Resisting the New Punitiveness? Penal Policy in Denmark, Finland and Norway
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
RESISTING THE NEW PUNITIVENESS? PENAL POLICY IN DENMARK, FINLAND AND NORWAY Author: Michael Kevin Warner, BA, M.Sc. (Econ), M.Ed This thesis is submitted to University College Dublin for the Degree of PhD in the College of Human Sciences Submitted: April 2009 School of Applied Social Science Head of School: Professor Tony Fahey Supervisors: Dr. Valerie Richardson Dr. Aogan Mulcahy 1 Abstract The theoretical framework for this research comes from Garland’s account of the ‘culture of control’. Garland examines the whole spectrum of social, economic, political and cultural relations in late modern society to explain new patterns in the crime control field. Late modernity, in his view, gives rise to new ways of thinking and acting about crime issues and these are predominantly punitive or restrictive. The thesis focuses on the predicted changes in the penal system, addressing the presumption that, in Western society, the scale of imprisonment escalates, the depth of imprisonment deepens and the person in prison is perceived one-dimensionally and in demonised terms, as part of this wider ‘culture of control’. While Garland’s exposition is built on examining the United States and Britain, he suggests that this punitiveness applies to all Western societies. In a case study approach, the thesis examines the penal systems of Denmark, Finland and Norway to see if this presumed increase in punitiveness can be found in these countries, and attempts to discover the reasons for the outcomes. The primary means by which these prison systems were investigated was through analysis of documentation and recorded interviews with key personnel, supplemented by visits to prisons. Thus, this thesis examines whether Garland’s model applies to penal policy in Denmark, Finland and Norway. It finds that, while there have been some signs of ‘new punitiveness’, none of these Nordic countries have followed the path predicted by Garland. Ireland’s penal system had much in common with Nordic countries until the mid- 1990s, especially its penal ‘philosophy’ and a similar level of incarceration, but it has recently diverged, exhibiting more of the features Garland describes. The thesis examines what penal policy lessons might be learned from the Nordic countries for a country such as Ireland. 2 Acknowledgements This thesis grew out of the work I have done for nearly 30 years, and so I wish to acknowledge the bond of values I share with colleagues in prison education, in Ireland and abroad, and like-minded colleagues in other disciplines in the penal field. Two who have passed away are particularly remembered: Liam Minihan and Henning Jorgensen. That bond is especially strong with Irish prison educators who have shared their knowledge in writing, those I have worked with through the European Prison Education Association, and Carolyn and Thom at the Centre for the Study of Correctional Education in San Bernardino, California. I wish to thank the Organisation and Development Unit at the Department of Justice, and Steve Magner in particular, for faith and finance. Thanks also for important help to Mary de Paor and Albert Smith. The research for this thesis could not have been done without some wonderful people who were my ‘gatekeepers’ in Nordic countries: Kaj, Torfinn, Kirsti, Birgitta and Svenolov. They provided me with exceptional access, information and advice on an ongoing basis. Many others also helped me considerably, including Kjeld at Horserod, Suzanne in Oslo, Virva in Helsinki and those who facilitated visits and offered documentation and endless coffee. I am especially appreciative of all 25 who agreed to be interviewed in a language that is not their first, and who invariably spoke at length and with great openness, honesty and insight. From all the above Nordic people I gained not just knowledge about penal policy but a deep affection for the Nordic countries generally. I want to recognise the huge advice, encouragement, wisdom and patience afforded me over the years by my supervisors, Dr. Valerie Richardson and Dr. Aogan Mulcahy. Sincere thanks to you both. This thesis is dedicated, with love and appreciation, to my wife, Jenny, and our children, Eoin, Kate and Neil. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of tables 11 Chapter 1: Introduction 1. THE NEW PUNITIVENESS IN PRISON 12 The subject of this thesis 12 Questions arising from a work situation 14 2. THE ADULT EDUCATION APPROACH 16 A radical approach to adult literacy 16 The concept of adult education 17 3. PRISON EDUCATION AS ADULT EDUCATION 18 Support for an adult education approach 18 The Council of Europe report on prison education 19 The wide curriculum 20 Humane and holistic education 21 4. ‘HUMANE CONTAINMENT’ 22 Personal development 22 A broad concept of rehabilitation 23 The European Prison Rules 24 ‘Valued members of society’ 25 5. THE GREAT AMERICAN ‘IMPRISONMENT BINGE’ 26 Punitiveness in California 26 A restricted role for educators 27 6. COLD WINDS FROM THE WEST, HOPE FROM THE NORTH 30 The 1997 