Disclaimer: The use of the word ‘offender’ is used in the assumption that the incarcerated people being discussed in this article were deemed guilty. Of course, this is not always true when it comes to our criminal justice systems. However, for the case of the article, I have used this word to ensure it reads well and is streamlined in wording.
The criminal justice system (CJS) has been a system that has existed in many forms for thousands of years. The way in which both sentencing and punishment have changed throughout time begets much curiosity from criminologists. One place in particular that has caused debate amongst experts and amateurs alike is the prisons based on Scandinavian Exceptionalism. It has bred many discussions on the relationship between these styles of prisons and how they can be implemented into Western society for a less retributive space. It can safely be said that there are both benefits and limitations to implementing a Scandinavian-style form of justice into Australian prisons, but the main intersection of how the government deals with socio-economic problems, such as homelessness and poverty, is a crucial factor in the issues that would arise.
‘Scandinavian Exceptionalism’ is known to focus on reformative and positivist ideas surrounding punishment. From its open-spaced architecture to personalised treatments for prisoners, these styles of prisons focus on the ways in which the incarcerated can get back on track to being integrated into society. The actual architecture of the prisons is able to adapt the experience of those criminalised and alter the effects of their punishment in many ways.
According to a study by Yvonne Jewkes, there are two types of architectures: of harm, and of hope. In Western society, retributive foundations of punishment are set at the forefront of priority when it comes to punishing offenders, and prisons are built on the basis of an ‘architecture of harm’. This design implements a space of dehumanisation and degradation, putting forward the ideology that offenders do not deserve to be treated like humans and don’t deserve a comfortable life. These spaces consist of characteristics such as no windows, concrete walls, uncomfortable surfaces, and constant surveillance, leading to an immense feeling of surveillance that provides offenders with enough fear of suffering to supposedly prevent them from reoffending. In contrast to this, the ‘architecture of hope’ is the creation of open-spaced rehabilitative punishment based on the equality of all.
Scandinavian Exceptionalism tends to create a space where offenders are able to express their hobbies and interests in much more hospitable and comfortable conditions. Focusing on the rehabilitation of the offenders theoretically provides them with the skills and experience to reintegrate back into society or their community. Because Scandinavian countries have some of the lowest recorded crime rates in the world, it gives rise to questions surrounding the implementation of those values into the Western world and how it would affect the CJS in that space.
Incorporating a humane prison system in Western society would be a very big process, as our societal views collectively show a desire for more retributive punishment; people want offenders to be treated with the ideology of “an eye for an eye” to ensure there’s some form of justice for the victims. The factors between Western society and Scandinavian countries that differentiate the effectiveness of this Exceptionalism consists of issues like overpopulated prisons, the higher levels of offending and re-offending, overrepresentation of minority groups in prisons, and the relationship between homelessness and offending rates. These factors stem from systematic issues that are supported by the CJS in the Western world.
Specifically looking into the issue of homelessness, a widely debated issue amongst criminologists is the prominence of how poor living conditions and the lack of support for homeless people correlate with crime rates. As a general statement, a humane prison may assist in some aspects of the re-offending rates, however it would be a much more beneficial action to sort the issue from the root cause of the problem. A study regarding the relationship between accommodation and reoffending in 2012 showed that approximately 60% of the participants (offenders who have been incarcerated) said that having support in the aspect of accommodation or living situation would assist in the prevention of reoffending. This statistic proves that there is an underlying issue with which prisoners link their reoffending with the homelessness crisis.
When offenders leave their time in incarceration, it is on their record permanently; records that both landlords and workplaces have access to. With this criminal record, it becomes difficult to find a home to rent or a job to be able to assimilate with ease. This is a reflection on how Western societies, and their perspective on retributive justice, view a person with previous involvement in the justice system. Found in a study consisting of reoffending incarcerated people in 2012, 64 per cent of the participants reported that the factor of safe and affordable accommodation and living support would be beneficial to ensure a decrease in reoffending rates. At a very low 20 per cent reoffending rate compared to Australia’s 53.1 per cent as of 2022, Scandinavian countries seem to have characteristics in their rehabilitative punishment that work in filtering out disparity and treating prisoners as equals, to allow them to continue living with basic human rights after their sentence.
The ideal situation when speaking of the Scandinavian Exceptionalist perspective is that the Western CJS would incorporate this approach to punishment to reflect the positive impact it’s had on places like Norway. Nevertheless, there are various issues that prevent the change from taking place. In 2022, the imprisonment rates in Australia were at a high number of 200.9 people per 100 thousand adults; this means approximately 330 thousand were incarcerated in 2022 alone. With huge-scale imprisonment, Australia’s overpopulation in prison is almost too overwhelming to alter or change wholly without complete abolishment of the policing and punishment system. Therefore, the problem of insufficient support for homeless people, specifically looking at ex-prisoners, needs to be funded and focused on by the Government as a measure to see progression in the decrease of reoffending rates.
The issue with Australia’s current measures is that instead of going down the route of subsuming some beneficial aspects of Scandinavian Exceptionalism, there has been a defunding and abolishing of support systems for homelessness after returning to society. A small-scale example of this can be seen in the termination of the Reintegration of Ex-Offenders (REO) program, subsidised by Housing Tasmania. With 19 per cent of male and 15 per cent of female prisoners having no accommodation arrangements within weeks of the run-up to their release, it forces these ex-offenders to reoffend as a means of survival.
Many prisoners will reoffend simply to get some form of accommodation. To illustrate, Tony Bull (an ex-prisoner), who has been periodically in prison throughout his life, stated, “It doesn’t take too long before, you know, you’re looking at prison as being a better option”. This idea of reoffending to have a roof over your head produces a speculation on the notion that having nicer and more humane prisons in a time of economic crisis would do the opposite, as the Scandinavian countries have seen. Norway, in recent years, has only seen six in ten thousand people per year homeless, compared to Australia’s 48. Accompanied by this very low figure of homelessness, it is understandable that Norway (and other Scandinavian countries) have lower reoffending rates, as at least one issue surrounding the welfare of citizens has somewhat adequate policies and support surrounding it.
Incorporating the Scandinavian Exceptionalist characteristics into our Western CJS runs the risk of a potential increase in (re)offending. This is because the current retributive prison systems are used as a means of deterrence to those who are thinking about committing crimes. If the prisons were known to have open-spaced living, good food, time, and space to pursue hobbies and a means of living more comfortably in a place free of judgement, there is a possibility that people living in worse conditions — especially in the recent housing crisis — will commit crimes to be taken away from poor living conditions and poverty. The way to resolve this in prisons and the state of reoffending is not to avoid giving prisoners basic human rights, but to ensure that the greater population has better access to livable conditions to avoid reoffending in the first place. The problem we’re facing is not the offenders themselves, but the lack of care and support given by the government in the face of a cost-of-living crisis.
Clearly, the incorporation of Scandinavian Exceptionalist characteristics in Australian prisons would assist in decreasing reoffending rates when it is accompanied by more adequate support for low socio-economic groups. Scandinavian Exceptionalism can be impactful in lowering Australia’s high reoffending rates, but this can only be achieved in a place where governments put heavy focus on funding and fixing the root causes of the high crime rates. With more funding and a strong focus on ensuring that Australia’s prison systems are rehabilitative, the Australian government has to, first, approach new policies to fully support vulnerable groups, not only have knee-jerk reactions when crimes occur. Only then can we see real, fundamental changes within the system.
