tence of

at least t wo years a re considered long-termpr isoner s in Sweden . A sen ten ce of life canbe commu ted, by a par don, to a fixed ter mby the governm ent . Once a life senten ce iscommuted to a f ixed te rm, the normalprovisions of cond itiona l relea se a pply toth e prisoner once he or sh e is released. Thea v e r a g e p e r i o d o f i n c a r c e r a t i o n o f


19/30

302


prisoner s, who have been sen ten ced to lifeimprisonment , is now above 12 years a ndth is period has increased dur ing th e lastdecade. A sen ten ce of life imprisonm ent isimposed for m ur der a nd, in except iona lcases , for high t reas on. In th e las t t wodecades t he n um ber of l ife sent ences h assteadily increased (despite a low and sta blehomicide rate a t about 1 .2 ki l l ings per100,000 population). Between 1988 an d1998, 77 lifers were adm itted to Swedishpr isons, of whom ap pr oxima tely one-th irdwere foreign citizens. The total nu mber of lifers ha s increa sed from 24 on 1 October

1988 to 81 by 1 October 1998. The num berof pr isoner s, with a sen ten ce of four year sor more, ha s also almost doubled. On 1Mar ch 1989, there were 600 su ch pr isoner san d by 1 October 1998 this am oun t h adrisen to 1,038.

5.3 Wome n Priso ne rsA s in mos t o the r coun t r i e s , women

c o n s t i t u t e a s m a l l p e r c e n t a g e o f t h eSwedish pr ison populat ion; in 1998 th ey

ma de up five percent. For a long time, th eHins eberg prison was t he only all-fema lefacility in th e coun tr y. In 1989 and 1996,two addi t iona l a l l - female pr i son wereo p e n e d , k n o w n a s F r i n g s ( n e a rStockholm) and Ljusta dalen in th e northof th e coun tr y. Thes e pr ison were open edin r e sponse t o t h e g rowing nu mber o f women prisoners, at th e Hinseberg facilitywhich is some dist an ce from t he St ockh olmarea , who were e l ig ib le to se rve the i r

sent ences in neighbourh ood pr isons. In1997, Hinseber g could accommodat e 115p r i s o n e r s , F r i n g s a b o u t 3 0 a n dLjust ada len 20 prisoners. The rema iningprisoner s were divided between differen tneighbour hood facilities that a ccommodat eboth m en an d women.

Fr om a n int ern at iona l perspective, of amixed-gender facility ma y seem odd a nd iti s , in fa c t , con t r a r y t o in t e r n a t i on a lconven tions. A st ud y of women pr isoners

in Sweden revea led , however, tha t thema jority of women p risoners pr eferr ed toserve t ime in a mixed facility; 56 percentof the respondents sa id they pre fe r redmixed-sex prisons, whilst 16 percent of ther e s p o n d e n t s p r e f e r r e d w o m e n - o n l yfacilities (Soma nd er, 1994). However, from1 J an ua ry 1999 , t h e sy s t em o f m ixed -gender facilities was a bolished. Cur ren tly,a woman prisoner m ay only in exceptionalcases an d only with h er explicit consen t beplaced together with male prisoners in th esame prison.

In 1998, th e ma jorit y of female prisoner swere between 30 an d 44 years of age. Thetwo most comm on crim es for wh ich fema leinma tes ha d been convicted were th eft a nddrug offences.

Women prisoners are allowed to havetheir babies with t hem. In 1998, th ere were13 such pr i soners a nd t he a vera ge t imespent in prison was four month s. All of thechildren were youn ger th an two year s of

age.

