VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERSCONTROLLING PRISONER RATES:
EXPERIENCES FROM FINLAND
Dr. Tapio Lappi-Seppälä*

I. TRENDS AND CHANGESThe last decades have witnessed unprecedented expansion of penal control in different parts of the world.
Between 1975 and 2004 prisoner rates in the US have increased by 320% from around 170/100,000
inhabitants to over 700/100,000 inhabitants.
Federal and State prisoners in the USA 1925-2003 (/100 000)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1925 1931 1937 1943 1949 1955 1961 1967 1973 1978 1984 1990 1996 2002

This drastic change can be contrasted with another one, which took place in Finland after the Second
World War:
Prisoner rates in Finland 1945-2005

Prisoners / 100 000 pop

250

200

150

100

50

0
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Combining these two diametrically opposing trends, we have a nice illustration on how things can takedifferent shape in penal policy in different jurisdictions, at the same time.
* National Research Institute of Legal Policy, Finland.

3

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.74

Whatever happened in the US did not take place in Finland – to the contrary. Things can go differently,
and often do. The development in the US seems to have had a strong model-effect in the English-speaking
world. Similar – albeit smaller – changes have taken place also in Australia, New Zealand and the UK. These
trends do not confine themselves to the Anglophone world. During the last two decades the Netherlands has
increased more than six-fold its prisoner rate from the low of 20/100,000 to 130/100,000. Spain has morethan tripled its rate from 40/100,000 to 140/100 000.
Prisoner rates 1980-2005 in
Anglo-Saxon countries

Mean Prisoners (/100 000)

Prisoner rates 1975-2005
Netherlands & UK (England & Wales)

There is every reason to be worried by this development. As it seems, the expansion of prisoner rates is
not confined to the Anglophone world, nor to Europe. Similar trends can be found everywhere, including
Asian and African countries.
Japan, in turn, is an often cited as an example of a low-crime and low-imprisonment country. For a long
period of time, Japanese prison figures were among the lowest of the industrialized countries, even belowthat of Scandinavia. But it now appears that Japan too is experiencing increasing prisoner rates, and a rise ofaround 70% from the early 1990s to today.
Prisoner rates in Japan 1976-2005
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
76

19

79

19

19

82

19

85

19

88

91

19

19

94

97

19

00

20

20

03

Unfortunately, by the turn of the millennium the global increase in prisoner rates seemed to have taken ahold also of the Scandinavian countries. Starting from the late 1990s, prisoner rates have taken an upward
turn. Even if this increase is modest by international standards (on average from 60/100,000 to 7075/100,000 prisoners), it is nevertheless significant from the Scandinavian point of view.

4

135TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

90

Annual average / 100 000 pop

80
70

DEN

60

FIN

50

NOR

40

SWE

30
20
10
0
1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

In short, the global picture is dominated by rising prisoner rates. However, there are exceptions in trends
and there still are huge differences in the levels of imprisonment. That becomes also clear when we look at
the published prisoner rate data of the participating countries of the 135th UNAFEI International Seniorseminar.

Scandinavia

65

x
Maldives

343

Thailand256

Brazil193

Jamaica

182

El Salvador

174

Honduras

161

Malaysia

141

Myanmar

120

China

118

Korea
Ethiopia
Venezuela

97

Prisoner rates by the92

participants of the
UNAFEI 135th

74

Japan

62

Pakistan

Senior Seminar

57

Indonesia

45

Congo

38
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

The Maldives is in the lead with 350 prisoners per 100,000 people while the Congo has only 10% of that
number. Japan is located at the lower end of the scale, on the same level as Scandinavia. Are they justunavoidable and natural reflections of current levels of crime? My tentative answer is a decisive “No.”
Prisoner rates cannot be explained with reference to crime. They are products of political processes, butthese processes can also be influenced.
I will try to examine these processes on the basis of Finnish data. In a global context, the Finnish trends
are unique. At the beginning of the 1950s, Finland had some 200 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants, while thefigures in Sweden, Denmark and Norway – and in Japan – were around 50. Even in the 1970s, Finland’s
prisoner rate continued to be among the highest in Western Europe. However, during the time when most
European countries experienced rising prison populations, the Finnish rates continued to decrease. By the
beginning of the 1990s, Finland had reached the Nordic level of around 60 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants.
The first thing to note is that this major change cannot be explained by decreasing crime – as so often is
assumed. When prisoner rates went down, crime went up.

