NOTES ON CRIME AND PUNISHMENT IN SWEDEN …...I. CRIME AND PUNISHMENT IN SCANDINAVIA: AN OVERVIEW Geographically, the Scandinavian countries (here meaning Denmark, Finland, Norway

284

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57

I. CRIME AND PUNISHMENT INSCANDINAVIA: AN OVERVIEW

Geographically, the Scandinaviancountries (here meaning Denmark,Finland, Norway and Sweden) lie on themargins of Europe, and with the exceptionof Denmark are rather sparsely populated,with a total population of around 24million. All the countries bar Finland areconstitutional monarchies, and all are bothprotestant and very homogeneous in termsof culture. It wasn’t until a few decadesago that the Nordic countries began to feelthe impact of immigration, this level beinghighest in Sweden and lowest in Finland.The standard of living in the Nordiccountries is among the highest in the worldand the region’s modern political historyhas been shaped on the whole by theprinciples of social democracy.

Comparative research into levels ofwelfare has shown that there is a ratherclear-cut pattern of national clusters in theEU-member states of similarity in thewelfare mix, as well as the generaldistributive outcome in material livingstandards. The European Union appearsto be divided in three homogeneous clusters(Vogel, 1997):

• a northern European cluster(including Denmark, Finland,Norway [not a member of the EU])and Sweden exhibiting high levels ofsocial expenditure and labour marketparticipation and weak family ties.In terms of income distribution this

cluster is characterised by relativelylow levels of income and classinequality, and low poverty rates, buta high level inequality between theyounger and the older generations;

• a southern European cluster(including Greece, Italy, Portugal andSpain) characterised by much lowerlevels of welfare state provision andlower rates of employment, but bystrong traditional families. Here wefind higher levels of income and classinequality and of poverty, but lowlevels of inter-generation inequality;

• a central European cluster with anintermediate position (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 incomeinequality, poverty and classinequality.

Against th is sketchy backdropreasonably simplistic descriptions oftraditional crime in the Nordic countries,and these countries’ responses to crime, arepresented in the following.

1. International Crime VictimsSurveys (ICVS)

Because of variations in the rulesgoverning the collection and production ofstatistics in different countries, it isgenerally accepted by experts thatcomparisons based on crime statistics donot in principal allow for the possibility ofmaking cross-national level comparisons ofcrime (CoE, 1999b:13). For this reason,

* Department of Criminology, Stockholm University,Sweden

NOTES ON CRIME AND PUNISHMENTIN SWEDEN AND SCANDINAVIA

Hanns von Hofer*

285

115TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

when cross-national comparisons of crimelevels are considered desirable, theinternational crime victims surveys(Mayhew & Killias, 1990; Mayhew & vanDijk, 1997) are a great help despite theobvious methodological difficulties whichface even these data sets. The data arecollected by means of telephone interviews(using standardised questions) based onrandom samples of between 1,000 and2,000 persons from each country. A totalof nineteen countries have participated inthe three surveys (1989, 1992 and 1996),whilst of the Nordic countries, Norway tookpart only in 1989, Sweden in 1992 and 1996and Finland in all three. Denmark has notparticipated at all and must therefore beexcluded from the following presentation.The offence types covered in the survey are:car theft, motorcycle theft, bicycle theft,burglary and attempted burglary, robbery,theft from the person, sex offences andassault/threatening behaviour.

Results from all the surveys between1989 and 1996, irrespective of how manytimes the individual countries participated,

have been summarised and are presentedin the table below.

Generally speaking, the level of criminalvictimisation is reported to be lower inFinland and Norway than in Sweden(however, the Norwegian data refer to 1989only). For the most part, Sweden lies fairlyclose to the European average. Similardifferences between the Nordic countrieswere also found during the 1980s whencomparisons were carried out on resultsfrom national victims surveys produced inthese countries. At that point the resultsfrom Denmark were similar in manyrespects to those in Sweden (RSÅ, 1990:146ff). Sweden distinguishes herself (alongwith the Netherlands) with respect to thelevel of bicycle thefts, whilst the Nordiccountries on the whole present relativelylow levels of car vandalism, burglary androbbery. However, the Nordic countriesscore higher on sex offences and high onassaults/threatening behaviour. There hasbeen speculation that these differencesmight in part be explained by higher levels

Table 1Victimisation over the last year (percentage victim once or more),

1989, 1992 and 1996 according to the ICVS project.Source: Mayhew & van Dijk (1997, Appendix 4, Table 1).

n.a. = not availableFI (Finland): 1989,1992,1996; NO (Norway): 1989 only; SE (Sweden): 1992, 1996.EUR9: Austria, Belgium, France, England & Wales, (West)Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain 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 23.3Number of completed interviews n.a. 6544 1009 2707 29903

286


of awareness and lower levels of toleranceamong Scandinavian women when it comesto setting limits for the forms of inter-gender encounters that are consideredsocially acceptable (HEUNI, 1998:132 f,163, 349, 432).

Additional data from cause of deathstatistics regarding the mid-1990s indicate(CoE, 1999:43) that levels of homicide inDenmark, Norway and Sweden are on apar with those reported in central Europe(around 1.2 per 100,000 of population),whilst Finland still presents considerablyhigher frequencies (around 3.0 per 100,000of population), which had already beennoted in the criminological literature of the1930s (NCS, 1997:13).

According to various est imates(EMCDDA,1997: Table 5 & 1998: Table 4;Reuband, 1998:332), national prevalencerates of problem drug use appear to be nearaverage in Denmark and below average inNorway, Finland and Sweden as comparedto central and southern Europe. Anaccount of the Nordic drug scene in the1990s is given by Olsson et al. (1997).

The ICVS project surveys not only theextent of criminal victimisation but alsoother related phenomena such as levels offear, crime-preventive measures, andattitudes towards and experiences of thepolice. Asked whether they felt they wereat risk of being burgled in the course of thefollowing year, respondents from Finlandand Sweden were ranked low (Mayhew &van Dijk, 1997:50). Asked how safe theyfelt outside in their own neighbourhoodafter dark, feelings of insecurity werelowest among respondents from Finlandand Sweden together with Switzerland(Mayhew & van Dijk, 1997:51). In responseto the question of whether they hadinstalled various kinds of anti break-indevices (such as burglar alarms, speciallocks, or bars on windows or doors) Finland

and Sweden also came out below theaverage (Mayhew & van Dijk, 1997:54).

2. TrendsSince there are no victims surveys (at

either the national or European level)covering the post-war period, descriptionsof crime trends have to be based on recordsof crimes reported to the police. Despitethe well known shortcomings of officialcrime statistics, the use of such statisticsto compare crime trends is an acceptedmethod (CoE, 1999b:13).

The number of crimes reported to thepolice has risen in all the Nordic countriesat least since the beginning of the 1960s.The smallest increase is found in thenumber of reported incidents of homicide(the number of such reports has doubled,except in Finland where they seem to haveremained at more or less the same level).The largest increase (between seven andtwelve times) is to be found in the numberof reported robberies, this being partly dueto the fact that at the end of the 1950srobbery was more or less unheard of inthese countries, a total of only 1,200robberies being registered in these fourNordic countries in 1960 (NCS, 1997:72).The increase is probably linked in part tothe upward trend in juvenile crime and inpart to the emergence of a group of sociallymarginalised males (NCS, 1997:31). It isnonetheless worth noting that according tothe ICVS, robbery levels in Finland,Norway and Sweden still remain low in aninternational perspective (see Table 1supra). The reporting of other offence types(assault, rape and theft) has increasedbetween two and six times over the sameperiod. When the countries are ranked onthe basis of increases in five offencecategories (homicide, assault, rape, robberyand theft), Sweden presents increases ofthe greatest magnitude, whilst theincreases are least marked in Finland.

287


Crime trends in the Nordic countries areon the whole much the same as those foundin other central European countries.Westfelt (1998) recently compared crimetrends in Scandinavia with those in Austria,England & Wales, France, (West) Germanyand the Netherlands. He found that allcountries reported increases in crime, eventhough there were periodical local

differences. Figure 1 clearly shows thestriking similarity between the trend inregistered assault and theft offences in theNordic countries and that in the countriesof central Europe. The similarities in crimetrends have previously been noted by writerssuch as Heidensohn & Farrel (1991), Eisner(1994), Killias (1995), Joutsen (1996), andMarshall (1996).

ASSAULT

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 20000

2

4

6

8

EUR5NORD4

Figure 1aAssault offence trends in the Nordic and some European countries,

1950(63)-1996. Scaled series, per 100,000 of population.Source: Westfelt (1998; updated).

EUR5 = Austria, England & Wales, France, (West) Germany and the Netherlands

Figure 1bTheft offence trends in the Nordic and some European countries, 1950-1996.

Scaled series, per 100,000 of population.Source: Westfelt (1998; updated).

EUR5 = Austria, England & Wales, France, (West) Germany and the Netherlands

THEFT

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 20000

1

2

3

4

5

EUR5NORD4

288


It has been suggested that theft trendsin the 1990s may be in the process ofchanging direction. Up to now, theobservations on which such statements arebased remain too few for us to be able tospeak with any degree of certainty -particularly in light of the fact that we donot have good theories available whichwould be able to explain such a break incrime trends (cf. Steffensmeier & Harer,1999).

The trend in juvenile crime constitutesa special case. The issue has recently beenstudied by Pfeiffer (1998) and Estrada(1998). According to Estrada, levels ofjuvenile crime (i.e. mostly against property)increased in all ten of the Europeancountries studied (Denmark, Finland,Norway, Sweden as well as Austria,E n g l a n d , ( We s t ) G e r m a n y, t h eNetherlands, Scotland, and Switzerland)without exception in the decades followingthe Second World War. In many of thesecountries this upward trend was brokenhowever, probably at some point betweenthe mid-1970s and the early 1980s.Available statistics suggest that therefollowed something of a levelling off. Inthree countries, however, England, Finlandand Germany no such break is visible in

juvenile crime trends, and the increaseshave simply continued. The trends inlevels of violent offences committed byjuveniles differ somewhat from the generalcrime trend. Here virtually all thecountries present increases during the lastten - fifteen years (with the possibleexception of Finland and Scotland).

