Fluent Essays

Can you please help me with my homework? I have the reading that goes with it!- Thank YouP.S. Its only 5 questions! pratt___reading_guide.docx pratt_2008___scandinavian_exceptionalism.pdf Unformatted Attachment Preview Pratt 2008 – Reading Guide 1. What is Pratt’s main argument? (2 points) 2. What evidence does Pratt use as evidence for his argument? (2 points) 3. What surprised you about Pratt’s description of prisons in Scandinavia? (2 points) 4. In response to Pratt (2008), Mathisen (2012) critiqued Pratt’s research methods. According to Mathiesen, it is problematic that Pratt relied heavily on tours from officials for his research and that Pratt didn’t base his argument on the experience of people who are incarcerated or working as officers. Do you agree with this critique? (2 points) 5. Do you agree with the concept of Nordic Penal Exceptionalism? (2 points) doi:10.1093/bjc/azm072 BRIT. J. CRIMINOL.
(2008) 48, 119–137 Advance Access publication 24 December 2007 SCANDINAVIAN EXCEPTIONALISM IN AN ERA OF PENAL EXCESS Part I: The Nature and Roots of Scandinavian Exceptionalism This is the first of a two-part paper on penal exceptionalism in Scandinavia—that is, low rates of imprisonment and humane prison conditions. Part I examines the roots of this exceptionalism in Finland, Norway and Sweden, arguing that it emerges from the cultures of equality that existed in these countries which were then embedded in their social fabrics through the universalism of the Scandinavian welfare state. In Nations Not Obsessed with Crime, Freda Adler (1983: 1) wrote that ‘the province and function of criminology has been thought to be the study of crime … this has meant the study of the reason for the existence of crime. By emphasizing crime—the negative— the exploration of non-crime—the positive—has usually been excluded or neglected’. Much the same can be said for the study of punishment in modern society, where we have become preoccupied with the nightmares of penal excess. Developments in the United States especially, where the imprisonment rate is 750 per 100,000 of population, loom large on the horizon of Western society as a whole (Christie 2000). In Part I of this paper, however, I want to give attention to the considerably more neglected subject of low-imprisonment societies. As such, it provides a sociological account of Scandinavian exceptionalism (Savelsberg 1994; Lappi-Seppälä 2007). It is based on research undertaken in Finland, Norway and Sweden in 2006. This included visits to 16 prisons and discussions with academics, policy makers, criminal justice practitioners, politicians, judges and prisoners, as well as observations of everyday life in these countries.1 By the term ‘exceptionalism’, I am referring, first, to the levels of imprisonment in these three countries. While there have been recent increases in imprisonment here (this is further addressed in Part II of this paper), with a rate of 66 per 100,000 of population in Norway and 68 in Finland in 2006, only Italy of the other main European countries (at 66 per 100,000 of population) was on a par with them (the rate for Denmark was also 67 per 100,000); other than these countries, only Ireland (72 per 100,000) and Switzerland (79 per 100,000) had rates less than Sweden (82 per 100,000). Second, the paper also refers to prison conditions in these countries—exceptionalism does not just refer to imprisonment rates. Generally speaking, in this region, it is recognized that going to prison is itself the punishment for crime; prison conditions can then approximate to life outside as far as possible, rather than being allowed to degrade and debase all within. These claims will be substantiated in a descriptive account of the prison conditions I observed. The paper then examines the roots of this exceptionalism and illustrates the way in which penal and prison policy emerged from them. Of course, each of these *Institute of Criminology, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand; John.Pratt@vuw.ac.nz. 1 Although Denmark was included in pilot visits in 2003, lack of time and funding prevented me including this country in the 2006 research. 119 © The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (ISTD). All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/48/2/119/422635 by guest on 11 May 2020 John Pratt* PRATT Scandinavian Prison Conditions These countries have a large number of small prisons, often with 100 inmates or fewer. In 2006, there were 86 in Sweden (total population 9.1 million), 47 in Norway (4.6 million) and 38 in Finland (5.4 million). The largest prison in the region, in Sweden, holds around 350 inmates. Given the extensive geographical areas of these countries, this form of prison organization allows most prisoners (unless they are maximum-security classification) to be fairly close to home and family. This fits the ethos of Scandinavian prison management, which is one of normalization, most clearly stated in the Finnish Sentences Enforcement Act 2002: ‘… punishment is a mere loss of liberty. The enforcement of the sentence must be organized so that the sentence is only loss of liberty. Other restrictions can be used to the extent that the security of custody and the prison order require.’ Core prison services such as health care are thus provided from community facilities, rather than the prison service, and reflect these rather than prison values. All Scandinavian prisons are run by the state—there has been no momentum for privatization. Social distance within these prison systems seems relatively short, allowing prisoners to have direct input into prison governance: ‘… inmates in Swedish prisons have the right to meet and discuss issues of mutual interest and to present their views to the warden’ (von Hofer and Marvin 2001: 638). In Norway, prisoners are included in the yearly ‘meeting in the mountains’ (Christie 2000), where prison policy is worked through and determined by all interested parties. When it seemed likely that a proposal for a 1,000-bed prison in Oslo would go ahead in 2006, a meeting was held between senior civil servants, prison staff, academics and prisoners’ groups, who successfully opposed it. In Swedish male prisons, 28 per cent of prison officers are under 35, 33 per cent are women and 20 per cent have university degrees. The staff:inmate ratio is 1:1. The position is quite similar in the other two countries. In Norway, trainee prison officers, nearly all of whom have tertiary qualifications, receive two years’ training while on full 120 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/48/2/119/422635 by guest on 11 May 2020 countries has its own separate history and identity. Yet, at the same time, their connections, similarities and overlaps also provide an identifiable regional—Scandinavian—identity. It is this identity and the penal developments associated with it that are the focus of this paper. This means that it concentrates on the points of intersection and commonality between these countries rather than their differences. Whitman (2003) argues, in the context of the United States, that the egalitarian tradition of that country contributed to a dynamic that has led to a tolerance of more degrading and inhumane punishments in that country than in similar societies—the hallmark of United States exceptionalism. In contrast, however, the argument developed here is that egalitarianism produced the opposite effect in Scandinavia. The roots of Scandinavian exceptionalism are to be found in the highly egalitarian cultural values and social structures of these societies. This egalitarianism was then institutionalized and embedded in their social fabrics through the development of the Scandinavian welfare state. The penal and prison policies that this framework produced began to sharply diverge from those in the Anglo-American world, particularly during the post-war period, and have remained distinct from them, even though their exceptional characteristics now themselves face significant challenges. What these might be and their implications, however, are the subject of Part II of this paper. Here, I want to examine what it was that made Scandinavian exceptionalism a possibility. SCANDINAVIAN EXCEPTIONALISM IN AN ERA OF PENAL EXCESS Closed prisons External appearances of Scandinavian closed prisons are unexceptional, the architecture spanning all stages of prison development from the mid-nineteenth century onwards. There are external security precautions, controlled exits and entrances and, in some, airport-like security checks for visitors, prisoners and also prison staff as they move around the institution. At one maximum-security prison in Sweden, there is an electrified fence sitting between two perimeter walls. Once inside, there are the familiar wings and long corridors with unit-based divisions between them. However, what strikes any visitor familiar with Anglo-American prisons is the personal space and relative material comfort of most prisoners. There is no ‘prison smell’ in Scandinavia—the combined aroma of poor personal hygiene, ‘slopping out’ practices, food preparation and cigarette fumes. ‘Double-bunking’ is quite uncommon. Prisoners have televisions in their cells, usually state-provided. Most cells have internal sanitation, although, in Finland, there were still 500 without these facilities in 2006. Outside of maximum-security conditions, movement within the prisons is relatively relaxed. There are few signs of prisoners loitering on corridors or ‘hanging around’ trying to kill time. The wings I visited were quiet, with no ‘ghetto-blaster’ music coming from the cells. Most prisoners work or receive full-time education well beyond remedial level—many are encouraged by the prison authorities to study for degrees by distance education. 