5

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.74
PRISON RATES AND CRIME RATESFinland 1950-2000
Crime

Prisoners
200

9 000

180

8 000

160

7 000

140

6 000

120

5 000

100
4 000
80
3 000
60

1998

1994

1990

1986

1982

1978

1974

1970

1966

1962

1958

1950

1998

1994

1990

1986

1982

1978

1974

1970

1966

1962

0
1958

0
1954

1 000

1950

20

1954

2 000

40

But neither was it so, that a decrease in the prisoner rates lead to an increase in crime – as is even more
often assumed. I will first look at the reasons and factors that contributed to this decline in prisoner rates. I
will thereafter consider whether, and to what extent, changes in prisoner rates were reflected in the crime
rates.
USA

726 USA 726

RUS

Russia 550

EST

Baltic 303

337
LIT

234

POL

209
191

SLO

Eastern Europe 182

165
164

SPA

144
141

POR

133
124

AUS

123
106

GER

97
96

Western Europe 109

91
BEL

88
85

SWZ

81

SWE

81
71
70

DEN

Scandinavia 72

65

Japan 62

62

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Figure I.1 Prisoner rates in 2004/2005
Source: KCL http://www.prisonstudies.org/
6

700

800

135TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

In a global context Scandinavia is tied with Japan in having the lowest numbers of prisoners per capita. At
present the figures are about 70-75/100,000. The corresponding figures for other Western European
countries are around 110; in Eastern Europe around 200; in the Baltic countries around 300; in Russia
around 550 and in the US over 700.
Prisoner rates in selected Asian countries 1995-2005
400
350
300
250

1996

200

2001

150

2005

100
50
0

Indonesia

Japan

Malaysia

Korea

Thailand

1996

23

38

108

139

173

2001

31

48

124

132

352

2005

45

62

141

97

256

800

Japan and Finland in Global Prisoner rate comparison(213 countries) 2004-2005

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

Japan

Finland

II. CHANGES IN PENAL IDEOLOGY
Long-term change in Finland – covering almost a half a century – was affected both by macro-levelstructural factors and ideological changes in penal theory, as well as legal reforms and changing practices insentencing and prison enforcement. Also, the role of these different background reasons varies over time.
Like in so many other countries, criminal political thinking in Finland underwent profound changes in thelate 1960s and 70s. In the 1960s, the Nordic countries experienced heated social debate on the results andjustifications of involuntary treatment in institutions, both penal and otherwise. (Such as in health care andin the treatment of alcoholics). What become later known as the “nothing works” doctrine had its earlier
counterpart in the Scandinavian discussions of the late 1960s. The tone and the results of this ideologicalturn were quite different in Finland compared to the US. In Finland the emphasis was on the ineffectivenessof institutional treatment and the excessive use of the prison system. While in US the fall of therehabilitative ideal lead subsequently to the renaissance of punishment – as we just saw – in Finland the7

