Introduction
The criminal justice system of the United States is often criticized as overly harsh and ineffective as a rehabilitation tool. It is said to ruin inmates’ lives with its brutality and extreme sentencing, driving them to return to crime after release due to a lack of other opportunities. The given approach produces multiple adverse effects on people and complicates their resocialization and reintegration with societies. In such a way, formerly incarcerated people have many barriers preventing them from living in communities and increasing recidivism rates. On the other hand, Nordic and Scandinavian prison systems are often considered exemplary, featuring minimally harsh conditions and intended to help the inmates return to society. Through their innovative open prison concept, they let people keep working or attain higher education, which should address their issues after release and prevent them from returning to crime. Possessing skills and knowledge that can be useful in the future, former prisoners acquire the chance to find a job, find a place in communities, and avoid committing new crimes. In such a way, a milder approach to working with offenders has multiple advantages that can help to reintegrate them into society. A comparison of the differences in the opportunities that the two systems provide and the results that they achieve is therefore warranted.
Research Question
Fassin (2016) describes the harshness of the American prison system, up to and including its 60 “super max prisons” with next to no human contact. On the other hand, Lee (2019, 194-195) provides the example of the Danish Falster prison, the world’s most humane maximum security facility. Additionally, per Castro et al. (2018, 418), only 202 of the U.S.’s 4627 postsecondary education facilities provided courses for prisons. On the other hand, prison education is normalized in much of Scandinavian law (Cleere 2020), and people in open prisons can continue learning as normal. The given factors demonstrate the existence of critical differences between the two systems and approaches used by the governments to work with offenders. The radical divergence between the penitentiary systems triggers multiple debates about their effectiveness and the impact on the future life of people. The opponents argue whether the mild approach can help to reduce recidivism rates and assist formerly incarcerated people in their attempts to function in society. The differences in opinions and visions precondition the need for the in-depth investigation of both paradigms to compare and conclude about the influence they might have on people. As such, the research question for this paper would be, “Do the conditions at Scandinavian prisons and their education opportunities reduce the recidivism rates among inmates compared to those in the United States?”
Scope, Goals, and Importance
The project will evaluate the recidivism outcomes for prison inmates in the United States, Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Sweden over the last five years, subdivided by the type of crime they committed and educational attainment while in prison. A significant scope of the problem is evidenced by the fact that the criminal justice system is fundamental for the effective work of any society as it guarantees protection to citizens and ensures the stable functioning of communities. Under these conditions, the correct choice of the approach to working with offenders influences states and their ability to struggle with crime waves. Recidivism remains a nagging problem threatening the well-being of citizens and deteriorating the quality of their lives. Additionally, it demands significant costs from the budget to work with offenders and guarantee appropriate punishment and conditions. That is why the alteration of the system towards its increased effectiveness is vital for future progress and the ability to create a safe environment. The research can promote positive change and foster the shift towards more effective practices.
The goal will be to establish whether individuals that commit the same crimes take advantage of educational opportunities and successfully rehabilitate more in nations where these options are more available. The importance of the research is in its confirmation or refutation of the superiority of Scandinavian exceptionalism as an approach to rehabilitation. Drake (2018, 5) claims that, while such an advantage is often asserted, the less severe conditions of Scandinavian prison do not remove the experience of liberty loss that is central to the prison experience. As such, the prisoners’ fundamental condition does not change significantly, and the differences may only achieve a minor effect. Following the goal, it is vital to investigate whether the education opportunities and overall milder approach affect the future life of ex-offenders and their chances for successful rehabilitation and becoming community members. The given goal presupposes the use of data about formerly incarcerated people, their experiences, and the ability to reintegrate into society. At the same time, it implies comparing two opposite criminal justice systems, which is vital for the enhanced vision of how they can be applied to particular situations and communities.
Furthermore, the significance of the research issue comes from the high recidivism rates and the topical problem of crime. Regardless of multiple attempts, there is a significant number of ex-offenders who cannot reintegrate and engage in new crimes. It might occur because of various causes; however, the inconsistency of the criminal justice system is one of the major factors affecting the problem and complicating it. For instance, in the USA, about 60% of formerly incarcerated individuals are imprisoned again because of various crimes (Katsiyannis et al. 2018). This number evidences the inability of the criminal system to ensure the appropriate rehabilitation and reintegration of individuals. For this reason, there are numerous appeals to alter the existing approach and use the example of Scandinavian states with their unique vision of imprisonment. Comparing the two systems, it is possible to acquire an enhanced understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the employed approaches and conclude whether some practices can be applied to other settings.