3. The Response to Crime and theSystem of Sanctions

The number of police per 100,000 ofpopulation is lower in the Nordic countriesthan in either southern or central Europe(data for Germany are unavailable). In themid-1990s the Nordic countries reported atotal of 183 police per 100,000 ofpopulation, whilst central Europe reported291 (although the Netherlands were on apar with the Nordic countries) andsouthern Europe 395 (CoE, 1999b:78). Asis the case in other European countries,however, the clear up rate has droppedconsiderably over the years (see Figure 2).Exactly how this drop ought to beinterpreted is not altogether clear: purelyas a fall in police efficiency, for example, oras a result of increases in the number ofoffences which were always unlikely to becleared, or as a combination of such factors(cf. Balvig, 1985:12).

Figure 2Clear up rates (all offences covered by respective penal codes) in Denmark,

Finland, Norway and Sweden, 1950-1997 (every fifth year).Source: NCS (1997, Table 9; updated).

Percentage

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 20000

20

40

60

80

100

SEDKNOFI

289


The ICVS show that the level of publicsatisfaction with the police is mixed inFinland and Sweden (data are unavailablefor Denmark and Norway). Sweden topsthe list as regards the extent to whichmembers of the public report crimes to thepolice (Mayhew & van Dijk, 1997:40).Concerning the way persons reportingcrime feel the police have acted at the timethe crime was reported, Finland andSweden present a higher than average levelof satisfaction in comparison with the othercountries (Mayhew & van Dijk, 1997:44).However, in the matter of how satisfied therespondents were with the police ingeneral, confidence seems to be average inSweden and below average in Finland(Mayhew & van Dijk, 1997: 47).

The ICVS have also assessed attitudesto the kind of sentences dealt out in respectof criminal offences. The respondents wereasked to choose which of a variety ofsanctions they felt to be most suitable fora 21 year old male having committed hissecond burglary, stealing a colour televisionset in the process. Given the choicebetween fines, a prison sentence orcommunity service, just under 50 percentof the Swedish respondents chosecommunity service, 24 percent prison, andfourteen percent fines (Mayhew & van Dijk,1997:56). The corresponding figures forFinnish respondents were 47, 16 and 16percent, and for the Norwegians 47, 14 and23 percent. The view in the Nordiccountries does not seem to deviate too muchfrom the European average, with theexception of the English speaking nations,where prison sentences are advocated to agreater extent.

Shinkai & Zvekic (1999:120) claim thatpublic attitudes to punishment generallyconform to the actual sentencing optionsavailable. This seems to hold true for theNordic countries, where fines and otherforms of sanction are most common and

where prison sentences are employed lessfrequently. This is of course due primarilyto the fact that the large majority ofoffences which lead to convictions are of aless or moderately serious nature and thedemand for proportionality between crimeand punishment means that prisonsentences should be reserved for moreserious offences.

The following brief description of choicesof sanction concerns those imposed for alloffences against the penal code takentogether (NCS, 1997:78 ff). A more detaileddescription looking at different offencecategories would not have been feasiblegiven the brevity of this overview. Sincethe majority of offences committed againstthe penal code are property offences of onekind or another, the sanctions describedhere are in practise primarily thoseimposed for theft offences and the like. Thefigures refer to 1995. In the case of Norway,the data had in part to be estimated since“misdemeanours” are not included in theirentirety in the Norwegian statistics (NOS,1997: Table 40).

Finland convicts far more people thanthe other Nordic countries (1,238 per100,000, as compared with 927 inDenmark, 731 in Sweden and 544 inNorway). Finland’s unique position maybe partially explained by the legalisticapproach characteristic of Finnish judicialpractise, with its rather strict observanceof mandatory prosecution (Joutsen, [1999])and also, as has been intimated by Finnishexperts, by the fact that clear up rates havebeen consistently higher in Finland thanin the rest of Scandinavia.

In contrast to the other countries,however, 81 percent of those convicted inFinland receive fines (the correspondingproportions in Denmark, Norway andSweden being 59, 53 and 43 percentrespectively). “Other sanctions” (excluding

290


prison sentences) are used most often inSweden (42 percent as against 23 inDenmark and Norway and eleven percentin Finland). This very rough outlinenonetheless captures a number of theessential characteristics of the sanctioningculture of the Nordic countries: Swedenstill appears as the country where thephilosophy of individual prevention, basedon a wide variety of sanctions, is mostpronounced, whilst Finland most clearlyfollows the classical tradition of imposingfines and prison sentences as the mostcommon forms of sanction. Irrespective ofthese differences, fines are used extensivelythroughout the Nordic countries.

When it comes to the use of prisonsentences, these are imposed more oftenin Denmark and Norway - both in relativeand in absolute terms - than in Sweden andFinland. On the other hand, prisonsentences are longer in Sweden andFinland. This somewhat complicatedpicture serves as a good indication of thedifficulties faced when trying to measureand compare the relative “punitiveness” ofthe sanction systems of different countries(cf. Pease, 1994).

In addition, we could note that Swedenmore or less abandoned the use of prisonterms as a means of sanctioning non-payment of fines at the beginning of the1980s (Sveri, 1998) and that since the mid-1990s electronic tagging has been used asan alternative for certain categories ofoffender sentenced to up to three monthsimprisonment (Bishop, 1995; BRÅ, 1999).In 1998 almost 4,000 individuals servedtheir sentence in this way, of whom lessthan 200 dropped out of the programme(KOS, 1998:45).

4. The PrisonsDespite the above differences in the

frequency and length of the prisonsentences imposed in the Nordic countries,

their judicial systems result in prisonpopulations of a similar size. The Councilof Europe (CoE, 1999a:13) reports that theinmate population in the Nordic countries(measured on 1 September 1997) is low ina European perspective (58 prison inmatesper 100,000 of population; the level beinglowest in Norway at 53 per 100,000 andhighest in Denmark at 62 per 100,000).The corresponding figure for centralEurope was 89 per 100,000, and forsouthern Europe 100 (with Greece includedalthough she deviates quite drasticallyfrom this figure with a low inmatepopulation of 54 per 100,000). Theperception that prison sentences areharmful and should thus be avoided asmuch as possible still has a great deal ofcurrency in the Nordic countries(Bondeson, 1998:94).

Unlike in many other Europeancountries, there is no general problem ofprison overcrowding in Scandinavia(although such problems can arise inspecial types of institutions, CoE,1999c:115 ff). As a rule, prisons in theNordic countries are small (between 60 and100 inmates), modern and characterised 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 yarrangements aimed at preventing escapeare kept to a minimum, account forbetween twenty percent (Sweden) and fortypercent of prison places (Denmark). Forthis reason the Nordic countries, with theexception of Finland, report high levels ofescapees in comparison with those of othercountries (CoE, 1999a:41).

There are very few persons under theage of eighteen in Nordic prisons (suchindividuals account for way below onepercent of the prison population, CoE,1999a:16). The proportion of femaleprisoners lies - as in many other countries- between five and six percent, whilst theproportion of foreign citizens among prison

291


inmates varies quite considerably - beinglowest in Finland at 4 percent, and highestin Sweden at 26 percent (CoE, 1999a:18).

The average length of stay in prison canbe estimated (cf. NCS, 1997:82 f) to beshortest in Norway (2.9 months in 1995)and longest in Sweden (5.2 months). Asregards the number of individuals servinglife sentences, on a certain day in 1998there were twelve such ‘lifers’ in Denmark,59 in Finland and 78 in Sweden (KOS,1999:102). The life sentence has beenabolished in Norway.

Over the last 50 years , pr isonpopulations have been fairly stable in theDenmark, Norway and Sweden (see Figure3). The increases of the last ten years arenot that large when seen in a Europeanperspective (CoE, 1999c:17). Finlandconstitutes a remarkable exception to thetrend towards rising inmate numbers.There the prison population has shrunkquite considerably since the mid-1970s(1976: 118 inmates per 100,000 ofpopulation) and is today on a par with thatof her Nordic neighbours. The roots of thepast high Finnish population may be traced

back to the civil war (1918) and itsaftermath (Christie, 1968:171). Thepolitical mechanisms underlying the recentdecrease have been described by Törnudd(1993) and Lappi-Seppäla (1998), who -among other things - concludes that thedecrease of the prison population has notchanged the Finnish crime picture in anunfavourable way as compared to otherNordic countries (p. 27).

5. SummaryThis short overview of the state of the

crime levels and penal systems of theNordic countries, as portrayed by availablestatistical sources, indicates that the crimelevel in Scandinavia (as regards traditionaloffences) is on a par with or lower than thatof other European countries. Drug abusetoo appears to be less widespread in theNordic countries. Increases in crime ratesduring the post-war period have been verysubstantial in the Nordic countries just asthey have been elsewhere in Europe -indicating that the recorded increases oftraditional crime in Europe may havecommon roots out of reach for varyingnational welfare and criminal policies. The1990s may have witnessed a stabilisation

Figure 3Prison populations in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden,

1950-1998 (every fifth year). Per 100,000 of population.Source: NCS (1997; updated)

Per 100,000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 20000

50

100

150

200

NOSEDKFI

292


in theft rates, albeit at a high level.Increasing equality between the sexes hasprobably contributed to an increase in thereporting of violent and sexual offencesagainst women (and children), makingthese offences more visible. The system offormal control in the Nordic countries ischaracterised by relatively low policedensity, a falling clear up rate, theimposition of fines in a high proportion ofcriminal cases and low prison populations.

The international crime victims surveys(no data being available for Denmark andNorway) indicate that fear of crime iscomparatively low in Finland and Sweden;and that (for this reason) people do not feelthe need to take special precautions againstthe possibility of crime to any great extent.Respondents appear to be fairly satisfiedwith the performance of the police and alsosupport limits on the use of prisonsentences.