Pr ison sentences are usu ally shorter forwomen th an for men. In modern t imes, upun til 1996, no women ha ve been sen ten cedto life impr isonmen t. According t o officialrecidivism st at istics, th ere is n o differen cein th e recidivism ra tes of men an d womenwith a prior crimina l record. Dependingon th e nu mber of pr ior convictions, i t isan ticipated th at between 45 and 90 percent

of p r i soners , m ale a nd fema le , wi ll ber e c o n v i c t e d 3 w i t h i n t h r e e y e a r s .Corr esponding recidivism ra tes for per sonswho have been fined t end t o var y between20 an d 80 percen t . Seen from anotherperspective, more th an ha lf of the inm atesha s pr ior prison experience (56 percent in1998).

3 Note, that th e reconvict ion can refer to a minor

offence.


20/30

303


5 .4 Ju ven i le Pr i sonersIn Sweden th e age a t which c r imina l

respons ibility begins is 15 year s. Accord ingto law, juveniles below the age of 15 can notbe punished; they are t aken car e of by thesocial aut horities. Between th e ages of 15an d 21, the a ge of the offender is tak en int os p e c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r s e n t e n c i n gpur poses . Sect ion 7, Cha pter 29 of th eC r i m i n a l C o d e s t a t e s t h a t p a r t i c u l a rc o n s i d e r a t i o n s h a l l b e g i v e n t o t h eyouthfulness of the offender if an offenceha s been comm itted before t he a ge of 21.I t fur th er s ta tes tha t no person un der the

age of 21 shall be given a sentence of lifeimprisonm ent . In genera l , th e SwedishWel f a r e Se rv i ce i s t he agency who i sr e spons ib l e f o r dea l i ng w i th j uven i l eoffenders and the guidelines for dealingwith such pers ons a re la id down by theCar e of Young Per sons Act of 1990 an d t heSocial Welfare Act of 1980.

The most f requent cr iminal sa nct ionsaga ins t juveni les a re f ines , waivers o f

p ro secu t i on a nd t r a n s f e r t o t h e soci a lau th orities. In 1998, only 21 persons, agedbetween 15 and 17 year s, and 544 persons,a g e d b e t w e e n 1 8 a n d 2 0 y e a r s , w e r eimpr i soned . Of th e 15 to 17 year o ldcategory, four boys were sentenced forviolence an d eight for r obbery. Four teenboys ha d a p r i son s en t ence of up t o 6months a nd th ree boys were sentenced tomore tha n one year of imprisonm ent.

Special yout h p risons wer e abolish ed in1980. Inst ead, one entire prison an d onewing in a no ther p r i son i s se t a s ide for

juven ile offen der s.

On 1 J anua ry 1999 , a new sanc t i oncalled closed youth car e became opera tive.This new sa nction, which ma y be imposedfor a period between 14 da ys an d four yearsis int ended to replace th e relatively rar epr ison sent ences for offender s who commitserious crimes pr ior t o th eir 18th birt hda y.

Such young offenders are now placed in ah o m e a d m i n i s t e r e d b y t h e s o c i a lauthorities.

5.5 Drug Addicts in Pr isonIn a E ur opean cont ext, Sweden is known

for its repressive drug policy (Lenke andOhlson , 1998; Tha m, 1998). The dru gpolicy is one of the ma jor explan at ions forth e ma ny chan ges of prison conditions an dpr ison policies since th e early 1980s. Agrowing number o f peop l e have bee ns e n t e n c e d t o i m p r i s o n m e n t f o r d r u goffences, th e length s of sent ences for d ru g

o f f e n c e s h a v e i n c r e a s e d a n d v a r i o u saspects of the pr ison regime have beentoughened .

In 1998, almost one th ird of th e prisoninma tes were imprisoned for a dru g offence.This percenta ge includes cases where th edru g offence was not t he prin cipal offence.The nu mber of prisoners wh o ha ve beenconv i c t ed o f d rug r e l a t ed o f f ences i sunk nown. I t was a l so repor t ed tha t 47

percent of all prison in ma tes were class ifiedas inm at es with a history of drug addictionan d th at th e likelihood of th e frequ ency of drug addict ion of the convicted personincr ea se s r e l a t i ve t o t he l eng th of t hesent ence. For inst an ce, 59 percent of th einma tes sent enced to two month s or m orei m p r i s o n m e n t w e r e c o n s i d e r e d d r u gabu sers. Two-thirds of th at per cent age areinma tes wh o ar e 30 years of age or older.