121 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/48/2/119/422635 by guest on 11 May 2020 salary. In all three countries, this training is likely to take place alongside that provided for probation officers—there is no great difference in the academic and professional ethos that separates these two groups of correctional workers. In Finland, about 80 officers are recruited each year from 300 applicants; in Norway, 150 from 2,000. Officers wear uniforms, but these have no military trappings or insignia. In Sweden, local communities compete with each other for the location of new prisons, recognizing their economic and social benefits. ‘Prisoners can play a positive role in local communities,’ a Norwegian senior civil servant told me. Prison work seems a relatively more attractive career option than in most other modern societies. Thus, prison officers need not feel any shame over their working environment here. That Norwegian students often work as prison officers on a casual basis is indicative of the generally relaxed conditions to be found in most prisons and the socially acceptable nature of prison work. In contrast to concerns in other countries about the management of ageing prisoners, in Oslo Prison there is a unit for elderly prison officers—those coming to the end of their career who supervise the quietest and most well behaved prisoners. That we can find such an arrangement in this era of penal excess exemplifies the differing organizational priorities of prison life in this region. There are major distinctions between Scandinavian closed and open prisons, with the latter holding between 20 and 30 per cent of the respective prison populations. While some prisoners, such as those convicted of drunk-driving offences, can go directly to an open prison, most will spend a good part of their sentence in a closed institution. For them, open prisons exist as inducements for good behaviour and an opportunity towards the end of long sentences to prepare for release. Between 15 and 20 per cent of referrals to open prisons are recalled to closed institutions for breaches of the rules each year. There are routine tests for drugs in both types of prison. PRATT Open prisons Here, fences, walls and other barriers are reduced to a minimum. Sometimes, there are none at all. There are no bars on windows and, in some, prisoners lock their own doors. After the prisoners finish work or classes, they are free to walk around the prison grounds and sometimes into local communities. The concept of the Scandinavian open prison began in Finland, where, in the 1930s, inmates were allowed to work on farms. A new type of ‘labour colony’ prison (not to be confused with gulag developments in Soviet Russia) was introduced to the Finnish prison system in 1946: ‘… no limit was to be placed on the freedom of those sentenced to labour colonies except where called for by maintenance of order and work discipline, and inmates [were to] be paid according to the normal wage’ (Lahti 1977: 137). This is still so in Finland. From their wages, such prisoners pay taxes and ‘rent’, buy food, give money to their family and to their victims and save for their release. It used to be the same in Norway and Sweden (see Marnell 1972), but now the prisoners simply receive an allowance, as in closed prisons. Many of those serving short sentences in open prisons are allowed to continue with their previous employment. In one open prison near Stockholm, there is a car park for the prisoners 2 In Norway, for example, there were eight prisoners under 18 in May 2007. 122 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/48/2/119/422635 by guest on 11 May 2020 There are also likely to be common rooms or lounges for each unit, with communal television and cooking facilities for light meals. In some prisons, select inmates are entirely self-catering. In lower-security prisons, inmates are able to go to local shops themselves for these purposes. In the main, however, meals are eaten in a canteen, often used by prison staff as well, or at a communal table in the unit, where prisoners might be joined by officers for midday meals. Food servings seemed nutritious and generous, with ample servings provided. There was no attempt to ration, for example, how much bread, sugar and sauce each prisoner was allowed to have, as happens in some of the Anglo-American jurisdictions. Nor did I come across one prison where inmates, as a matter of routine, would have to eat meals in their cells. Inmates wear their own clothes during visits. ‘Conjugal relations’ are encouraged and facilitated in Scandinavia. Most prisons (high-security especially) provide accommodation where partners and children can stay free of charge for weekends—usually at monthly intervals—with the prisoners on an unsupervised basis. This is obviously an important mechanism in maintaining relationships and reducing tension. Homosexual activities, consensual or forced, are also likely to be reduced. Similarly, the Scandinavian prisons hold hardly anyone