One Sanction, Two Philosophies; Examining the Contrasting Approaches of the Anglophone and Nordic Prison Systems by Julia Mina Jasmine Blom 

Degree Programme: Criminology and Social Policy

Year of Study: First Year

Introduction

Under the Sentencing Act 2020, section 230 (2) refers to the threshold for when a custodial sentence should be implemented. This states that imprisonment should only be deployed as a last resort if a fine or a community sentence cannot be reasonably justified to the offence (Gov, 2020). Imprisonment is the lawful act of confining an individual by removing them from society, often justified on the basis of public protection (Prison Reform Trust, 2024). Imprisonment is a distinctive experience for individuals and can vary based on the type of prison sentence, the length of stay depending on the offence type and the wider philosophy of the jurisdiction in which it is served.

This essay will outline the basis of the frequent use of imprisonment by examining the Anglophone and Nordic systems and whether it reduces re-offending rates. It will further consider the nature and morality of Nordic systems, regardless of outcome. This article will include details of Northern Ireland (NI) as well as the rest of the United Kingdom (UK), meaning it is significant to consider that NI operates under a different political framework in accordance with the Good Friday Agreement 1998.

Is imprisonment a commonly used sanction?

Imprisonment is one of the most frequently used sanctions in the United Kingdom. It has been argued that the use of imprisonment is overly reliant (British Academy, 2014). Roberts and Harris (2017) argue that the custody threshold in Section 152(2) of the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003 is failing and sentencing should place greater emphasis on proportionality and on reserving prison for offences that actually warrant it. Data published in 2024 by the UK Parliament reveals an approximate total of 97,700 individuals who are serving custodial sentences. Although variation differs across the UK’s devolved jurisdiction, England and Wales as well as Scotland remains among the highest imprisonment rates in the whole of Western Europe (Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research, 2025). Since 2024, England and Wales imprison 134 individuals per 100,000 per capita and Scotland 136 per 100,000 per capita (World Prison Brief, 2024, pp. 2). After extensive research among scholars in seeking to explain the phenomenon, Roberts and Harris (2017) sought to find an erosion in the custody threshold and the system has weakened due to an increase in custodial sentencing – even in cases where a fine or community service could have been granted. They argue that the courts standards for determining when custody is justified has become overly lenient, almost lacking a sense of justification for their (the presiding judge) decisions.  This has always remained as the original provision in the English law however, the authors believe this principle has failed immensely for several years leading to prison overcrowding and a divide in the system. Robert and Harris (2017) are identifying that courts are imposing prison sentences rather than community sanctions – which were deemed appropriate beforehand. This can result in overcrowding of prisons.  Due to this, it can create difficulty in restoring rehabilitation on a one-to-one basis. 

England and Wales as well as Scotland would benefit from employing alternative sanctions to limit the growth of the prison population and perhaps outline a new criterion on the types of offences which should be handled with greater significance as this may not only reduce prison overcrowding but also improve rehabilitation outcomes through the maintenance of employment, community ties and family relationships (Abramovaite et al, 2018).  Additionally, studies found by Damn and Gorinas (2020) indicate that imprisonment can lead an increased risk into reoffending and further allow individuals to comprehensively network which can sway towards the likelihood of offending upon release.

A research paper published by the Sentencing Council (2022) came to conclusive thoughts that short custodial sentences had minor effects at reducing re-offending throughout quantitative research. Results discovered that re-offending from a short custodial sentence (12 months or less) in England and Wales is 4% greater than those who received community sentences (Sentencing Council, 2022, pp. 36). While the Sentencing Council Report (2022) found that reoffending rates were 4% higher among those who receive short custodial sentences, the report takes into account that differences in offender’s criminal history, characteristics and support needed should be carefully considered whilst reflecting on these findings. This paper analyses based on reoccurring patterns and quantitative evidence that correlates to statements. The Sentencing Council (2022) found that an increase in the severity of punishment is not a concern to them, but the perceived risk of being caught by authorities discourages offenders from committing crimes.