It should be remembered that debateson crime policy in the mass media or amongpoliticians at the national level are rarelybased on a comparative cross-nationalperspective. Conclusions such as thosedrawn in HEUNI’s “Profiles of CriminalJustice Systems” (1998), for example,

on Denmark: “In general, therefore, thedata (which is admittedly limited)suggest a relatively low crime problemin Denmark” (p. 134)

or on Sweden: “All in all, therefore, theimage one receives from the data oncrime and criminal justice is that, atleast in the international comparison,Sweden has been relatively successfulin its crime prevention and criminaljustice policy” (p. 434)

would be rejected by many editorials andpoliticians as artefacts. Instead, thescenarios painted are not uncommonly

quite clear in their inclination towards lawand order and the need for tougher anti-crime measures.

ReferencesSummary crime and correctional

statistics regarding the Nordic countries arefound in CoE (1999a, 1999b) and NCS(1997). Summary profiles of criminaljustice systems are presented by HEUNI(1999) and in the World Factbook ofC r i m i n a l J u s t i c e S y s t e m(www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstracts/wfcj.htm). EUROSTAT (1997) providesvaluable demographic and social data forthe period 1986-1996.

Balvig, F., Crime in Scandinavia: Trends,Explanations, and Consequences. In:Bishop, N. (Ed), Scandinavian CriminalPolicy and Criminology 1980-85, pp. 7-17.Copenhagen: Scandinavian ResearchCouncil for Criminology, 1985.

Bishop, N., Intensive supervision withelectronic monitoring: a Swedishalternative to imprisonment. PenologicalInformation Bulletin. Nos. 19 and 20, pp.8-10. Council of Europe, 1994-1995.

BRÅ, Intensivövervakning med elektroniskkontroll. En utvärdering av 1997 och 1998års riksomfattande försöksverksamhet[Intensive supervision with electronicmonitoring. An evaluation of thenationwide trial period 1997 and 1998].Brå-Rapport 1999:4 [with a summary inEnglish]. Stockholm: Brottsförebygganderådet, 1999.

Bondeson , U . , G loba l Trends inCorrections, Annales Internationales deCriminologie 36(1/2), pp. 91-116, 1998.

Christie, N., Changes in Penal Values,Scandinavian Studies in Criminology 2,pp. 161-172, 1968.

293


CoE, Council of Europe Annual PenalStatistics SPACE I. Survey 1997. PC-CP(99) 3 REV. Strasbourg, 5 July 1999a.

CoE, European Sourcebook of Crime andCriminal Justice Statistics. PC-S-ST (99)8 REV. Strasbourg, 7 July 1999b.

CoE, Rapport finale d’activité. Conseil decoopération pénologique. CDCP (99) 18Addendum I. Strasbourg, le 13 julliet1999c.

van Dijk, J.J.M., Mayhew, P. and Killias,M., Experiences of Crime Across the World:Key Findings of the 1989 InternationalCrime Survey. Deventer: Kluwer.

Eisner, E., The Effects of EconomicStructures and Phases of Development onCrime. In: Council of Europe, Crime andeconomy. Proceedings. Reports presentedto the 11th Criminological colloquium(1994). Criminological research, Vol.XXXII, pp. 13-51. Strasbourg: Council ofEurope Publishing, 1995.

EMCDDA, Annual Report on the State ofthe Drugs Problem in the European Union1997. European Monitoring Centre forDrugs and Drug Addiction. Lisboa, 1997.

EMCDDA, Annual Report on the State ofthe Drugs Problem in the European Union1998. European Monitoring Centre forDrugs and Drug Addiction. Luxembourg:Office for Official Publications of theEuropean Communities, 1998.

EUROSTAT, Yearbook ’97. Luxembourg:Office for Official Publications of theEuropean Communities, 1997.

Estrada. F., Juvenile Crime Trends in Post-War Europe. European Journal onCriminal Policy and Research 7, pp. 23-42, 1999.

Heidensohn, F. and Farrel, M. (Eds),Crime in Europe. London: Routledge, 1991.

HEUNI, Profiles of Criminal JusticeSystems in Europe and North America1990-1994. K. Kangaspunta, M. Joutsen,N. Ollus and S. Nevala (Eds). EuropeanInstitute for Crime Prevention and Control,affiliated with the United Nations.Publication Series No. 33. Helsinki, 1999.

Joutsen, M., Recent Trends in Crime inWestern Europe. Paper presented at theFifth European Colloquium on Crime andCriminal Policy, Ljubljana, 25-27September 1996.

Joutsen, M., Finland. In: G. Newman(Ed.), World Factbook of Criminal JusticeSystems. Internet: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wfbjfin.txt [Last modified: 02/23/99].

Killias, M., Crime Policy in the Face of thethe Development of Crime in the NewEuropean Landscape. Report from theFifth Conference on Crime Policy.Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 1995.

KOS, Kriminalvårdens Officiella Statistik[Official Statistics of Corrections].Norrköping, 1999.

Lappi-Seppälä, T., Regulating the PrisonPopulation. Experiences from a Long-TermPolicy in Finland. National ResearchInstitute of Legal Policy. ResearchCommunications 38. Helsinki, 1998.

Mayhew, P. and van Dijk, J.J.M., CriminalVictimisation in Eleven IndustrialisedCountries. Key findings from the 1996International Crime Victims Survey.Onderzoek en beleid 162. WODC, 1997.

Marshall Haen, I., How Exceptional Is theUnited States? Crime Trends in Europeand the U.S., European Journal on

294


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

NCS, Nordic Criminal Statistics 1950-1995. Hanns von Hofer (Ed). Stockholm:Department of Criminology, 1997.

NOS, Kriminalstatistikk 1995 [OfficialStatistics of Norway, Crime Statistics1995]. C 392. Oslo-Kongsvinger, 1997.

Olsson, B., Stymne, A., Hakkarainen, P.,Schmidt, D., Skretting, A. and Valsson, K.S., The Nordic drug scene in the 1990s:recent trends, Nordic Studies on Alcoholand Drugs 14 (English Supplement), 1997.

Pease, K., Cross-National ImprisonmentRates. Limitations of Method and PossibleConc lus i ons , Bri t i sh Journa l o fCriminology 34, pp. 116-130.

Pfeiffer, C., Juvenile crime and violence inEurope. In: M. Tonry (Ed), Crime andJustice: A Review of Research 23, pp. 255-328. Chicago, IL: University of ChicagoPress, 1998.

Reuband, K.-H., Drug Policies and DrugPrevalence: The Role of Demand andSupply, European Journal on CriminalPolicy and Research 6(3), pp. 321-336,1998.

RSÅ, Nordisk kriminalstatistik [Nordiccriminal statistics]. In: Rättsstatistiskårsbok 1990 [Yearbook of Judicial Statistics1990]. Official Statistics of Sweden.Stockholm: Statistics Sweden, pp. 142-152,1990.

Shinkai, H. and Zvekic, U., Punishment.In: G. Newman (Ed), Global Report onCrime and Justice, pp. 89-120. Publishedfor the United Nations Office for DrugControl and Crime Prevention. Centre forInternational Crime Prevention. NewYork/Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1999.

Steffensmeier, D. and Harer, M.D., MakingSense of Recent U.S. Crime Trends, 1980to 1996/1998: Age Composition Effects andOther Explanations, Journal of Researchin Crime and Delinquency 36(3), pp. 235-274, 1999.

Sveri, K., Incarceration for Non-paymentof a Fine. In: H.J. Albrecht et al.,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 nKriminologie und Strafrecht. Festschriftfür Günther Kaiser, pp. 681-690. Berlin:Duncker & Humblot, 1998.

Törnudd, P., Fifteen Years of DecreasingPrisoner Rates in Finland. NationalResearch Institute of Legal Policy.Research Communication 8. Helsinki,1993.

Vogel, J., Living conditions and inequalityin the European Union 1997. EurostatWorking Papers. Population and socialconditions. E/1997-3. [Working document].1997.

Westfelt, L., Utvecklingen av registreradebrott under efterkrigstiden. Sverige ieuropeisk belysning [Development ofregistered offences during the post-warperiod. Sweden compared with Europe].In: H. von Hofer (Ed), Brottsligheten iEurope [Crime in Europe], pp. 20-40.Lund: Studentlitteratur, 1998.

II. THE SWEDISH PRISON SYSTEM

1. Incarceration in SwedenSince the end of the 1980s, the Swedish

penal system has been officially based ona model of just deserts (cf. Lundquist, 1990;Tham, 1995). This means that theperceived gravity of the offence, or the‘penal value’, is the most important factorin the decision of an appropriate sanctionfor the crime. This does, however, not

295


imply that there is a heavy reliance on theuse of imprisonment as a sanction forcrimes. Quite the contrary: the modernofficial view is “that, preferably, peopleought not to be locked up. To deal withoffenders by keeping them in thecommunity is considered to be the best wayof getting them to lead crime-free lives”(Basic Facts, 1997: 1). Thus, probation,community service, civil commitment(contract treatment), suspended sentencesand fines are the preferred methods ofpunishment. This is further emphasizedby a special provision in the Criminal Codewhich prescribes that in all cases the court“ is required to give notice to anycircumstance or circumstances suggestingthe imposition of a sentence milder thanimprisonment”.

In 1998, about 125,000 people (or 1,400per 100,000 population) were found guiltyfor a variety of criminal acts. Thebreakdown of sanctions imposed was asfollows: 77,000 fines; 15,000 prisonsentences (of which 4,000 were convertedinto ‘electronic monitoring’, see below);10,000 probation orders (includingsupervision of young offenders); 8,000penal warnings (suspended sentence), andless than 400 committals to psychiatriccare. In addition, the public prosecutorwaved prosecution for 14,000 people.1

All prison sentences are for a fixed termor for life, depending on the gravity of theoffence. The minimum prison sentence is14 days. Most often the actual prisonsentence is for a relatively short period.During 1998, a total of 9,497 persons wereadmitted to prison, of whom 30 percentreceived a sentence of two months or less

and 33 percent between two and sixmonths. The average prison populationamounted to 5,156 prisoners (of whom1,071 were remand prisoners) or to a totalof 58 prisoners per 100,000 population.Prisoners released in 1998 had served anaverage of 154 days in prison.

2. The Prison System: An OverviewThe Ministry of Justice is responsible for

establishing prison policy, but has noauthority to interfere in the daily work ofthe prisons and probation service centrallyor regionally. This is, instead, theresposibility of The Swedish Prison andProbation Service (SPPS), which is headedby a government appointed board thatconsists of trusted citizens (members ofparliament, charitable organizations,labour unions, and so forth). Thegovernment also appoints the Director-General.