under 18, which is also likely to reduce the potential for bullying and sexual assault.2 As another illustration of the exceptional qualities of Scandinavian prisons, solarium facilities are provided in a number of closed and open prisons, even if this is not as exotic as it might otherwise sound. Absence of sunlight in the Scandinavian winter can lead to serious Vitamin D deficiency. This is likely to be exacerbated for high-security prisoners, with little freedom of movement beyond their own units. However, these facilities have become so unremarkable a feature of prison life that, unless a visitor specifically asks, there is unlikely to be any mention of them. Their very provision, though, surely points to the way in which Scandinavian prison authorities recognize and offer redress for chronic health problems or prevent them from developing, rather than confining prison health care to emergency or acute cases. SCANDINAVIAN EXCEPTIONALISM IN AN ERA OF PENAL EXCESS 123 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/48/2/119/422635 by guest on 11 May 2020 so that they may commute to work in the morning, returning in the evening. If they are going to be delayed, they can telephone ahead and a meal will be left out for them. Bastøy Prison in Norway is the shining jewel in the Scandinavian open prison system. Built on an island in picturesque surroundings of fjords and hills, there are no other buildings and transport to it is by ferry. Its complement of 100 inmates live in chalet-type facilities (no walls or fences anywhere) that are self-catering, although main meals are provided in a canteen for the whole prison. It aims to provide prisoners with social rather than professional competencies and help them to develop a sense of responsibility for their actions. As the Superintendent explained to me, ‘the usual thing is that prisons are all about security … on the island, inmates work with knives and saws and axes. They need these if they are to do their work. And if an inmate increases his responsibility, you have to give him trust’. Most of the work is agricultural or involves animal husbandry. There is a ‘guesthouse’ where prisoners can stay with their families for the weekend. These exceptional facilities raise no ‘scandals’ in the media: ‘Norwegians are used to open prisons,’ I was told. Again, one of the Finnish open prisons is near to a kindergarten. Clearly, as with social distances inside the Scandinavian prisons, the social distance between prison and the outside world is also comparatively short. The reconsecration of Bastøy’s chapel after fire damage was attended by members of the Norwegian royal family—prison was not too shameful an institution for them to visit. The highest members of this society were able to mix with its lowest. Of course, one must recognize that however relaxed a prison regime, whatever material comforts are provided, prisoners are still prisoners. There are rules, levels of surveillance, record-keeping, denials of choices, deprivations and sanctions that will differentiate any prisoner from free people. In Norway, the physical comforts in one open prison for women are remarkable but this will not ease the distress of those who are mothers of infants. Norwegian prison rules do not allow children in prison under any circumstances. At the same time, prisons being prisons, there is likely to be bullying and violence. If the circumstances of Scandinavian prisons are likely to reduce the prospects for this, one in eight inmates at Helsinki prison still request to be placed in isolation at some stage of their sentence (Finnish Department of Prisons and Probation 2004). In addition, Swedish closed prisons are becoming more security conscious. There were riots in five in 2004 (due, apparently, to restrictions on prisoners’ gym activities and communication problems between prisoners and staff). There was also a sensational (by Swedish standards) escape from a maximum-security prison, which involved guards allowing guns to be smuggled in (there have been corresponding events in Norway and Finland in recent years, but without, as yet, the same consequences that this has had in Sweden). In its aftermath, and in a highly symbolic gesture, the head of the National Criminal Investigation Police was appointed Director-General of Corrections (his predecessor resigned after the escapes). The prison where the escape took place is the one which now has the three-tier fencing arrangement and extravagant airport-like security checks as one moves around inside. It also has units within units and one ‘maximaxi’ unit that I was not allowed to see. As with some of the other high-security prisons, all movement in the prison itself takes place underground, through tunnels—an architectural design that is well suited to intensifications of security. Furthermore, during the course of my visits, I only met with and saw convicted prison ... Purchase answer to see full attachment