Imprisonment should only be used if there is not an alternative which can create a better outcome for individuals (Abramovaite et al, 2018). As well as, in 2023, the UK Gov published statistics on adults who were released from a short custodial sentence of 12 months or less had a reoffending rate of 56.9% which averaged at a 1.4% increase from the previous year.  This increase suggests that the UK should re-evaluate the criterion and take approaches into investing more funding into restorative programmes and build connections with a probation officer. The importance of structure and access to rehabilitative programmes is well documented in correctional environments (Wu et al,2023).  By developing responsibility, this can form new identities and motivate offenders to strive for success. This can be known as life-course transitions (Laub & Sampson, 2001).

The Jurisdiction between Anglophone and The Nordic Prison System

Imprisonment is a universal practice; however, jurisdiction varies from one country to another. The vast majority of anglophone prison systems, for instance, the United States of America, Australia and the United Kingdom, rely heavily on prison with high levels of security and bureaucratic regulation, making the system feel controlling and strict in comparison to Nordic systems (Crewe & Levins, 2022). The comparative analysis revealed how Nordic prisons have more open spaces which brings a sense of freedom to offenders and a better quality of staff-prisoner relationships. Overall evidence pointed to superior living conditions and broader personal liberties due to a profound focus on rehabilitation (Pratt & Eriksson, 2014). Crewe and Levins (2022) conducted a survey in 13 prisons in comparing both England and Wales to Norway.  Individuals partaking in this survey from Norway reported better living conditions and quality of treatment from members of staff. Reports have shown that in 2025, Norway had a re-offending rate, which is based on re-conviction within two years, was 20% (World Population Review, 2025).

Norway is known to have a more relaxed atmospheric prison environment which allows personal freedom and space. Notably, scholar has briefed that the aim of Norway’s prison service is to resemble much of the community as possible (Balvig, 2005). Having prisons resemble society as much as possible becomes easier for offenders to adapt quickly into these societies when reintegrating. The prison system in Norway works on a basis of trust with inmates and even having responsibilities working in agriculture environments and participation in employment activities. The ethos of Scandinavian prison systems is to create a rehabilitative culture and to treat prisoners in a humane way through trust and providing support (Pratt, 2007). Nordic prison system prioritises the aim of addressing the causes of crime rather than punishment (Kriminalomsorgen, 2021). Denny (2016) analysed how an individual’s experience within the prison system, both positively and negatively, closely links their future behaviours and the attitudes in society, therefore are encouraged to uphold relationships with family members as this can prevent re-offending in the foreseeable future.

The Nordic government believe that support and luxury living conditions is the ultimate priority, but this raises questions surrounding morality (Raynor and Robinson,2009). While it is not to suggest that prisoners are undeserving of basic human rights, but it opens questions of creating a great risk of perceptions of imbalance within the criminal justice system. It is significance to balance, deterrence along with rehabilitation to an extent. Allocating such resources to individuals who have committed crimes may be perceived as unfair to some members of the public, especially when access to housing, education and welfare support is limited for law-abiding citizens encountering similar disadvantages, which can raise question about fairness. Scholars such as Andrew Von Hirst (2007) believes that punishments should correlate to the seriousness of the offence committed but it remains humane and does not require removing basic human rights. Alongside this, the Norwegian Correctional Service prioritises education in which it is available to every inmate. This is due to a study in 2016 revealing that offenders have a significant lower education level in comparison to the general population of twenty-five years prior (Denny, 2016). Even though this is not a direct link between imprisonment and education, there has been a pattern of re-occurrence and similarities. Norway decided to focus on education and give inmates a chance to improve through vocational courses. It is important to consider factors such as leaving school at an early age and unemployment. Although it would be complex for the UK to implement an exact copy of Norway’s penal system, it would substantially benefit from personal development and give offenders the opportunity to reform. Education can have many positive aspects on an individual’s life, particularly, supporting their reintegration into society into a workforce (Ellison, 2017).

Is Imprisonment Effective at Reducing Reoffending Rates?