All prisons and gaols (remand prisons)in Sweden are state controlled and thereare no county jails. Privatization of prisonsis a non-issue in Sweden, despiteParliament ’s decision, in 1998, thatauthorized private security firms may beused, under special circumstances, to carryout functions such as transportingprisoners or guarding hospitalizedprisoners.

The penal administration of the countryis divided into five regional units. Theregional offices are responsible for theadministration of gaols and prisons,aftercare and non-custodial sentences(supervision). In October 1998, the SPPSemployed approximately 7,800 persons, 42percent of whom were female; 4,487 of staffwere employed in prisons and 1,553 ingaols. In 1997, the staff/inmate ratioamounted to 0.9: 1 in the prisons and to1.4: 1 in the goals. The total budget,including expenditure for requirementssuch as non-institutional care, for the 1998

1 If not otherwise stated, all statistical data are takenfrom the following official sources: Crime andCriminal Justice Statistics 1998 and CorrectionalStatistics 1998. The Swedish population amountedto 8.85 million people in 1998.

296


fiscal year was 4,150 million SwedishKronor (SEK) (about 460 million USDollars). The daily cost per inmate,depending on the prison category (seebelow), has been calculated at between 200US Dollars in open prisons and 300 USDollars in maximum-security prisons.

The management style in Swedishprisons is ‘organic’, rather than militaristic.Armed guards do not exist. In very seriousunrest situations, the local policedepartment is contacted and authorized todeal with the situation. However, riots andother forms of unrest are extremely rareevents in Swedish prisons. In 1994 a majorincident occurred at the maximum securityTidaholm prison, when inmates set fire toparts of the prison.

Presently an increasing number ofprison officers are required to maintaincontact with a specified number of inmateson a daily basis. The purpose of this contactresponsibility is to assist inmates withtreatment, education and activityplanning, as well as to assist in thegranting of routine parole. The minimumrequirements for a position as correctionalofficer is at least two years of senior highschool education or the applicant must beat least 26 years of age with at least fouryears of work experience. In addition tothe general educational requirements,prospective correctional officers arerequired to have at least two years of seniorhigh school training in the Englishlanguage, Swedish and in the socialsciences. Hiring is based on personal jobinterviews with prospective officers.

2.1 Prison ClassificationIn Sweden there are four different

security categories for prisons. Prisoncategories I to III are known as ‘closedprisons’ and category IV prisons areconsidered ‘open prisons’. This system wasintroduced in the first half of the 1990s.

Before that, a distinction was madeb e t w e e n n a t i o n a l a n d l o c a l , o r‘neighbourhood’ prisons. National and localprisons could be open or closed prisons.National prisons were usually maximum-security prisons but could vary fromm a x i m u m t o m i n i m u m p r i s o n s .Neighbourhood prisons were usuallyminimum or medium security prisons.

Category I prisons are similar tomaximum-security prisons in othercountries. They are designed with thehighest level of security possible, given thecurrent state of technology and securitymethodology, in order to prevent escapesand release attempts. The only differencebetween category II and category I prisonsis that category II prisons do not havesecurity measures preventing releaseattempts. Category III prisons arebasically designed to thwart ‘impulseescape’ attempts. These prisons onlyprovide minimum security measuresagainst escapes. Finally, category IVprisons, known as ‘open prisons’, have nophysical barriers or technology aimed atpreventing escape. The only barriers toescape are the (unarmed) prison officersthemselves. Persons convicted of drunkendriving and less serious offences are oftensent to category IV prisons. Prisonersserving time in these prisons may beallowed to pursue employment or educationduring the day outside of the prison.

In 1998, the average number of availableprison beds ( including gaols) wasapproximately 5,600 with the nationalaverage being at about 87 percent ofoccupancy. On average, six percent of theprisoners were placed in category I prisons;18 percent in category II prisons; 30 percentin category III prisons; 21 percent incategory IV prisons; and 26 percent wereremand prisoners.

From an international perspective,

297


Swedish prisons are modern, expensive,and small. The largest prison, Kumla,which is a maximum-security prison, hasabout 260 (nominal) beds and only 177were in use during 1998. The typicalSwedish prison has far fewer than 100beds. Single celling at night is the rule andover-crowding does not occur.

In 1998, no escapes were reported fromcategory I and II prisons, 36 escapes fromcategory III prisons, 155 escapes fromcategory IV prisons and no escapes fromgaols. Over and above these numbers,another 178 abscondings (in connectionwith furloughs, during transport, etc.) werereported. By official Swedish standards,this level of security is considered high.

3 The Swedish Prison PhilosophyEven if sentencing in Sweden is now

based on a just deserts model, treatment,presently called special ‘programmesactivities ’ is still an explicit goal ofcorrection. According to the current PrisonTreatment Act of 1974 (PTA), the primarygoal of the prison sentence is to promotethe inmate’s adjustment to the communityas well as to counteract the detrimentaleffects of imprisonment. Already in thePrison Treatment Act of 1945, the view wasexpressed that the deprivation of freedomitself should be regarded as the penalelement of a prison sentence and not theactual prison experience itself. Thus, thePTA of 1974 states explicitly that an inmateshall be treated with respect for his or herhuman dignity.

The PTA of 1974 is based on fourprinciples:(i) imprisonment as last resort, that is,

the usual punishment should be a fineor a community sentence, sincei m p r i s o n m e n t n o r m a l l y h a sdetrimental effects;

(ii) normalization, that is, the same rulesconcerning social and medical care and

other forms of public service shouldapply to prisoners just as they applyto ordinary citizens;

(iii) vicinity, that is, the prisoner should beplaced in prison as close as possible tohis or her home town; and

(iv) co-operation, meaning that all parts ofthe correctional system (probationservice, gaols and prisons) should workclosely together in individual cases aswell as in general.

Due to a general shift in Swedishcriminal policy towards a pro-active andmore repressive model, increasingemphasis has been placed on securityduring the late 1980s and the 1990s withthe result that the vicinity principle is nowobsolete. Recently, the aim of the prisonsystem has been officially described asfollows: “The correctional system ’soperations shall be characterized by ahumane attitude, good care of and activeinfluence upon the prisoner, observing ahigh degree of security as well as by duedeference to the prisoner’s integrity and todue process. Operations shall be directedtowards measures, which influence theprisoner not to commit further crimes. Theobjective should be to promote andmaintain the humane treatment ofoffenders without jeopardizing security”(author ’s translation). Or in the words ofthe SPPS itself : “The Prison and ProbationService has two main goals. To contributeto the reduction of criminality, and to workto increase safety in society. To achievethese goals we work with sentencedpersons in order to improve theirpossibilities of living a life withoutcommitting new crimes.”

4 Specific Aspects of theCorrectional System

4.1 Medical Treatment of PrisonersAll newly received inmates are

questioned about their state of health bythe admitting prison official. In the event

298


of any health complaints, the prison officialsends them to a prison nurse. In 1998, atotal of 163 nurses were employed by thePrison Service. Typically, all new inmatesare examined by a prison nurse within 24hours of arrival. Any prisoner who isidentified as possibly having a seriousmedical problem is then referred to aphysician for a closer examination and, ifnecessary, any further referrals are made.In the event that an inmate requiresspecialized treatment, the treatment isobtained from outside medical services.Inmates that require hospitalization aretransferred to an outside hospital for aslong as necessary.

Inmates are offered the opportunity tohave an HIV test performed upon entryinto the facility. Prisoners who are sero-positive or who have the Aids virus mayrequest separation from other prisoners.On April 1, 1998, 25 inmates were classifiedas HIV-positive.

In 1998, three prisoners and sevenremand prisoners were reported to havecommitted suicide. In 1994 the EuropeanCouncil’s Committee for the Prevention ofTorture and Inhuman or DegradingTreatment or Punishment (CPT) criticizedSweden for keeping remand prisonersunder excessive restrictions and inisolation.2 Recently, Parliament decided toease restrictions and that, as a rule,remand prisoners must be given theopportunity to stay with other remandprisoners.

4.2 Prison LabourAll inmates must participate in

programmes activities in one form or

another. The programmes include‘conventional work’, education, specializedrehabilitation or treatment programmes,day releases for the pursuit of study orwork outside the prison during normalbusiness hours, internal service, that is,kitchen duties, building and generalmaintenance, and finally, training ineveryday social skills, like how to dolaundry, maintain a clean living space,cooking, and planning a personal budget.In 1998, work programmes comprisedabout 47 percent of all programmesactivities, education formed 20 percent,service and maintenance programmescomprised 15 percent, specialized re-habilitation and treatment programmes,six percent, and other activities 12 percent.

The industr ia l pr i son work i sadministrated by a special unit known asKrimProd. This unit is responsible formanufacturing operations within theprison system and also functions as asupplier to civilian companies or sellsvarious prison products directly to retailersand wholesalers. KrimProd employsmodern managerial work ethic principles.The employment fields traditionallyavailable to inmates are industry,agriculture, horticulture, forestry,construct ion and various serviceoccupations. Those inmates who areemployed in the conventional employmentsector receive a wage of about 1.20 USDollars per hour. Prisoners participatingin educational programmes are paid aspecific allowance of about 1 US Dollarsper hour.

4.3 Disciplinary and Security MeasuresUnlike other countries, solitary

confinement, as a formal disciplinarypunishment, is not used in the Swedishprison system. However, solitaryconfinement can be resorted to under thosespecial circumstances (disturbing thegeneral order, being under the influence of

2 The Swedish Government had requested thepublication of this report and it is available fromthe CPT’s website (www.cpt.coe.fr/cpt/swe.htm). -The CPT paid a new visit to Sweden in February1998.

299


intoxicating substances, attempts toescape, investigations of breach ofdiscipline). In 1998, a total of 2,100 casesof solitary confinement were reported.

According to the law, amended onJanuary 1, 1999, there are two officialsanctions that prison officials may imposeupon a prisoner for violating prison rules,although, serious violations whichconstitute a criminal offence, can bebrought before a court. The principalsanction available for use by the prisonofficials is a decision that up to 15 days ofrelease can be postponed. The secondsanction is a formal warning to theprisoner. In 1998, 3,700 warnings and1,600 cases of postponed release were filed.The average number of days additionallyspent in prison amounted to 3.6 days.