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.74

outcome was just the opposite. The 1960s and 70s started a reform movement against excessive use ofcustodial sentences. The resulting criminal political ideology was labelled as “humane neo-classicism”. It
stressed both legal safeguards against coercive care and the objective of less repressive measures in general.
This change reflects more than just a concern over the lack of legal safeguards. Behind this shift instrategies in criminal policy were more profound changes in the way the entire problem of crime wasconceived. The whole theoretical criminal political framework and the conceptualization of the aims andmeans of criminal policy underwent a dramatic change. The aims of criminal policy were defined in par withthe overall aims of general social policy. Traditional goals, such as simple prevention or the ‘fight against
crime’ were replaced by differentiated twofold overall aims:(i) the minimization of the costs and harmful effects of crime and of crime control (the aim ofminimization); and(ii) the fair distribution of these costs among the offender, society and the victim (the aim of fair
distribution).1
The aim of minimization emphasizes the costs and the harmful effects of criminal behaviour instead ofthe mere number of crimes. It also draws attention to means which perhaps do not affect the level ofcriminality, but which affect the harmful impact that crime has on different parties (and especially on
victims). By stressing not only the costs of criminality, but also the costs and suffering caused by the controlof criminality the formula draws attention to the material and immaterial losses that arise, e.g. through theoperation of the system of sanctions. The aim of fair distribution brings into daylight the delicate issues of
how to allot the costs of crime and crime control between the different parties (society/community, thepotential or actual offender, the potential or actual victim) in a manner fulfilling the demands of fairness andsocial justice.
Also cost-benefit analysis was introduced into criminal political thinking. In making choices between
different strategies and means, the probable policy effects and costs – to be understood in a wide sense,
including also immaterial costs for the offender – were to be assessed.
One result of all this was that the arsenal of the possible means of criminal policy expanded incomparison with the traditional penal system. New strategies of crime prevention emerged in criminal
political dicsussions, to be later known as social and situational crime prevention strategies. This new
ideology was crystallized in slogans such as “good social development policy is the best criminal policy’’.
Also, the aim and the justification for punishment were subjected to re-evaluation. The shift was once
again towards general prevention. However, this concept was now understood in a different way. It was
assumed that this effect could be reached not through fear (deterrence), but through the morality-creating
and value-shaping effect of punishment. According to this idea, the disapproval expressed in punishment isassumed to influence the values and moral views of individuals. As a result of this process, the norms ofcriminal law and the values they reflect are internalized; people refrain from illegal behaviour not becausesuch behaviour would be followed by unpleasant punishment, but because the behaviour itself is regarded as
morally blameworthy.2

1 These were originally introduced into the international discussion at the Sixth International Congress on Criminology, 1970,

by a Finnish criminologist, Patrik Törnudd. This definition of goals was adopted by the Fifth United Nations Congress on thePrevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, where it was embodied in the report of the section dealing with theeconomic and social consequences of crime. The same report also recommends encouragement of cost-benefit thinking (for amore detailed discussion, see Törnudd, 1996 ).
2 This ‘redefinition’ of the aim of punishment in the Nordic countries could rely on a long theoretical tradition dating back to
the early Scandinavian realism of the Uppsala school of the 1920s and 1930s. In a closer analysis, this concept contains several
distinct hypotheses which are based on different assumptions of why, how and through what kind of mechanisms various
features of the legal system influence social values and compliance with the law. See in general Andeanes, 1974 and LappiSeppälä, 1995. Closely related trends are to be found in the German criminal law theory since the 1970s (“positive GeneralPrävention”, see Schünemann et al. 1998) and Anglo-Saxon sociology of the 1990s (on the theory of “normative compliance”
see Tyler, 2003 and Bottoms, 2001).

8

135TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

This view of the functions of the penal system has a number of important policy implications. To put itbriefly: the aim of indirect prevention is best served by a system of sanctions which maintains a moral
character and which demonstrates the blameworthiness of the act. The mechanisms require a system that is
enforced with ‘fair effectiveness’ and that follows procedures which are perceived as fair and just and which
respects the rights and intrinsic moral value of those involved. In short:••••

From the early 1970s onwards there was a general conviction that in crime prevention, criminal law
is only one means among many and that other means were often far more important;
Furthermore, it was also stressed that the general preventive mechanisms were more subtle andindirect than one usually thinks and that the effective functioning of the criminal law is notnecessarily conditioned by severe punishments, but by legitimacy and perceived fairness;
All in all, we should be realistic as regards the possibilities of achieving short-term effects in crime
control by tinkering with our penal system;
And most importantly, we should always weigh the harms and benefits of applied or proposed
strategies of criminal policy.