Analysis Approach
The study will be quantitative in nature, collecting numeric information and inferring relationships from it. The choice of the quantitative research paradigm is justified by several facts. First, it helps to collect numerical data about the issue of interest, process it, and use statistical tools to represent findings in clear and understandable ways. Second, sing the quantitative research paradigm, the researcher acquires a chance to work with a larger sample, which influences the validity of findings, their credibility, and the practical utility of conclusions. Finally, it provides objective and accurate data that can be used for discussion and concluding about the advantages or disadvantages of a certain criminal justice system. Considering these factors and the nature of the project, the use of quantitative measures seems a preferable option needed to increase the value of the study. The researcher will collect data about prison sentences, education, and recidivism in the nations outlined in the study and subdivide it based on the type of crime committed. They will then analyze the educational attainment rates in each of the groups as well as the recidivism rates in it. They will also determine the recidivism rates among people who attained particular educational achievements. Having obtained this information, the researcher will then conduct a series of ANOVA tests to determine whether the differences in education and recidivism means across each nation are significant.
Work Plan
- Preliminary literature analysis (2 weeks, read Byrd and McCloud (2020), Cleere (2020), Cline and Wheeler (2019), Fassin (2016), Lee (2019), and Reid (2019)).
- Write the introduction (1 week, read Drake (2018), Katsiyannis et al. (2018), Schiff and Ugelvik (2017), and Tønseth, Bergsland, and Hui (2019)).
- Write the literature review (2 weeks, read the remaining bibliography sources along with others).
- Write the methodology (1 week).
- Write the data analysis section (2 months).
- Write the discussion section (2 weeks).
- Write the conclusion section (1 week).
- Proofread, review, and finalize the paper (2 weeks).
Annotated Bibliography
Andersen, Synøve N., and Kjetil Telle. 2019. “Better Out Than In? The Effect on Recidivism of Replacing Incarceration with Electronic Monitoring in Norway.” European Journal of Criminology. Web.
The authors discuss the practice implemented in Norway between 2008 and 2011 of electronically monitoring convicted criminals instead of incarcerating them. Through this method, the person can mostly live their life as usual, though there are still restrictions on their activities. The authors find that the approach had a positive effect on reducing recidivism, especially for people without prior offenses or unemployment. They suggest that the primary causes are the lack of stigma they would receive if they went to prison and the maintenance of their work relations.
Byrd, Roger C., and Harvey McCloud. 2020. Sisyphus No More: The Case for Prison Education. London: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
The authors make a case for expanding education provided in American prisons to help inmates return to society and avoid recidivism. They find that, under the current system, educational attainment for prisoners is much lower than that of people without a criminal record. They make the case that providing education for prisoners will have positive social, ethical, and financial effects.
Castro, Erin L., Rebecca K. Hunter, Tara Hardison, and Vanessa Johnson-Ojeda. 2018. “The Landscape of Postsecondary Education in Prison and the Influence of Second Chance Pell: An Analysis of Transferability, Credit-Bearing Status, and Accreditation.” The Prison Journal 98 (4): 405-426.
The authors of this work attempt to understand the degree of availability of postsecondary education in American prisons. They find that, among 4627 total accredited institutions, only 202 offer such courses, which is an increase of at least 24 since the 2016 initiation of the Second Chance Pell. The study concludes that overall, the proportion of facilities that offer the service is too low, and further research is necessary to understand the relationship between federal policies and such opportunities.
Cleere, Geraldine. 2020. Prison Education and Desistance: Changing Perspectives. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.
The author investigates the relationship between prison education and the ability of the released inmate to desist from committing additional crimes. To that end, they review the concept, collect evidence for education availability and personal change in different systems, and employ several theories to explain the phenomenon. They conclude that prison education is highly beneficial for both individuals and the system.
Cline, Hugh F., and Stanton Wheeler. 2019. The Scandinavian Prison Study. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
The authors conduct an in-depth analysis of fifteen Scandinavian prisons in a study that was published as a book. They analyze the social climate of these facilities and the effects it has on inmates. They conclude that the Scandinavian system was born from a combination of culture and historical political developments that have created Scandinavian exceptionalism.
Drake, Deborah. 2018. “Prisons and State Building: Promoting ‘The Fiasco of the Prison’ in a Global Context.” International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 7 (4): 1-15.
The author argues that prisons have failed in their role, both conceptually and in practice. They claim that prisons’ undemocratic and repressive nature contradicts the principles of democracy that it is supposed to uphold. The relevance of the article to this study is in its assertion that Scandinavian open prisons fail to address this fundamental problem despite their outward leniency.
Fassin, Didier. 2016. Prison Worlds: An Ethnography of the Carceral Condition. Oxford: Wiley.
The author discusses the evolution of prisons, both in the United States and around the world. They find that, in search of order and security, they become unnecessarily brutal and repressive toward inmates, constituting excessive punishment for which they were not intended. They conclude that modern legal theorists need to reconsider the meaning and purpose of prisons, redesigning them for a more humane vision.
Katsiyannis, Antonis, Denise K. Whitford, Dake Zhang, and Nicholas A. Gage. 2018. “Adult Recidivism in United States: A Meta-Analysis 1994–2015.” Journal of Child and Family Studies 27 (3): 686-696.