Another informal, but documenteddisciplinary measure is the use of a prisontransfer. I f a prisoner seriouslymisbehaves, the prison officials maytransfer the unruly inmate to anotherprison. In 1998, the number of transfersamounted to 330 cases. Despite theavailability of these sanctions, informaldiscussions with the fractious prisoner arethe usual method of dealing withinfractions unless the infraction is of anespecially serious nature (Bishop, 1991).

The illegal use of drugs in prison orwhilst on furlough and escapes orattempted escapes are the most commonreasons for imposing disciplinary measureson an inmate (Bishop, 1991). It should benoted that escapes from prison orattempted escapes are not viewed as acriminal offence in Sweden. Therefore, nofurther sanctions can be imposed on anescapee other than the official disciplinarysanctions. However, disciplinary problemsare not a priority issue in debates aboutSwedish prisons. Nor is violence betweenprisoners and prison employees, between

prisoners amongst themselves or prisonrapes a major issue. In 1998, a total of 241employees, including staff of gaols andafter-care services, reported that they hadbeen subjected to threats or violenceperpetrated by inmates or clients.Approximately 45 percent of the reportsreferred to intentional violence, while 55percent were reports of different forms ofthreats. However, since 1993, at least fourprisoners were killed by other prisoners.No prison killings had ever been reportedprior to 1993. All killings occurred inmaximum-security prisons.

4.4 Complaints proceduresThe complaints procedures are laid down

in the Prison Treatment Act (PTA) and thePrison Treatment Ordinance. In general,the role of the courts is down played in theSwedish system. Only decisions ofindividual cases, decided by the centralp r i s o n a d m i n i s t r a t i o n(kriminalvårdsstyrelsen), can be sent onappeal to the administrative court.Statistical data on the number and natureof prisoners’ complaints and the outcomeof complaints are not available.

Like every other citizen, prisoners alsohave the option to appeal to theombudsman. During the period 1 July1997 to 30 June 1998, the ombudsmanconcluded a total of 410 complaints in thefield of corrections, of which 32 cases led toadmoni t i ons or c r i t i c i sm by theombudsman.

Inmates in Swedish prisons have theright, guaranteed by law, to meet anddiscuss issues of mutual interest and topresent their views to the warden of theprison. Prisoners can hold regularmeetings, unattended by the prison staffto discuss the pertinent issues. Proposalsemanating from such inmate ‘community’meetings are discussed with the warden bya specially elected council of inmates. The

300


inmate council is elected by the otherinmates and represents them.

Swedish prisoners are entitled to votein the general elections.

4.5 Visits and Other Contacts withthe Outside World

From an international perspective, theSwedish prison policies regarding visitsand furloughs are quite liberal. Regularcontact with the outside world is officiallyviewed as an important component in thetreatment of the offender. Inmates aregranted furloughs, or short-term leave,outside of the prison, on a regular basis.The average length of a normal furlough isthree days. Special furloughs are also givenon a case by case basis. Before regularfurloughs are granted, inmates must ‘prove’themselves during various qualifyingperiods. In 1998, 18,500 normal and 33,000special furloughs were granted.

In 1998, it was reported that about 1.3percent of normal furloughs and 0.2 percentof special furloughs had been abused.‘Abused ’ means that the speci f icstipulations of the individual furlough wereviolated such as drug or alcohol abuse whileon furlough or that the inmate did notreport back to the prison at the end of theperiod of leave, thereby constituting anescape from prison.

Visits may take place unattended by aprison officer. However, the visitor may besearched prior to the visit as is the inmateafter the visit is concluded, all in an effortto squelch the importation of drugs andother unauthorized materials into theprison environment. If necessary, prisonofficials and the police perform backgroundchecks on the visitors of inmates to assessthe security threat. In cases where it isbelieved that the character of the visitor isdoubtful, that is, he or she may attempt tosmuggle in contraband for the inmate,

visits are supervised by a prison officer.Facilities for regular conjugal visits are alsomade available for those prisoners whohave a partner. Another form of visit isthe regular visits paid by members oforganizations like the Red Cross, AmnestyInternational, the Churches, and so on.Special visiting apartments, in closeproximity to three of the prisons, areavailable to facilitate children’s contactwith their imprisoned parent.

4.6 Opening the PrisonsDue to the classification scheme of

Swedish prisons, that is, securityclassifications I to IV, the only prisons thatare considered completely open are thecategory IV facilities. Policies regardingfrequency of furloughs are also more liberalin the open facilities than at the otherlevels. Provision for day-release are madefor prisoners in open prisons in order topursue outside employment, maintaintheir regular job, or pursue outsideeducational activities. In 1998, about 640such day-release cases were granted.Furthermore, in about 17,000 cases,inmates were allowed to participate invarious social activities outside the prison.Another 670 inmates were placed intreatment facilities for drug abusers or infoster homes.

4.7 Early ReleaseInmates, who are serving a time-limited

sentence of more than 1 month areconditionally released when 2/3 of thesentence has been served. The length ofthe test period, upon early release, isusually commensurate with the length ofthe original sentence, but of at least oneyear. During the test period, theconditionally released person can be placedunder supervision. Prior to January 1,1999, inmates with sentences of more than2 years could be released after 1/2 of thesentence has been served. This possibilityis now abolished and the 2/3-rule applies.

301


5 Special Categories of Prisoners5.1 Prisoners in Maximum Security

Section 7(3) of the Prison Treatment Actstates that any prisoner who is serving asentence of at least four years or serving asentence of at least two years for either anaggravated drug offence, any attempt atconspiracy or aggravated drug smuggling,must serve the sentence in a closed,maximum security national prison, if thereis reasonable cause to believe that theprisoner will attempt to escape before theminimum sentence is served. This sectionof the PTA was promulgated on 1 July 1988after the escape of a Swedish spy who hadbeen sentenced to life imprisonment.Usually, one-third of those prisoners towhom s. 7(3) applies are in fact placed in aclosed, maximum-security prison. On 1October 1998 there were a total of 338‘Section 7(3) prisoners’. Half of them wereconvicted for drug offences.

Furthermore, s. 20 of the PTA providesfor the separation of prisoners in maximumsecurity. Section 20 states that a prisonermay be separated from the general prisonpopulation if: (a) the convicted person isan imminent threat to national security;(b) if the inmate seriously disrupts thenormal order and general discipline withinthe prison; (c ) if the inmate continues toengage in criminal activity and there isreason to believe that the inmate willattempt to escape; and (d) if it is necessaryto separate the inmate in order to preventcriminal activities while in the prisonenvironment. This section of the PTA alsostates that, if the duration of the separationfrom the general prison populace is likelyto be lengthy, the convict may be placed ina special maximum-security wing withinthe prison.

A prisoner in a maximum-securityfacility may be transferred to a minimum-security facility four months before the endof the sentence in order to facilitate

preparation for release into the community.Inmates, who are serving time as s. 7(3)prisoners, are not afforded the sameregular furloughs as other prisoners.Section 7(3) prisoners will only receive theirfirst furlough after one-quarter of theirsentence, or two years of their sentence,has been served, whichever comes first.Special leave may also be granted to s. 7(3)prisoners at the discretion of the prisonauthorities. Those prisoners who wouldnormally not be given a furlough, that is,serious offenders and ‘lifers’, are allowed,what is known as a ‘breathing space’ leave.This type of leave is very restrictive relativeto the normal three-day furlough. Aprisoner, who receives special leave of thiskind, is accompanied by two prison officers,who are dressed in casual civilian clothes,for the entire duration of the leave. Theduration of this special leave is normallyfor four hours and can include variousactivities such as a visit to a shopping mall,a meal in a restaurant or a walk through apark. Prisoners in maximum security areof necessity more strictly controlled thanthose serving time in medium or openprisons, thereby inevitably reducing theamount of contact these prisoners havewith the outside world.

Section 7(3) has been criticized as beingunfair and was changed on 1 January 1999.Currently, individualized decisions aremade for each case, spelling out exactly thespecial conditions and restrictions of theprison term.

5.2 Long-Term PrisonersPrisoners who are serving a sentence of

at least two years are considered long-termprisoners in Sweden. A sentence of life canbe commuted, by a pardon, to a fixed termby the government. Once a life sentence iscommuted to a fixed term, the normalprovisions of conditional release apply tothe prisoner once he or she is released. Theaverage period of incarceration of

302


prisoners, who have been sentenced to lifeimprisonment, is now above 12 years andthis period has increased during the lastdecade. A sentence of life imprisonment isimposed for murder and, in exceptionalcases, for high treason. In the last twodecades the number of life sentences hassteadily increased (despite a low and stablehomicide rate at about 1.2 killings per100,000 population). Between 1988 and1998, 77 ‘lifers’ were admitted to Swedishprisons, of whom approximately one-thirdwere foreign citizens. The total number of‘lifers’ has increased from 24 on 1 October1988 to 81 by 1 October 1998. The numberof prisoners, with a sentence of four yearsor more, has also almost doubled. On 1March 1989, there were 600 such prisonersand by 1 October 1998 this amount hadrisen to 1,038.

5.3 Women PrisonersAs in most other countries, women

constitute a small percentage of theSwedish prison population; in 1998 theymade up five percent. For a long time, theHinseberg prison was the only all-femalefacility in the country. In 1989 and 1996,two additional all-female prison wereopened, known as Färingsö (nearStockholm) and Ljustadalen in the northof the country. These prison were openedin response to the growing number ofwomen prisoners, at the Hinseberg facilitywhich is some distance from the Stockholmarea, who were eligible to serve theirsentences in neighbourhood prisons. In1997, Hinseberg could accommodate 115prisoners, Färingsö about 30 andLjustadalen 20 prisoners. The remainingprisoners were divided between differentneighbourhood facilities that accommodateboth men and women.