General Election in Ireland 30 Three criteria of punitiveness 32 Looking towards the Nordic countries 35 Outline of thesis 36 Ch apter 2: The Culture of Control 37 1. INTRODUCTION 37 2. GARLAND’S THEORY 38 Penal welfarism 38 Late modernity 39 Individualism, insecurity, exclusion 40 The new crime control apparatus 42 Garland’s ‘indices of change’ 44 4 The three criteria for judging punitiveness 46 3. PRISON DEVELOPMENTS IN AMERICA 48 Punitive politics in the USA 48 ‘Sentencing reform’ 49 ‘Three strikes and you’re out’ 50 Punitive bi-partisanship 52 Changes to imprisonment in the USA 53 The links with social policy 55 4. PRISON DEVELOPMENTS IN BRITAIN 56 Punitive politics in Britain 56 Imprisonment in Britain 58 5. MANAGERIAL RESPONSES TO LATE MODERN CRIME 62 The new penology 63 The Canadian variant of the new punitiveness 64 6. THE RELEVANCE OF THE GARLAND MODEL 66 ‘Elsewhere in the developed world’ 66 Strengths and limitations of Garland 67 Wider possibilitie s than Garland acknowledges 70 Chapter 3: Nordic social and penal policy 73 1. INTRODUCTION 73 2. GARLAND’S WEAKENED WELFARE STATE 74 3. PENAL POLICY AND THE NORDIC WELFARE STATE 76 General features of Nordic countries 76 The Nordic welfare state 77 ‘Nordic Moral Climates’ 78 The welfare state in crisis? 80 The ‘welfare state ideal’ 83 4. SOCIAL POLICY REFORM IN NORDIC COUNTRIES 86 The ‘Scandinavian model’: adjustment and survival 86 Universalism and public support 89 Surviving globalisation and recession 90 Public support for the welfare state 91 5. NORDIC CRIMINAL POLICY 93 Nordic criminal policy 93 Mathiesen and ‘abolitionism’ 96 5 Christie’s arguments against incarceration 96 Social distance and cultural capital 99 The negative impact of imprisonment 100 The larger social context 101 Drugs policies 102 A human rights perspective 103 6. ICELAND AND SWEDEN 104 Iceland 104 Sweden: prison as a last resort? 107 Penal populism 109 Indications of punitiveness 109 7. CONCLUSION 112 Chapter 4: Methodology 114 1. INTRODUCTION 114 Chapter outline 114 Key research questions 114 Policy research 115 2. MEASURING SEVERITY 117 Assessing the criteria of punitiveness 117 The rate of incarceration 118 3. QUALITATIVE RESEARCH 120 Comparative criminology 120 Summary of interviews and prison visits 121 Analysis of documentation 123 The interview format 124 ‘Gatekeepers’ and access 126 Ethnography and self-ethnography 127 4. READING PRISONS 130 Selection of prisons to be visited 131 Conduct of visits 132 5. A CASE STUDY APPROACH 134 Advantages and limitations of the case study 134 Multiple methods and sources 135 The emerging sample 137 Theory testing 138 6. CONCLUSION 139 6 Chapter 5: Denmark : ‘T he art of b alancing the soft and the hard’ 141 1. INTRODUCTION 141 Chapter outline 141 2. FEATURES OF THE DANISH PRISON SYSTEM 142 Open prisons 142 Stable crime policy 143 ‘The Six Principles’ for Prison and Probation work 144 Sigrid Knap’s research 145 Political impact on penal policy 146 3. THE SCALE OF IMPRISONMENT 149 The prison ‘queue’ 151 Alternatives to custody 152 Some increased sentences 153 Net-widening 154 4. THE CHARACTER OF DANISH PRISONS: RINGE, HORSEROD, MOGLEKAER, EAST JUTLAND 155 Ringe 156 Horserod 158 Moglekaer 160 East Jutland Prison 161 5. THE DEPTH OF IMPRISONMENT 165 Reduction in leave 165 Drug policy changes 167 Increased emphasis on security 169 The issue of access to the internet 170 The ‘something-for-something’ policy 172 ‘A stronger emphasis on resettlement’ 174 ‘The balance between the soft and the hard’ 175 6. THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PRISONER 176 Behavioural programmes 176 Staff-prisoner relationships 177 Positive representation of prisoners 180 7. RESISTANCE TO PUNITIVENESS WITHIN THE SYSTEM 181 Factors inhibiting punitiveness 182 Penal populism 183 The resistance of ‘experts’ 185 8. CONCLUSION 187 7 Chapter 6: Finland: ‘Promoting the prisoner’s potential to cope and his adjustment to society’ 189 1. INTRODUCTION 189 Chapter outline 189 2. FEATURES OF THE FINNISH PRISON SYSTEM 190 General features 190 The 2006 Prison Act 191 The sentence planning process 193 3. THE SCALE OF IMPRISONMENT 195 An atypical penal history 195 Recent increases and falls in incarceration 198 Alternatives to imprisonment 199 Prison as a last resort 201 4. THE CHARACTER OF FINNISH PRISONS: HELSINKI CLOSED AND OPEN, TURKU, KERAVA 202 Helsinki Closed Prison 202 Helsinki Open Prison 203 Turku Prison 204 Kerava Prison 206 5. THE DEPTH OF IMPRISONMENT 208 Prison conditions 208 ‘Principles of sentence enforcement’ 210 Congruence with the European Prison Rules 212 6. THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PRISONER 213 Prisoners as members of society 213 ‘To redress the self-esteem of the prisoner’ 216 7. RESISTANCE TO PUNITIVENESS WITHIN THE SYSTEM 218 An ‘exceptionally expert-oriented’ system 219 ‘Humane Neo-classicism’ 220 Other restraining factors 223 8. CONCLUSION 225 An absence of punitive influences 225 Possible risks to Finland’s ‘exceptionalism’ 228 Good social policy as best criminal policy 229 8 Chapter 7: Norway: ‘another kind of discu ssion about how we use prison’ 231 1.INTRODUCTION 231 2.