One of th e official policy goals is t o havedru g-free prisons. Dru g use while in prisonis relatively ra re in t he category I pr isonsbut t he incidence of drug use increa ses witheach m ore lenient pr ison classificat ion.Obviously, this is du e to the t ighter securityin the category I prisons a nd t he gradu alrelaxing of secur ity measu res in t he otherclasses of prisons. Inm at es ar e subjectedto frequent u r ine tes t s a s well as r oomsear ches. Even tr acker dogs ar e used. In1998, 81,000 ur ine test s an d 66,000 cell


21/30

304


sear ches were report ed. Posi t ive ur inetests usually indicate the use of cannabisand of amphetam ines.

O the r m easu r e s u sed i n an e f for t t oelimina te dru g use within prison are th esear ching of personal ma i l and vis i tors .The pr ison service also collabora tes withth e welfar e service to ident ify an d ma keconta ct wi th th e drug user s in order t omotivate drug users to seek treatm ent. TheS t a n d i n g C o m m i t t e e o n J u s t i c e h a srecen t ly agreed wi th t he Governmen t sview tha t seizur es of na rcotic drugs in t he

prisons an d gaols are few in number an dth at th e ma jority of prisons seldom or n everha ve occas ion to report th e occurr ence of drug a buse on their premises.

By law th e prison system is not requiredto provide compr ehens ive dru g trea tm entprogra mmes. Rath er, the pr ison systemworks wi th o ther agenc ies and pr iva teorgan izations to arr an ge and pr ovide drugtr eatm ent programm es. On 1 October 1998

th ere were a to ta l of 400 pr i son bedsespecial ly reserved for t he t rea tm ent of drug abusers. In other prisons, ther e ar eless s t ruc tur ed progra mmes . In a l l, 45percent of all inma tes wh o were cons ideredto be dru g abusers pa r t icipated in someform of an ti-drug program mes. About 130prisoners were placed in dr ug t r eatmentprogra mmes outside the prisons.

Fin ally, special drug-free sectors haveb e e n s e t u p w i t h i n v a r i o u s p r i s o n sth roughout t he coun tr y. These are specialsectors with in a pr ison t ha t a re officiallydesignated as being completely drug-free.I n m a t e s m a y r e q u e s t t r a n s fe r t o s u chsectors only after signing a cont ra ct wh ichaffirms t heir desire to give up dru gs and t or e m a in d rug - f r ee wh i l e i n t he s ec to r.S p e c i a l r e h a b i l i t a t i o n a n d c o p i n gprogra mmes a re set up within th ese specialsectors in order for th e inma te t o realizethe drug-free goal.

In some cases, where t he offence is dru g-r e l a t e d , t h e c o u r t m a y h a n d d o w n asenten ce of cont ra ct t reat ment , which is aform of civil comm itment, in lieu of a p r isonterm . This sentence is a probation orderwith a specific order to enr ol l in a dru gtrea tment a nd reha bilitat ion progra mmes.In m ost cases, if th is cont ra ct is broken,th e cour t will order th e rema inder of th esent ence to be served in prison. In 1998,959 cont rac t t rea tment sen tences wereordered by the courts, of which the vastma jority (69 percent ) were h an ded downto offender s between 30 an d 59 year s of age.

The h igh per cent age of older offenders isdue t o t h e fa c t , t h a t , i n Sweden , d ru ga d d i c t i o n i s n o t a n u n d u l y p r e v a l e n tphenomenon among younger people.