There is a strong body of research that would suggest how incarceration has profoundly done little to no impact on reducing reoffending rates in the United Kingdom, which is why in 2024, Northern Ireland has a low incarceration rate of 88 per 100,000 per capita (Sturge 2024). In many cases, it is important to analyse the fact that targeted community programmes are more effective than genetic custody as this involves little involvement in rehabilitation (Justice Innovation, 2015). For example, during 2015, Northern Ireland implemented a pilot scheme called the Enhanced Combination Order (ECO) which is a community-based alternative catered to offenders serving a custodial sentence; 12 months or less (Justice Innovation, 2015). Those who are eligible for this pilot scheme must have committed a crime involving; public order breach, harassment, GBH by dangerous driving, criminal damage and/or violence against the person (Probation Board Northern Ireland, 2017). Individuals who are selected and agree to partake must agree to engage and fully participate within local communities and in a restorative intervention.

Participants are given spaces to volunteer in charity organisations such as Barnardo’s and local sports clubs. Some may require undergoing mental health interventions such as an assessment with a qualified Probation Board Northern Ireland (PBNI) psychologist if deemed necessary. From this scheme, evidence has revealed that participants taking part in 2018/19 had an overall re-offending rate of 31.1% in comparison to the previous year where the re-offending rate was held at 41.0% (Justice Innovation, 2015), showing a clear reduction in repeat offences.

Restorative justice brings victims of crime as well as responsible individuals into contact as a way for those who have been affected to acknowledge the harms caused, but also welcome personal growth and acceptance into one’s life (Restorative Justice Council, 2016). In the same year, the publication released by Adult and Youth Reoffending in Northern Ireland (2018/19) reveal that those in contact with a probation officer are less likely to re-offend. This success is mirrored in another case, by which an evaluation from NISRA found that 52 participants in the previous six months had a re-offending rate of 57.7% in Northern Ireland but when reviewing the outcome, it is notable that after completion, this per cent dropped to 17.3 in re-offending which also shows similar positive results. These activities cater to the reduction of re offending by promoting participants to build healthier connections within communities. ECO inherently rests of the expectation that offenders will be ready and willing to engage with restorative justice, however this cannot be guaranteed. Although this community-based alternative has seen greater results, this pilot scheme was only rescheduled to trial from 2015 to 2017 – a staggering two-years. It is important to consider that participation alone does not reduce re offending, but it heavily involves an individual’s motivation as well as personal circumstances which can play a role with influencing outcomes.

This limited data restricts the ability to assess the long-term impacts, meaning an analysis of the trends within this programme cannot be guaranteed to have lasting impacts on offenders. Additionally, findings from the Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI) advised that this programme had little-to-no impact on some individuals, therefore careful consideration on suitability was important as a consideration.

The data published by the PBNI was only analysed six months prior and post, meaning that it is difficult to say whether the scheme had a lasting effect as re-offending can happen any period. Due to the limited amount of data, it is hard to say if the group of people may have been different from typical offenders as we do not know if this had impact on certain individuals with different characteristics based on the type of offence committed which could potentially have been due to selection bias. Despite this, the scheme had a positive outcome on society as well as an economic impact.

 An evaluation from NISRA revealed the estimated cost of an Enhanced Combination Order participant was approximately £9,000 whereas being confided in prison for 12 months would average around £55,300 in 2017/18. With the remaining budgets, the UK government could invest in housing programmes for prisoners when they leave the Criminal Justice System and even work placements (Jacobs et al, 2024).  The experience of house instability may weaken social bonding which help to prevent an occurrence in criminal activity (Clark, 2014). Stable housing can contribute to strengthening social bonds and reduce the likelihood of re offending, which allows the transition into employment more achievable.

Conclusion

Imprisonment is used commonly in many parts of the world, but jurisdiction and ethos of each penal system determine whether rehabilitation or punishment is the central objective. Rather than reducing recidivism, empirical findings suggest that imprisonment does, indeed, have a criminogenic effect (Bales & Piquero, 2011, pp.98). This shows that imprisonment does not take effect at reducing re-offending rates, instead the implementation of targeted programmes which encourages the offenders to become involved in does contribute to rehabilitating their actions through long term benefits. Broader engagement in community service can help foster a safe and constructive environment while also prioritising inclusivity. Additionally, the UK prison system could expand access to creative, educational and life-skill programmes, mirroring aspects of the rehabilitative principles that underpin Nordic prison systems. This can help to build identities and interests in new hobbies which can become of value after release. This encourages offenders to transform their lives for the better.to ensure its long-term effectiveness, individuals should be assigned a probation officer who can monitor their progress. 