From an international perspective, of amixed-gender facility may seem odd and itis, in fact, contrary to internationalconventions. A study of women prisoners

in Sweden revealed, however, that themajority of women prisoners preferred toserve time in a mixed facility; 56 percentof the respondents said they preferredmixed-sex prisons, whilst 16 percent of therespondents preferred women-onlyfacilities (Somander, 1994). However, from1 January 1999, the system of mixed-gender facilities was abolished. Currently,a woman prisoner may only in exceptionalcases and only with her explicit consent beplaced together with male prisoners in thesame prison.

In 1998, the majority of female prisonerswere between 30 and 44 years of age. Thetwo most common crimes for which femaleinmates had been convicted were theft anddrug offences.

Women prisoners are allowed to havetheir babies with them. In 1998, there were13 such prisoners and the average timespent in prison was four months. All of thechildren were younger than two years ofage.

Prison sentences are usually shorter forwomen than for men. In modern times, upuntil 1996, no women have been sentencedto life imprisonment. According to officialrecidivism statistics, there is no differencein the recidivism rates of men and womenwith a prior criminal record. Dependingon the number of prior convictions, it isanticipated that between 45 and 90 percentof prisoners, male and female, will bereconvic ted 3 wi th in three years .Corresponding recidivism rates for personswho have been fined tend to vary between20 and 80 percent. Seen from anotherperspective, more than half of the inmateshas prior prison experience (56 percent in1998).

3 Note, that the reconviction can refer to a minoroffence.

303


5.4 Juvenile PrisonersIn Sweden the age at which criminal

responsibility begins is 15 years. Accordingto law, juveniles below the age of 15 cannotbe punished; they are taken care of by thesocial authorities. Between the ages of 15and 21, the age of the offender is taken intospecial consideration for sentencingpurposes. Section 7, Chapter 29 of theCriminal Code states that particularconsideration shall be given to theyouthfulness of the offender if an offencehas been committed before the age of 21.It further states that no person under theage of 21 shall be given a sentence of lifeimprisonment. In general, the SwedishWelfare Service is the agency who isresponsible for dealing with juvenileoffenders and the guidelines for dealingwith such persons are laid down by theCare of Young Persons Act of 1990 and theSocial Welfare Act of 1980.

The most frequent criminal sanctionsagainst juveniles are fines, waivers ofprosecution and transfer to the socialauthorities. In 1998, only 21 persons, agedbetween 15 and 17 years, and 544 persons,aged between 18 and 20 years, wereimprisoned. Of the 15 to 17 year oldcategory, four boys were sentenced forviolence and eight for robbery. Fourteenboys had a prison sentence of up to 6months and three boys were sentenced tomore than one year of imprisonment.

Special youth prisons were abolished in1980. Instead, one entire prison and onewing in another prison is set aside forjuvenile offenders.

On 1 January 1999, a new sanctioncalled closed youth care became operative.This new sanction, which may be imposedfor a period between 14 days and four yearsis intended to replace the relatively rareprison sentences for offenders who commitserious crimes prior to their 18th birthday.

Such young offenders are now placed in ahome administered by the soc ialauthorities.

5.5 Drug Addicts in PrisonIn a European context, Sweden is known

for its repressive drug policy (Lenke andOhlson, 1998; Tham, 1998). The drugpolicy is one of the major explanations forthe many changes of prison conditions andprison policies since the early 1980s. Agrowing number of people have beensentenced to imprisonment for drugoffences, the lengths of sentences for drugoffences have increased and variousaspects of the prison regime have been‘toughened’.

In 1998, almost one third of the prisoninmates were imprisoned for a drug offence.This percentage includes cases where thedrug offence was not the principal offence.The number of prisoners who have beenconvicted of drug related offences isunknown. It was also reported that 47percent of all prison inmates were classifiedas inmates with a history of drug addictionand that the likelihood of the frequency ofdrug addiction of the convicted personincreases relative to the length of thesentence. For instance, 59 percent of theinmates sentenced to two months or moreimprisonment were considered drugabusers. Two-thirds of that percentage areinmates who are 30 years of age or older.

One of the official policy goals is to havedrug-free prisons. Drug use while in prisonis relatively rare in the category I prisonsbut the incidence of drug use increases witheach more lenient prison classification.Obviously, this is due to the tighter securityin the category I prisons and the gradualrelaxing of security measures in the otherclasses of prisons. Inmates are subjectedto frequent urine tests as well as roomsearches. Even tracker dogs are used. In1998, 81,000 urine tests and 66,000 cell

304


searches were reported. Positive urinetests usually indicate the use of cannabisand of amphetamines.

Other measures used in an effort toeliminate drug use within prison are thesearching of personal mail and visitors.The prison service also collaborates withthe welfare service to identify and makecontact with the drug users in order tomotivate drug users to seek treatment. TheStanding Committee on Justice hasrecently agreed with the Government’sview that seizures of narcotic drugs in theprisons and gaols are few in number andthat the majority of prisons seldom or neverhave occasion to report the occurrence ofdrug abuse on their premises.

By law the prison system is not requiredto provide comprehensive drug treatmentprogrammes. Rather, the prison systemworks with other agencies and privateorganizations to arrange and provide drugtreatment programmes. On 1 October 1998there were a total of 400 prison bedsespecially reserved for the treatment ofdrug abusers. In other prisons, there areless structured programmes. In all, 45percent of all inmates who were consideredto be drug abusers participated in someform of anti-drug programmes. About 130prisoners were placed in drug treatmentprogrammes outside the prisons.

Finally, special ‘drug-free’ sectors havebeen set up within various prisonsthroughout the country. These are specialsectors within a prison that are officiallydesignated as being completely drug-free.Inmates may request transfer to suchsectors only after signing a contract whichaffirms their desire to give up drugs and toremain drug-free while in the sector.Special rehabil itation and copingprogrammes are set up within these specialsectors in order for the inmate to realizethe drug-free goal.

In some cases, where the offence is drug-related, the court may hand down asentence of contract treatment, which is aform of civil commitment, in lieu of a prisonterm. This sentence is a probation orderwith a specific order to enroll in a drugtreatment and rehabilitation programmes.In most cases, if this contract is broken,the court will order the remainder of thesentence to be served in prison. In 1998,959 contract treatment sentences wereordered by the courts, of which the vastmajority (69 percent) were handed downto offenders between 30 and 59 years of age.The high percentage of older offenders isdue to the fact, that, in Sweden, drugaddiction is not an unduly prevalentphenomenon among younger people.

5.6 Foreign Nationals in PrisonIn 1998, a total of 2,135 foreign

nationals, including non-residents, wereadmitted to prison which translates into22 percent of the total number of peopleadmitted to prison in 1998. In relation totheir total percentage of the generalpopulation in Sweden, foreign nationals areover-represented in the prison system aswell as in judicial statistics (von Hofer etal., 1997; Martens, 1997).

Foreign prisoners are placed amongSwedish prisoners. Special prisons orwings, exclusively dedicated to foreignprisoners do not exist. Approximately 15percent of the foreign prisoners are usuallydeported from Sweden after having servedtheir prison sentence. For obvious reasons,foreign prisoners who are not permanentresidents in Sweden, are not grantedfurloughs to the same extent as Swedishprisoners are. International agreementsbetween Sweden and a number of countriesallow the execution of the prison sentencein the home country of the sentencedperson.

305


6 ConclusionsAccording to the description given above,

one could conclude that the Swedish prisonsystem is a system in balance. This is alsoborne out by the fact that, during the 1990s,Swedish mass media has not focussed onthe prisons, but on the police and othersectors of the criminal justice system. Incontrast with a number of other Europeancountries, the prison population in Sweden,as well as in other Scandinavian countries,has remained rather stable during last 30years. In Sweden this was partlyaccomplished by the introduction ofalternatives to imprisonment like civilcommitment (1988), community service(1990) and electronic monitoring (1994).Especially electronic monitoring, which canreplace a prison sentence of up to threemonths, is considered to have saved prisonspace (between 350 and 400 beds per year,see Part III below). During the 1970s and1980s efforts were also made to shorten thetime spent in prisons (for example, shortersentences, deduction of time spent in gaol,conditional release after one-half of theimposed prison sentence). In the 1990s,however, this process has come to astandstill. Periods of imprisonment appearto be on the increase since prisoners withvery short sentences, such as drunkdrivers, are granted alternative sanctionsand prisoners, sentenced for serious crimes,are receiving longer sentences. Thisprocess of “bi-furcation” [Bottoms] has beenobserved in many countries in recent years.

From a historical perspective, theSwedish prison system is, as are itsEuropean counterparts, a rather younginstitution. Its rise to prominence can bedated to the first half of the nineteenthcentury. At that time, imprisonment wassubstituted for the death penalty andcorporal punishment. Originally theprisons, with their roots in the earlymodern workhouses, functioned as anassembly point for the poor, jobless and

marginalized populace. This function isstill very much alive today. According to arecent level-of-living survey amongprisoners, only one-third of the interviewedprisoners had been employed during the12 months prior to their admission and onlyhalf had had some work during the sameperiod. Almost all prisoners were in debt.Tw e n t y - n i n e p e r c e n t h a d n oaccommodation of their own and 15 percentof these were totally homeless. About halfof the prisoners were living alone.Nineteen percent reported alcoholproblems and 47 percent regular drug use.Forty-nine percent reported psychologicalproblems and 38 percent suffered fromphysical ailments.

From a structural perspective, thedevelopment of (officially registered)criminality and the use of imprisonment(measured as daily prison population) areseemingly two independent processes inSweden. Even if the data, shown in Figure1a & 1b, is partially based on estimates, itbecomes clear that the Swedish prisonpopulation has not been determined by thecourse of (known) criminality. Neither isit possible to apply the widely discussedidea of the ‘stability of punishment’ to theSwedish system (Blumstein, 1995).

Whether the f luctuating use ofimprisonment has influenced the course ofcrime, is more difficult to answer.Obviously, prior to World War I there is norelationship at all. The prison trend wasdecreasing, whilst the offence ratesremained stable. After World War I, thepicture changed drastically with more orless stable prison trends, but soaringoffence rates. In the case of theft, whichdetermines the shape of the offence curveafter World War I, a comprehensiveanalysis of the data’s secular trends andinterruption in trends has shown that theSwedish theft data lends very little supportto the deterrence hypothesis in a

306


longitudinal perspective (von Hofer andTham, 1989); a result which reminds us ofthe trivial fact that statistical co-variationdoes not necessarily imply causality.