5 .6 Fore ign Nat iona l s in Pr i sonI n 1 9 9 8 , a t o t a l o f 2 , 1 3 5 f o r e i g n

na tiona ls, including n on-resident s, wereadmit ted t o pr ison which t ra nslates into22 percent of the t ota l nu mber of peopleadm itted to prison in 1998. In relat ion to

t h e i r t o t a l p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e g e n e r a lpopulation in Sweden, foreign nat iona ls areover-repr esented in th e prison system a swell as in judicial statistics (von Hofer etal., 1997; Mar ten s, 1997).

Fore ign pr i soners a re p laced amongSwedish pr i soners . Specia l p r i sons orwings, exclusively dedicated to foreignprisoners do not exist. Appr oximat ely 15percent of th e foreign prisoners a re u sua lly

deport ed from Sweden after h aving servedth eir prison sent ence. For obvious r easons,foreign prisoners who are n ot per ma nentr e s i d e n t s i n S w e d e n , a r e n o t g r a n t e dfur loughs t o th e same extent as Swedishprisoners are . Intern at ional agreementsbetween Sweden a nd a nu mber of coun tr iesallow th e execut ion of th e prison sen ten cein t he home coun t ry o f t he s en t encedperson.


22/30

305


6 Con clu s ion sAccord ing to th e descript ion given a bove,

one could conclude th at th e Swedish pr isonsystem is a system in balan ce. This is alsoborn e out by the fact th at, dur ing the 1990s,Swedish ma ss m edia ha s n ot focussed onth e pr isons, but on t he police an d othersectors of th e crimin al just ice system. Incont ra st with a n um ber of other Eur opeancount ries, the pr ison populat ion in Sweden,as well as in other Scan dinavian coun tr ies,has r emained rath er stable during last 30y ea r s . I n S we d en t h i s w a s p a r t l ya c c o m p l i s h e d b y t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f

a l t e rn a t ives to impr i sonm ent l ike c ivi lcommitment (1988), community service(1990) an d electronic monit oring (1994).Especially electron ic monit oring, which canreplace a pr ison s enten ce of up to th reemonth s, is considered to ha ve saved prisonspace (between 350 an d 400 beds per year,see Part III below). Dur ing th e 1970s an d1980s effort s were a lso ma de to shorten th etime spen t in prisons (for exa mple, shortersent ences, deduction of time spent in gaol,

conditional release after one-half of theimposed prison sent ence). In th e 1990s,h o w e v e r, t h i s p r o c e s s h a s c o m e t o asta ndst ill. Periods of imprisonm ent a ppearto be on t he increas e since prisoner s withv e r y s h o r t s e n t e n c e s , s u c h a s d r u n k drivers, ar e gran ted a lternative sanctionsan d prisoners, sent enced for serious crimes,a r e r e ce iving l onge r s en t ences . Th i sprocess of bi-furcation [Bottoms] ha s beenobserved in ma ny coun tr ies in r ecent years.

F r o m a h i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e , t h eS w e d i s h p r i s o n s y s t e m i s , a s a r e i t sEuropean counte rpar t s , a ra ther younginstitu tion. Its rise to prominence can bedat ed to the f irs t ha lf of th e nineteent hcentu ry. At th at t ime, imprisonmen t wass u b s t i t u t e d for t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y a n dcor p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t . O r i gi n a l l y t h ep r i s on s , w i t h t h e i r r o ot s i n t h e e a r l ymodern workh ouse s , f unc t i oned a s a nas sembly point for th e poor, jobless a nd

ma rgina lized popula ce. This fun ction isst ill very much a live toda y. According to ar e c e n t l e v e l - o f - l i v i n g s u r v e y a m o n gprisoner s, only one-th ird of th e inter viewedprisoners had been employed during the12 month s pr ior to their a dmission an d onlyha lf ha d had some work du ring the sam eperiod. Almost all pr isoner s were in debt.T w e n t y - n i n e p e r c e n t h a d n oaccomm odation of their own an d 15 percentof th ese were tota lly homeless. About ha lf o f t h e p r i s o n e r s w e r e l i v i n g a l o n e .N i n e t e e n p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d a l c o h o lproblems a nd 47 percent r egular drug use.