Between 1970 and 1990 all the main parts of the Finnish criminal legislation were reformed from thesestarting points. The list starts from the late 1960s and it contains over 25 law reforms, all having one thing incommon: the reduction of the use of imprisonment.

Law reforms decreasing (- -) and increasing (+ +) prisoner rates Finland 1966-2004
1966-20
EffectLaw reforms- -- -- ---- ----+
- -+
++
+
+
+
-

1966 Minimum time for parole 6 months -> 4 months
1967 Amnesty
1969 Decriminalization of public drunkenness
1969 Day-fine reform1972 Reduced penalties for theft
1973 Restricting the use of preventive detention
1973 Discount rules for remand
1976 Reform of the prison law: minimum time for parole reduced 4 months -> 3 months
1977 Conditional sentence expanded
1977 Sentencing reform; the impact of recidivism reduced
1977 Day-fine reform: heavier fines to replace imprisonment
1977 DWI reform: fines and conditional sentences instead of prison
1989 Fine-default rate reduced
1989 Minimum for parole 3 months -> 14 days
1989 The use of prison for juveniles restricted
1989 The length of pre-trial detention reduced
1991 Reduced penalties for theft
1991 Expanding the scope of non-prosecution
1992 Introduction of CSO
1994 Aggravated DWI 1.5 -> 1.2 %1994 Experiment on (non residential) juvenile penalty
1995 Community service permanent and nationwide
1995 Domestic violence under public prosecution
1999 Increased penalties for assault
2000 Increased penalties for rape2001 More fines for drug-users
2003 Zero-limits for drugs in traffic
2000/4 Combination sentence (conditinonal + CSO)

9RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.74

III. LAW-REFORM AND SENTENCING POLICIES
A. General Trends in Sentencing
The Finnish judge has traditionally had quite a limited number of options when sentencing. The two basic
alternatives to imprisonment have been conditional imprisonment (suspended sentence) and a fine, butthese alternatives have been used quite effectively. The scope of fines and conditional imprisonment(suspended sentence) were extended in the late 1960s, and mid 1970s also, by a series of law reforms.
Sixty percent of all cases dealt with by the courts result in fines. Eighty percent of cases dealt with either
by the courts or the prosecutors result in fines. A fine is a typical penalty for most middle-rank offences suchas theft, minor burglaries and assaults etc. The leading role of fines is to large extent explained by the dayfine system which was adopted in Finland some 80 years ago.
The other basic alternative, conditional imprisonment, has been widely used to replace custodial
sentences. From 1950 to 1990 the number of conditional sentences increased from some 3,000 to 18,000
sentences per year. At the same time the number of prison sentences remained stable. In 1950, 30% of all
sentences of imprisonment were imposed conditionally. In 2005 the rate was 64%.

Table III.1. The Use of Conditional and Unconditional Imprisonment from 1950 to 2000
Unconditional

Conditional

ConditionalN

N (all)%(of all prison sentences)

7000
8000

4000
14000

35
63

1950
2000

* Excluding sentences commuted to community service
Source: Statistics Finland

B. Sentencing Changes in Separate Offences
Long custodial sentences imposed for traditional property crimes kept the prison population at its peaklevel during the early 1950s. In 1972 new definitions and new punishment latitudes for larceny wereintroduced. Again, in 1991 the latitude for the basic form of theft was reduced.
As a result, there was a clear change in sentencing practice. In 1971, 38% of offenders sentenced forlarceny received a custodial sentence. Twenty years later, in 1991, this proportion had decreased to 11% (formore detail see Lappi-Seppälä, 1998 and Törnudd, 1993). Similar changes can be seen in several otheroffences too.
The length of all prison sentences forfour different offences 1950-1990
Theft
Aggravated assault
Robbery
Drunken Driving