Selectected References in EnglishThe Swedish Prison and Probation Servicemaintains a website at www.kvv.se

[Basic Facts 1997], Basic Facts AboutPrison and Probation Service in Sweden.Norrköping: Kriminalvårdsstyrelsen. [ASwedish government publication.]

Bishop, N. (1991). ‘Nyköping ClosedNeighbourhood Prison, Sweden ’. InWhitfield, D. (ed.). The State of the Prisons- 200 Years On. London, New York:Routledge & Keagan Paul.

Bishop, N. (1995), ‘Intensive supervisionwith electronic monitoring: a Swedishalternative to imprisonment’. PenologicalInformation Bulletin: 8-10.

Blumstein, A. (1995). ‘Crime andPunishment in the United States Over 20Years: A Failure of Deterrence and

Figure 1aSweden: Number of prisoners (at year-end), 1841-1999.

Remand prisoners excluded. Rate per 100,000 of the population.

125

100

75

50

25

01840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

Figure 1bSweden: Number of registered offences against the Criminal Code, 1866-1999.

Estimated figures 1866-1949. Rate per 100,000 of the population.

15000

12500

10000

7500

5000

2500

01840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

307


Incapacitation?’. In Wikström, P.O.H., R.V.Clarke, R.V., and J. McCord (eds.).Integrating Crime Prevention Strategies:Propensity and Opportunity. Stockholm:National Council for Crime Prevention.

[Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics1997]. Kriminalstatistik 1997. Sverigesofficiella statistik. BRÅ-rapport 1998:3.Stockholm: Brottsförebyggande rådet. [ASwedish Government publication.]

[ C o r r e c t i o n a l S t a t i s t i c s 1 9 9 7 ] .Kriminalvårdens Officiella Statistik 1997.Norrköping: Kriminalvårdsstyrelsen. [ASwedish government publication.]

Hofer, H. von and H. Tham (1989).‘General deterrence in a longitudinalperspective. A Swedish case: Theft, 1841-1985’. European Sociological Review: 25-45.

Hofer, H. von, J. Sarnecki, and H. Tham(1997). ‘Minorities, Crime, and CriminalJustice in Sweden’. In Haen Marshall, I.(ed.). Minorities, Migrants, and Crime.Diversity and Similarity Across Europe andthe United States. Thousands Oaks,London, New Dehli: Sage Publications.

Jareborg, N. (1995). ‘What Kind ofC r i m i n a l L a w D o We Wa n t ? ’ .Scandinavian Studies in Criminology: 17-36.

Kriminalvården (no date), The Link to alife free of crime. Norrköping: The Prisonand Probation Administration. [A Swedishgovernment publication.]

Leander, K. (1995). ‘The Normalization ofSwedish Prisons’. In Ruggiero, V., M.Ryan, and J. Sim (eds.). Western EuropeanPenal Systems. A Critical Anatomy.Thousands Oaks, London, New Dehli: SagePublications.

Lenke, L. and B. Olsson (1998). ‘Swedishdrug policy in perspective’. In Albrecht,H.J., A. Kalmthout, and J. Derks (eds.).Current and Future Drug Policies inEurope. Problems, Prospects and ResearchMethods. Freiburg: Max Planck Institutefor International and ComparativeCriminal Law.

L u n d q u i s t , A . ( 1 9 9 0 ) . ‘ R e c e n tDevelopments in Swedish Criminal Policy’.In Bishop, N. (ed.). Scandinavian CriminalPolicy & Criminology 1985 90. Stockholm:Scandinavian Research Council forCriminology.

Martens, P.L. (1997). ‘Immigrants, Crime,and Criminal Justice in Sweden’. In Tonry,M. (ed . ) . Ethnic i ty, Cr ime , andImmigration. Comparative and Cross-National Perspectives. Crime and Justice.A Review of Research. Chicago, London:The University of Chicago Press.

Svensson, B. (1995). Criminal JusticeSystems in Sweden. BRÅ-report 1995:1.Stockholm: National Council for CrimePrevention. [A Swedish governmentpublication.]

Somander, Lis (1993), Women Prisoners.Research paper No. 4. Norrköping:S w e d i s h P r i s o n a n d P r o b a t i o nAdministration. [A Swedish governmentpublication.]

Tham, H. (1995). ‘From Treatment to JustDeserts in a Changing Welfare State’.Scandinavian Studies in Criminology: 89-122.

Tham, H. (1998). ‘Swedish Drug Policy -A Successful Model?’. European Journalon Criminal Policy and Research: 395-414.

Wikstrom, P.O.H. and L. Dolmen (1998).World Factbook of Criminal JusticeS y s t e m s : S w e d e n . [ I n t e r n e t :

308


w w w. o j p . u s d o j . g o v / b j s / p u b / a s c i i /wfbcjswe.txt].

III. ELECTRONIC MONITORINGOF OFFENDERS IN SWEDEN

Since 1994, Swedish authorities havehad the power to use electronic monitoringof sentenced offenders. On a trial basis,electronic monitoring was first introducedin six court districts and the experimentwas subsequently extended (1997) to coverthe entire country. Since January 1st, 1999it has been a standard tool under theSwedish penal system.

1 BackgroundThe political initiative to introduce

electronic monitoring was instigated in1993 by the then Conservative Minister ofJustice. Although this introduction hadlong been debated among experts andunder the previous Social Democratgovernment, it had ultimately beenrejected. However the impetus behind thetrial’s extension in 1997 and the finalestablishment of the policy came from theSocial Democrat government.

In Sweden there is no political dissentover the issue of electronic monitoring.Political parties to both right and left, aswell as the Swedish Green party, viewelectronic monitoring positively. The sameis true of the press. Hearings were held,as is normal in Sweden, prior to the initialtrial introduction in 1993, and only theSwedish Data Inspection Board voicedobjections in principle, in part becauseelectronic monitoring was held to be apreviously unknown intrusion into theprivate domestic sphere. The fact thatarguments based on the integrity of theperson carry somewhat less political weightin Sweden than in other Europeancountries may in part be due to historicalcircumstances specific to Sweden. Thecountry has never been occupied by

external forces in modern times, and it hasnot played an active part in wars since thebeginning of the 19th century. Sweden isnot prone to violent political upheavals andthere is no tradition of radical citizensinsisting upon civil rights. State abuse ofpower has little direct relevance as apolitical argument in Sweden.

During the advance work on the firstlaw, the Justice Ministry in charge madeexpress reference to positive experiencesfrom the United States. There was noevidence to the contrary from a Europeanperspective. The introduction of electronicmonitoring was justified with the followingprinciple arguments. There was a generalconsensus that periods in prison tend tohave damaging consequences for convictedoffenders, and therefore that the use ofimprisonment ought to be restricted.Electronic monitoring was felt to allow arestriction of the offender ’s freedom ofmovement that closely approximates toimprisonment, thus presenting a suitablealternative to (short) prison sentences.Another point in favour of electronicmonitoring was the cost-saving element. Itwas not believed that electronic monitoringharmed the integrity of the person anymore than a full prison sentence.

The Swedish parliament ’s legalcommittee put forward no objections andthe law was passed unanimously inprinciple. The same applied to the lateramendments. The only point of contentionwas whether a prison sentence of two, threeor six months should be the upper limitqualifying for the use of electronicmonitoring.

2 Legal Rulings(Lag (1994:451) om intensivövervakning

med elektronisk kontroll [Law on intensivesupervision by means of electronicmonitoring])

309


It is central to the way that electronicmonitoring is framed in Swedish law thatit does not stand as a sentence in its ownright, but is formulated as a specialimplementation of prison sentencing. Thisconstruction is to be understood in termsof the Swedish tradition since the penalcode came into force in 1946, whereby thepunitive element of sentencing wasrestricted solely to the withdrawal ofpersonal freedom of movement, in place ofother forms of punishment. Approachedfrom this perspective, electronic monitoringcan be understood as withdrawal offreedom of movement - provided that it isimplemented in such a way as toapproximate to a term in an open prison.

Under the law currently in force, prisonsentences of up to three months can beserved at home under electronic monitoringinstead of in a penal institution. It is notthe court of law but the regionalcorrectional authorities that make thisdecision, in response to an application fromthe convicted offender. If this applicationis refused, offenders can appeal to theadministrative court for a review of thedecision.

The duration of electronic monitoringcorresponds exactly to the length of theprison sentence imposed by the court. Thecore of the ruling is § 3 of the law.Permission to serve the sentence outside aprison is conditional upon a ban on leavingone’s home except at specifically statedtimes and for specifically stated purposessuch as paid work, training, medicaltreatment, shopping for essentials etc.Adherence to these regulations ismonitored using electronic equipment. Theperson being monitored must refrain fromconsuming alcohol and other drugsincluding banned stimulants (§ 4).Furthermore, assuming the person has anincome during the sentence, a daily fee ofup to 50 Swedish crowns (SEK) is levied,

up to a maximum o f 3 ,000 SEK(approximately 350 USD). The fee ispayable in advance and is directed to thestate crime victims’ fund (§ 5).

In practice, electronic monitoring isorganized as follows: The local stateprobation service (part of the SwedishPrison and Probation Service) conducts aninvestigation of the personal and socialcircumstances of the convicted person. Theperson must l ive in appropr iateaccommodation with a te lephoneconnection. They must also have a placeof employment or training, although evenvoluntary work for an organisation orchurch group is sufficient. It is a centralprerequisite for the monitored person tohave some form of employment since theSwedish legislature is expressly againstturning electronic monitoring into a formof house arrest. The agreement of otheradults living in the person’s householdmust also be secured. The person beingmonitored makes a commitment to adhereto the monitoring schedule drawn up andthe conditions imposed therein. Allparticipants in the monitoring programmemust normally take part in what is knownas a “motivation course” operated by theprobat ion service to address theconsequences of the crime committed, anddiscuss ethical issues, alcohol and drug useand conflict management.

