Mar 17, 2015 - The number of prisonersrelativeto 100 000 pop. 0. 20. 40. 60. 80. 100. 120. 140. 160. 1960. 1963. 1966. 1
Tapio Lappi-Seppälä Institute of Criminology and Legal Policy University of Helsinki
WHY SOME COUNTRIES COPE WITH LESSER USE OF IMPRISONMENT? EXPLAINING DIFFERENCES AND PONDERING THE REMEDIES
www.helsinki.fi/yliopisto
1
I Trends and Differences in National Incarceration Rates How imprisonment rates have evolved over time? ”European prison chart” – what are the differences? Comparing crime trends and prison trends
Prisoners in the United States (including jails) 1960-2013 The number of prisoners relative to 100 000 pop US (North America) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100
1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
0
Prisoners in England and Wales and Finland 1960-2013 The number of prisoners relative to 100 000 pop Finland
England & Wales
160
2011
2008
2002 2005
1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999
1969 1972 1975 1978
1966
2011
2008
2005
0 2002
0 1999
20
1996
20
1993
40
1990
40
1987
60
1984
60
1981
80
1978
80
1975
100
1972
100
1969
120
1966
120
1963
140
1960
140
1960 1963
160
Prisoners in three Nordic countries and Germany 1960-2013 The number of prisoners relative to 100 000 pop Germany
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
0
0 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011
120
1990 1993
120
1984 1987
140
1978 1981
140
1972 1975
160
1960 1963 1966 1969
160
1960 1963 1966 1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011
Denmark, Norway & Sweden
Prisoner rates by regions 2013 707 466
USA
Russia
318 239
107 103 100 98 87 80 76 65 62 73 72 61 55 47
0
100
205 186 185
Eastern Europe 167 Tapio Lappi-Seppälä 2013
120
154 154
Baltic 271
142 141 138 132
Western Europe 103
Space I 2014 (adjusted figures)
Nordic countries 62
200
300
400
500
600
700
6
800
Imprisonment and crime
PRISON RATES AND CRIME RATES Four Nordic Countries 1950-2005: Common crime trends but one deviating prison trend Prisoners
200
14 000
DEN FIN NOR SWE
180 160 140
DEN FIN NOR SWE
12 000 10 000
120
8 000
100 80
6 000
60
4 000
40
2005
2000
1995
1990
1985
1980
1975
1970
1965
1960
1955
2005
2000
1995
1990
1985
1980
1975
1970
1965
1960
1955
1950
0
1950
2 000
20 0
Crime
17.3.2015
Nordic countries and England Wales 1960-2010 Three different prison profiles, with similar crime profile
9 Tapio Lappi-Seppälä 2013
9
Prison rates and crime rates: Finland and Scotland 1950 - 2005 200 180 160
Prisoners
FIN
12 000
Scot
10 000
140
Reported crime
8 000
120 6 000
100 80
4 000
60 40
2 000
20
FIN Scotland
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
0
0
Germany and the Netherlands 1960-2010 Different prison profile, similar crime profile Crime / pop 17.3.2015
Prisoners /pop
11 Tapio Lappi-Seppälä 2013
11
US and Canada
17.3.2015
Completely different prison trends, but almost identical total crime trends
12
Crime & prison correlates
Crime rates and prison rates may walk hand in hand – or the may walk the oppisite directions
II Explaining differences in incarceration rates (and penal severity)
Social expenditures and imprisonment rates. Europe by regions
Social expenditures & Income distriubution – OECD countries
Welfare indicators and prisoners in 50 US states
Lijphart’s ”consensual – majoritarian” democracy distinction
EXPLAINING DIFFERENCES IN PENAL SEVERITY • ”STRUCTURAL” • Socio-, economic and political • Providing the framework • ”PENOLOGICAL” • Penal philosophies • Sanction structures • Sanction practices
STRUCTURAL
(UNIVERSALISTIC) WELFARE STATE
TRUST/ LEGITIMACY
”POLITICAL
FEARS/ PUNITIVITY
Negotiating/ conflictua
17.3.2015
CULTURE”
MEDIA CULTURE
IDEOLOGICAL PENOLOGICAL
- Penal philosophy - Sanction system - Sanction practices
21 21
III PENOLOGICAL STRUCTURES CONTRIBUTING TO LOWER LEVELS OF PENAL REPRESSION
Relevant practices for avoiding imprisonment 1. Extensive use of fines under the day-fine system. 2. Extensive use of suspended sentence and early release 3. New community sanctions as substitutes for prison sentences 4. Combine community alternatives with supportive measures 5. Minimize “secondary imprisonment” in case of breach of conditions (revocations)
Relevant practices II 6. Penalty scales. Reduce sentence-levels for high volume non-violent offenses 7. Reduce reoffending. Minimize detrimental effects in enforcement, preserve contacts to outside world, invest in vocational training and substance abuse treatment, secure re-entry. 8. Abolish indeterminate sanctions and predictive sentencing 9. Youth justice under child welfare, not criminal justice 10. Extensive use of mediation schemes
IV CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON EXPERIENCES FROM FINLAND 1. Defining high incarceration rate as a problem on political level 2. Having long term consistent policy 3. Involving and informing actors from all relevant fields, including politicians, civil servants, judiciary, enforcement, research and the media 4. Joining the Nordic Welfare Family
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON GLOBAL COMPARISONS 1. Incarceration rates mirror the strength of welfare state and they are conditioned by political structures. Hover, “structure is not determination” 2. Turning the direction of the prison curve will not turn the direction of the crime curve 3. There is no shortage of technical ways of controlling incarceration rates, but…
Thank you
[email protected]
Turning the direction of the prison curve will not turn the direction of the crime curve
Thank you!