25

Months (average)

20

15

10

5

10

1990

1970

1950

0

135TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Drunken driving plays a special role in Nordic criminal policy. The combination of hard drinking habits
and a very restrictive and intolerant attitude towards drinking-and-driving has kept drunken driving among
the key issues in debates on criminal policy. A substantial part of the Finnish prison problem during the
1960s resulted from fairly long unconditional sentences of imprisonment imposed for drunken driving.
During the 1970s this practice was changed in favour of non-custodial alternatives. The definition of drunken
driving was modernized by an amendment of the law in 1977 and the legislator took a definite stand in favourof conditional sentence and fines.
100 %Fine-%

80 %

60 %

40 %

Conditional-%

Prison-%

20 %

1990

1980

1970

1960

1950

0%

In 1971, 70% of drunk drivers received an unconditional sentence. Ten years later, in 1981, this proportion
had dropped to 12%.

C. The Sentencing Reforms of the 70s:
During the 1970s three other bills were passed in order to increase the use of conditional sentences andfines in general (and particularly in cases of drunken driving).
(i) The reform of the Conditional Sentence Act created the opportunity to combine a fine with aconditional sentence.
(ii) The reform of the day-fine system raised the amount of day-fines thus encouraging the court to use
fines in more serious cases.
(iii) The most important 1977 reform from a principle point of view was, however, the enactment ofgeneral sentencing rules. These provisions mitigated markedly old mechanical recidivism rules.
Diminishing the role of recidivism had an immediate affect on the sentencing practices of the courts.
D. New Sentencing Alternatives: Community Service
The next major change included the introduction of community service. This took place first on an
experimental basis in 1991. In 1994 the system was extended to cover the entire country and community
service became a standard part of the Finnish system of sanctions.
Community service is imposed instead of unconditional imprisonment for up to eight months. In order toensure that community service will really be used in lieu of unconditional sentences of imprisonment, a twostep procedure was adopted. First the court is supposed to make its sentencing decision in accordance with
the normal principles and criteria of sentencing, without even considering the possibility of community
service. If the result is unconditional imprisonment, then the court may commute the sentence into
community service under the following conditions:• First, the convicted person must consent to the sanction;• Second, the offender must also be capable of carrying out the community service order;• Third, recidivism and prior convictions may prevent the use of this sanction.
The duration of community service varies from between 20 and 200 hours. In commuting imprisonment
into community service, one day in prison equals one hour of community service. Thus, two months ofcustodial sentence should be commuted into roughly 60 hours of community service. If the conditions of thecommunity service order are violated, the court normally imposes a new unconditional sentence ofimprisonment. Community service does not contain any extra supervision aimed, for example, at controlling

11

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.74

the offender’s other behaviour in general. The supervision is strictly confined to his or her working
obligations. The legislator’s idea, thus, was that community service should be used only in cases where theoffender would otherwise have received an unconditional sentence of imprisonment. This aim was wellachieved.
Community service in Finland 1992-2003(courts)
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Imprisonment

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

11538 9563

1992

7699

6754

6101

5967

6642

7666

8151

8352

8489

7970

1487

2803

3277

3534

3957

3658

3413

3388

3311

3297

0

Community service

563

Along with the increase in the number of community service orders, there has been a decrease in thenumber of unconditional sentences of imprisonment. In 1998, the average daily number of offenders serving
a community service order was about 1,200 and the corresponding prison rate was 2,800. It is therefore
reasonable to argue that, within a short period of time, community service has proven to be an importantalternative to imprisonment. As the figure shows, the use of community service seems to have peaked in
1998.