The authors conduct a longitudinal study of recidivism in the United States between 1994 and 2015. They find that gender, age, socioeconomic status, and psychological variables are related to the probability of repeat offenses, while criminal history or race are not. They suggest several potential avenues for reducing recidivism rates that are based on evidence.
Lee, Bandy X. 2019. Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Causes, Consequences, and Cures. Oxford: Wiley.
The author considers all aspects of violence, such as its types, causes, results, and treatments for it. As part of the final section, they discuss several different prison systems, notably the Scandinavian one, and the various therapies they employ. The author concludes that the American model of mass incarceration and other measures has exacerbated the issue instead of resolving it.
Manger, Terje, Ole Johan Eikeland, and Arve Asbjørnsen. 2019. “Why do Not More Prisoners Participate in Adult Education? An Analysis of Barriers to Education in Norwegian Prisons.” International Review of Education 65 (5): 711-733.
The authors consider the question of why, despite the availability of education to them, many Norwegian prisoners do not participate in education. They formulate a model that comprises institutional, situational, and dispositional barriers and confirm it through a survey of prisoners. They suggest ways for prisons to address the first and the last while admitting that the second obstacle category may prove challenging to overcome.
Reid, Sue Titus. 2019. A Basic Introduction to Criminal Justice. New York: Wolters Kluwer.
The author considers the criminal justice system in all of its aspects, including policing, court, and corrections as well as juvenile courts. Among other things, they discuss the history of prison education in the United States, with several actors aiming to undermine it. They conclude that prison budgets need to be increased to expand work and education programs.
Schiff, Peter Scharff, and Thomas Ugelvik. 2017. “Punishment and Welfare in Scandinavia.” In Scandinavian Penal History, Culture and Prison Practice, edited by Peter Scharff Schiff and Thomas Ugelvik, 511-530. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
In the concluding chapter of the overall book, the authors summarize the findings from each of the preceding chapters. They aim to answer the question of whether the Scandinavian way of designing and running prisons is unique and what issues it had. Among other findings, they note that open prisons operate because of the implicit threat of being sent to a higher-security facility for misbehaving.
Tønseth, Christin, Ragnhild Bergsland, and Sammy King Fai Hui. 2019. “Prison Education in Norway – The Importance for Work and Life after Release.” Cogent Education 6 (1): 405-426.
The authors study the effects of prison education on the lives of prisoners after they were released. By conducting a series of interviews with former inmates and bureaucrats who work with them, they find that the recipients of education experienced social benefit, self-determination, and accountability improvements. They conclude that learning goes beyond formal qualifications and competence, helping participants reconsider their past choices and take control of their lives.
References
Andersen, Synøve N., and Kjetil Telle. 2019. “Better Out Than In? The Effect on Recidivism of Replacing Incarceration with Electronic Monitoring in Norway.” European Journal of Criminology. Web.
Byrd, Roger C., and Harvey McCloud. 2020. Sisyphus No More: The Case for Prison Education. London: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Castro, Erin L., Rebecca K. Hunter, Tara Hardison, and Vanessa Johnson-Ojeda. 2018. “The Landscape of Postsecondary Education in Prison and the Influence of Second Chance Pell: An Analysis of Transferability, Credit-Bearing Status, and Accreditation.” The Prison Journal 98 (4): 405-426.
Cleere, Geraldine. 2020. Prison Education and Desistance: Changing Perspectives. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.
Cline, Hugh F., and Stanton Wheeler. 2019. The Scandinavian Prison Study. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Drake, Deborah. 2018. “Prisons and State Building: Promoting ‘The Fiasco of the Prison’ in a Global Context.” International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 7 (4): 1-15.
Fassin, Didier. 2016. Prison Worlds: An Ethnography of the Carceral Condition. Oxford: Wiley.
Katsiyannis, Antonis, Denise K. Whitford, Dake Zhang, and Nicholas A. Gage. 2018. “Adult Recidivism in United States: A Meta-Analysis 1994–2015.” Journal of Child and Family Studies 27 (3): 686-696.
Lee, Bandy X. 2019. Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Causes, Consequences, and Cures. Oxford: Wiley.
Manger, Terje, Ole Johan Eikeland, and Arve Asbjørnsen. 2019. “Why do Not More Prisoners Participate in Adult Education? An Analysis of Barriers to Education in Norwegian Prisons.” International Review of Education 65 (5): 711-733.
Reid, Sue Titus. 2019. A Basic Introduction to Criminal Justice. New York: Wolters Kluwer.
Schiff, Peter Scharff, and Thomas Ugelvik. 2017. “Punishment and Welfare in Scandinavia.” In Scandinavian Penal History, Culture and Prison Practice, edited by Peter Scharff Schiff and Thomas Ugelvik, 511-530. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tønseth, Christin, Ragnhild Bergsland, and Sammy King Fai Hui. 2019. “Prison Education in Norway – The Importance for Work and Life after Release.” Cogent Education 6 (1): 405-426.