Forty-nine percent reported psychologicalproblems and 38 percent suffered fromphysical a ilment s.

F r o m a s t r u ct u r a l p e r s p e ct i ve , t h edeve lopment o f (o ff ic ia l ly reg i s te red)crimina lity an d th e use of imprisonm ent(measu red a s da ily prison populat ion) ar eseemingly two indepen dent processes inSweden. Even if th e data , shown in Figure1a & 1b, is par tia lly based on estima tes, it

becomes c lear th a t th e Swedish pr i sonpopulat ion h as n ot been determ ined by th ecour se of (known) crimin a lity. Neit her isit possible to apply the widely discussedidea of th e sta bility of punishm ent to theSwedish system (Blumstein, 1995).

W h e t h e r t h e f l u c t u a t i n g u s e o f imprisonmen t h as influenced the cour se of c r i m e , i s m o r e d i f f i c u l t t o a n s w e r .Obvious ly, prior t o World War I t her e is no

relationsh ip at a ll. The prison tr end wasd e c r e a s i n g , w h i l s t t h e o f f e n c e r a t e srema ined sta ble. After World War I, thepictu re cha nged dr ast ically with more orl e s s s t ab l e p r i son t r ends , bu t soa r i ngoffence rat es. In t he case of th eft, whichdeterm ines th e sha pe of th e offence cur vea f t e r Wo r l d Wa r I , a c o m p r e h e n s i v ean alysis of th e data s secular t r ends andinterrupt ion in trends has shown that t heSwedish t heft dat a lends very little supportt o t h e d e t e r r e n c e h y p o t h e s i s i n a


23/30

306


longitu dina l perspective (von H ofer a ndTha m, 1989); a r esult wh ich r eminds u s of

th e trivial fact th at sta tist ical co-var iationdoes not n ecessa rily imply cau sa lity.

Selec tec te d Refe rence s in Engl i shThe Swedish Pr ison a nd P robation Servicemainta ins a website at www.kvv.se

[Bas ic Fac t s 1997], B as ic Fact s A bou t Prison an d Probation S ervice in S weden .Norrk ping: Kriminalv rdsstyrelsen. [ASwedish government publication.]

Bish op, N. (1991). N yk ping ClosedN e i g h b o u r h o o d P r i s o n , S w e d e n . I nWhitfield, D. (ed.). Th e Sta te of the Prisons- 200 Years On . Lond on , Ne w York :Rout ledge & Keagan Pa ul.

Bish op, N. (1995), Intensive supervisionwi th e lect r on ic moni tor ing : a Swedishaltern at ive to imprisonm ent . Penological

In form ation Bu ll etin : 8-10.

B l u m s t e i n , A. ( 1 9 9 5 ). C r i m e a n dPun ishment in the United Stat es Over 20Ye a r s : A F a i l u r e o f D e t e r r e n c e a n d

Figure 1aSw ede n: Num ber o f pr isone rs (a t y ear-en d) , 1841-1999.

Reman d pr i soners exc luded . Ra te per 100,000 of the popula t ion .

12 5

10 0

75

50

25

0184 0 186 0 188 0 190 0 1 92 0 1 940 1 960 1 980 2 000

Figure 1bSw ede n: Num ber of registered o ffenc es ag ainst th e Criminal Code, 1866-1999.

Est ima ted f igures 1866-1949. Rate per 100,000 of the pop ulat ion .

15000

12500

10000

7500

5000

2500

01 84 0 18 60 18 80 1 90 0 192 0 19 40 1 960 1 98 0 20 00


24/30

307


Incapacitation? . In Wikstr m

Crime and Punishment in Sweden and Scandinavia

Documents