Besides the electronic monitoring theperson is also subject to repeatedunannounced personal visits (which mayalso take place in the evenings or atweekends). Supervision also includes testsfor alcohol using automatic breath testingkits, which transmit results directly downthe telephone line. Urine tests and otherdirect drug tests are also administered.Electronic monitoring takes placeaccording to the “active system” (for details,see Haverkamp, 1998) whereby the personbeing monitored wears a transmitter on the

310


leg and the signals it constantly emits aretransmitted to the computer in themonitoring centre.

3 Empirical DataDuring the trial period, electronic

monitoring has been systematicallyevaluated (most recently in BRÅ [1999]with English summary). There follows abrief summary of key empirical findings.

In 1998 a total of 3,930 persons weresubject to electronic monitoring, of whom(in line with expectations) six percent werewomen. The majority of them wereconvicted for drink driving (53 percent).Assault was the principle offence in 21percent of cases, and property offences, thethird highest category, accounted for eightpercent. In seven out of ten cases, the termof imprisonment was one month or less. Inbarely ten percent of cases it exceeded twomonths (in which case - as for normalprison sentences - release on parole is likelyafter two months). One quarter of thosewho might legally have been considered forelectronic monitoring did not in fact applyfor it. Some 15 percent of applications wererefused, and around 4,000 people werefinally monitored. The average age of thosemonitored was in the range 31-40 years.Two thirds of them had previousconvictions and somewhat fewer than halfh a d p r e v i o u s l y s e r v e d t e r m s o fimprisonment. In 1998 there were just 200cases where monitoring had to beterminated prematurely. The principalcause was - typically for Sweden - violationof the ban on alcohol consumption. Thereoffending rate was studied in the years1994-95. This revealed that theelectronically monitored offenders were nomore or less likely to reoffend than thecontrol group. After three years, 26 percentof the monitored persons were known tohave reoffended; in the control group thecorresponding rate was 28 percent.

Around two thirds of those monitoredwere living with a partner in a jointhousehold. Twenty percent had childrenunder the age of eighteen. More than 90percent of those monitored and over 80percent of their partners stated that theywould prefer electronic monitoring to aprison term if faced with the same choiceagain in future. Even the quarter of thosesurveyed who said that they often or nearlyalways found it “unpleasant” to wear theelectronic “foot shackle” gave this sameresponse. The majority of those monitoredviewed electronic monitoring as a lesssevere punishment than a prison term, asdid their partners.

The probation officers interviewed weregenerally very positive about electronicmonitoring but wished for improvementsto the technology and better workplacesupervision of those being monitored.

The cost savings for the year 1997 -depending on the method of calculation -were put at between 70 and 140 millionSEK (approximately 8 and 16 millionUSD). In that year around 3,800 offendershad been monitored which corresponds tosome 390 prison places in the year as awhole. Furthermore, certain economicbenefits accrue since the person undergoingelectronic monitoring continues in paidemployment. In general it should be notedthat the cost of a prison place in Sweden(and Scandinavia) is high in comparison toother countries (Council of Europe, 1999).For example, the cost per day of a place inan open prison was put at 150-185 USDfor the years 1997/98.

The evaluation also revealed that onlyabout half of those being monitored hadpaid the daily fee of 50 SEK. In total thevictims’ fund benefited to the tune of some350,000 USD in 1997.

On its current scale (approximately

311


4,000 persons), electronic monitoringcontributes to an annual reduction of theSwedish prison population by between 350and 400 places.

Two points of criticism were particularlyhighlighted in the evaluation mentionedabove (BRÅ, 1999). Firstly, supervision inthe workplace was inadequate - partly fortechnical reasons ( the e lectronicmonitoring is inoperative during workinghours), partly for other reasons: the contactpersons in the workplace do not necessarilyreport every infringement of the rules tothe penal authorities. The evaluationstudy was critical that the principle ofequality had not been observed. The rulesof electronic monitoring were deemed tohave been applied differently from regionto region. For example, the unannouncedmonitoring visits varied between thedifferent districts from 1.8 to 4.4 visits aweek.

The judiciary criticised the fact that thefinal decision on whether to imposeelectronic monitor ing fe l l to thecorrectional authorities and not to thecourt. Electronic monitoring was not, intheir view, a special form of executing apr i son sentence but a s tandardpunishment. In its statement, the JusticeMinistry stood by the current solution -above all out of practical considerations -but left the door open for an amendmentto the law.

4 Further ExtensionsAs indicated in the introduction,

electronic monitoring is not a politicallydisputed issue in Sweden. Hence it is nosurprise that a range of ideas and proposalshave been put forward for extendingelectronic monitoring - in some casesbeyond the confines of criminal law. Thefollowing proposals are under discussion inSweden.

Extension to early releaseAccording to the American model,

applications of electronic monitoring canbe categorised by the “front door” and “backdoor” principle. Electronic monitoringserves on the one hand to curb entries intoprison (the principle currently adhered toin Sweden) and/or to increase releases fromprison. The “back door” principle thusentails that part of the prison term isserved as a remainder period outside theprison, under electronic monitoring.

Electronic monitoring of prison leaveThe Swedish penal system has long

made use of a broadly drawn prison leavesystem. On condition that a positive cost-benefit analysis is produced, many are infavour of electronic monitoring but theirmotives are diverse. On the one hand, theleave granted to date can be bettersupervised; on the other hand, certaincategories of prisoner who were previouslyunable to benefit from leave, or could do soonly under great restrictions, can be giventhe opportunity to interrupt theirsentences.

As an alternative to imprisonment on remandE l e c t r o n i c m o n i t o r i n g i s a l s o

recommended as an alternative toimprisonment on remand so long as thereis no danger of concealment, and there isfelt to be little risk of the offender ’sabsconding.

As a measure against persons (i.e. men)who breach the terms of an injunction

In Sweden it has been permissible since1988 for the prosecution service to prohibita person for a limited period of time fromvisiting certain other persons, makingcontact with them or following them,insofar as it is likely that this person willcommit crimes against the other person orharass them in any way. In the SwedishJ u s t i c e M i n i s t r y, t h e l e g a l a n dorganisational basis is currently being

312


examined for the commencement ofelectronic monitoring of those who haverepeatedly violated injunctions. Accordingto investigations by the Swedish CrimePrevention Council this would betechnically possible.

5 The Past and the FutureI would like to conclude this summary

of Swedish experiences of electronicmonitoring with a few speculativethoughts. In many ways the introductionof electronic monitoring in Sweden isreminiscent of the introduction ofimprisonment during the first half of the19th century. Both periods can beunderstood as times of radical societalchange. At that time the industrial age wasdawning; today it is the electronic age. Theprison as a “spatial” form of control overconvicts was something fundamentallynew, just as electronic monitoring is today.Both are the expression of previouslyunknown technical innovations. Prisonthen and electronic monitoring now havenot been issues surrounded by politicaldissent (unlike specific implementationssuch as the Auburn and Philadelphiasystems). What prison has in common withelectronic monitoring is that theyincorporate both a progressive and arepressive potential. The prisons werewelcomed and promoted by philanthropistsas a humane alternative to corporalpunishment, among other things. Longsentences and harsh penal measures(including isolation and beatings) wereused to appease doubting hard liners.Electronic monitoring is prized today as asuperior alternative to short prisonsentences but can equally be used to stepup repression. The introduction of prisonscame at a time when new forms of formalsocial control were being developed. In thefirst half of the 19th century organizedpolice forces came into being, institutionalreforms were undertaken and stateeducation was extended, to name but a few

aspects. Modern developments in recentdecades have been characterised by rapidprogress of compulsory pre-trial measures,and Sweden is not alone in this. In parallel,a general breakthrough has been noted innon-penal areas with strategies formonitoring and recording generalsegments of the population - in private andin public - for instance, via camera andtelevision monitoring, (electronic) records,user profiles, GPS systems and DNAtechniques (see Wright, 1998).

Modern technology has brought aboutthe poss ib i l i ty o f comprehensivesupervision of the individual citizen. Indrastic terms, the electronic tagging oflivestock is already a reality, and similarregistration of citizens now only remains aquestion of political desirability. How longthe introductory phase will last, and howall-embracing the ultimate result will beare questions that cannot yet be answered.However, electronic monitoring - in oneform or another - will be a ubiquitousphenomenon in a few generations’ time,exactly as prisons once became and stillremain; this, to me, seems a near certainty.

SELECTED REFERENCES

Bishop, Norman (1995), “Intensivesupervision with electronic monitoring: aSwedish alternative to imprisonment”.Penological Information Bulletin. Nos. 19and 20 - December 1994-1995, pp. 8-10.Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

BRÅ (1999), Intensivövervakning medelektronisk kontroll. En utvärdering av1997 och 1998 års riksomfattandeförsöksverksamhet. BrÅ-Rapport 1994:4.Stockholm: Brottsförebyggande rådet/Fritze. [With English summary]

Council of Europe (1999), Rapport finaled’activité . Conseil de coopérationpénologique. CDCP (99) 18 Addendum I.Strasbourg: Conseil de l’Europe.

313


Haverkamp, Rita (1998), “‘ElectronicM o n i t o r i n g ’ . D i e e l e k t r o n i s c h eÜberwachung von Straf fä l l igen ” .Bürgerrechte & Polizei/CILIP 60 (2/98).[http://infolinks.de/cilip/ausgabe/60/elekhaus.htm]

H a v e r k a m p , R i t a ( 1 9 9 9 ) ,“Intensivüberwachung mit elektornischerKontrolle - Das schwedische Modell, seineB e d i n g u n g e n u n d E r g e b n i s s e ” .Bewährungshilfe, Jhrg. 46 (1), S. 51-67.

Wright, Steve (1998), An Appraisal ofTechnologies of Political Control. Workingdocument. Scientific and TechnolocialOptions Assessment, STOA. DirectorateGeneral for Research. PE 166 499.E u r o p e a n P a r l i a m e n t . [ h t t p : / /cryptome.org/stoa-atcp.htm]

NOTES ON CRIME AND PUNISHMENT IN SWEDEN …...I. CRIME AND PUNISHMENT IN SCANDINAVIA: AN OVERVIEW Geographically, the Scandinavian countries (here meaning Denmark, Finland, Norway

Documents