References

Abramovaite, J., Bandyopadhyay, S., Bhattacharya, A., Cowen, N. (2018) Alternatives to custody: Evidence from police force areas in England and Wales. The British Journal of Criminology. Vol 59(4), pp. 800-822.

Bales, W. D., Piquero, A. R. (2011) Assessing the impact of imprisonment on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology. Vol 8, pp. 71 – 101.

Balvig, F. (2005) When Law and Order Returned to Denmark. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention. Vol. 5(2), pp. 167 – 187.

British Academy. (2014) A Presumption Against Imprisonment. Social Order and Social Values.

Clark, V. A. (2014) Predicting Two Types of Recidivism Among Newly Released Prisoners: First Addresses as “Lauch Pads” for recidivism or Re-entry Success. Crime & Delinquency, 62(10), pp. 1364 – 1400.

Crewe, B. Levins, A. (2020) The Prison as a reinventive institution. Theoretical Criminology, Vol. 24(4), pp. 568 – 589.

Crewe, B., Levins, A., Larmour, S., Laursen, J. Mjaland, K., Schliehe, A. (2022) Nordic Penal Exceptionalism: A comparative, empirical analysis. The British Journal of Criminology. Vol. 63, pp. 424 -443.

Damn, A.P. and Gorinas, C. (2020) Prison as a Criminal School: Peer Effects and Criminal Learning behind Bars. The Journal of Law and Economic, 63(1), pp. 149 – 180.

Denny, M. (2016) Norway’s Prison System: Investigating Recidivism and Reintegration. Bridges: A Journal of Student Research. Vol. 10(2).

Ellison, M., Szifris, K., Horan, R., Fox, C. (2017) A Rapid Evidence Assessment of the effectiveness of prison education in reducing recidivism and increasing employment. Sage Journals. Vol. 64(2), pp. 108 – 128.

Gormley, J., Hamilton, M., Belton, I. (2022) The Effectiveness of Sentencing Options on Reoffending. [online]. Sentencing Council.

Gov UK. (2023) Proven reoffending statistics: January to March 2023. [online]. Ministry of Justice.

Hirsch, V. A. (2007) The “Desert” Model for Sentencing: Its influence, Prospects and Alternatives. Social Research. Vol. 74(2), pp.413 – 434.

Jacobs, L., McClean, A., Branson, Z., Kennedy, E., Fixler, A. (2024) Incremental Propensity Score Effects for Criminology: An Application Assessing the Relationship Between Homelessness, Behavioural Health Problems and Recidivism. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol 40, pp. 707 – 726.

Justice Innovation. (2015) Enhanced Combination Order (ECO). Centre for Justice Innovation.

Laub, J., Sampson, R. (2001) Understanding Desistance from Crime. Crime and Justice. Vol. 28. Pp 1 – 69.

Pratt, J. (2007) Scandinavian Exceptionalism in an Era of Penal Excess: Part I: The Nature and Roots of Scandinavian Exceptionalism. The British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 48(2), pp 119 – 137.

Prison Reform Trust. (2024) Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP). [online]. Prison Reform Trust.

Probation Board for Northern Ireland. (2017) Evaluation of the Enhanced Combination Order Pilot.

Raynor, P., Robinson, G. (2009) Why Help Offenders? Argument for Rehabilitation as a Penal Strategy. European Journal of Probation. Vol 1(1), pp. 3 – 20.

Restorative Justice Council (2016) What is Restorative Justice? Restorative Justice Council.

Roberts, J., Harris, L. (2017) Reconceptualising the Custody Threshold in England and Wales. Criminal Law Forum. Vol. 28, pp. 477 – 499.

Scottish Government. (2025) What Works to Reduce Reoffending: An Update of the Evidence on Imprisonment and Community Disposals. Social Research.

Sentencing Act (2020) Sentencing Act 2020.

Sentencing Act (2020) Sentencing Act 2020.

Sturge, G. (2024) UK Prison Population Statistics. [online]. House of https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04334/SN04334.p

World Population Review (2025) Recidivism Rate by Country 2025. [online]. World Population Review

Wu, L., Sheehan, R., Pinto Da Costa, M. (2023) Volunteering in prisons: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. Public Health. Vol 220, pp. 155 – 164.