E. Specific Groups of Prisoners
In the course of time, different groups of prisoners have received different forms of attention. During the
1960s and 1970s the focus was on fine defaulters and recidivists in preventive detention. In the 1970s and1980s the use of imprisonment for young offenders was restricted.
1. Fine Defaulters
In the 1950s and 1960s fine defaulters constituted a substantial part of the Finnish prison population(sometimes exceeding 25% of the total population). In the late 1960s the number default prisoners was
reduced with two consecutive law reforms: by decriminalizing public drunkenness (which led to fewer
default sentences since public drunkenness was one of the major offences leading to a default-fine) and byraising the amount of day-fines and decreasing the number of day-fines.
2000

30,0

1800

Number of F. def.

1400

Fine defaulters

20,0

1200

Fine def. %
1000

15,0

800
10,0

600
400

% of all prisoners

25,0

1600

5,0

2000

1990

1980

1970

1960

0

1950

200
0,0

Figure III.2. The number of fine defaulters in prison 1950–2000
12

135TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

450

9,0

400

8,0
7,0

Recidivists in preventive
detention

300
250% of all prisoners serving
a sentence

200

6,0
5,0
4,0

2,0

50

1,0

0

0,0
1990

1980

100

1970

3,0

1960

150

% of prisoners

350

1950

Number of recidivists inpreventive detention

2. Preventive Detention
The Finnish criminal justice system includes a provision for holding chronic recidivists in preventive
detention after the completion of the sentence, if both the sentencing court and a special court so decide.
During the 1960s, a large majority of detainees had been guilty of repeat property crimes. On the basis of anamendment passed in 1971, the option of preventive detention was restricted only to dangerous violent
offenders. The number of persons held in detention as recidivists dropped by 90% in one year, from 206 to
24. Since then, the annual average has been between ten and 20 prisoners.

Figure III.3. Restricting the Number of Prisoners in Preventive Detention
3. Juveniles
There is no special juvenile criminal system in Finland, in the sense that this concept is understood in
the Continental legal systems. There are no juvenile courts and the number of specific penalties only
applicable to juveniles has been quite restricted. However, offenders between 15 and 17 receive a mitigatedsentence. In addition, the conditions for waiver of sanctions (for example non-prosecution) are much lessrestrictive for young offenders. Offenders under 21 who are sentenced to imprisonment are usually releasedon parole after one third of the sentence has been served, instead of the normal one half. Despite the lack of
specific measures for juveniles, there has also been a deliberate policy against the use of imprisonment for
the youngest age-groups. This has been done mainly by relying on the traditional alternatives. The
willingness of the courts to impose custodial sentences on young offenders has decreased throughout the
1970s and the 80s. In addition, the Conditional Sentence Act was amended in 1989 by including a provision
which allows the use of unconditional sentences for young offenders only if there are extraordinary reasonscalling for this. All of this has had a clear impact on practice. At the moment there are about one hundredprisoners between the ages of 18 and 20 and fewer than ten in the 15 to 17 age group, while as recently as
the 1960s the numbers were ten times higher.
Limiting the use of prison for juveniles

140

The number of prisoners of the age of 15-17 years(including remand) Finland

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

13

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.74

F. Parole
The system of parole (early release) has also proven to be a very powerful tool in controlling prisoner
rates. Any changes in the basic structure of this system will have visible effects on prison figures. In Finland
all prisoners except those few serving their sentence in preventive detention or serving a life sentence will
be released on parole.
At the moment, the minimum time to be served before the prisoner is eligible for parole is 14 days. A
series of reforms have resulted in this situation. During the mid-1960s this period was shortened from six tofour months, during the mid-1970s from four to three months and finally in 1989 from three months to 14
days.
IV. PRISON RATES AND CRIME RATES
A fundamental change in the use of imprisonment naturally leads to the question about the effects oncrime rates. Time and time again, research confirms the fact that the use of imprisonment is relatively
unrelated to the number of crimes committed or reported. There are, of course, several well known
methodological difficulties in combining crime rates with prison rates (and other changes in the sentence
severity). However, the possibility of comparing countries which share strong social and structuralsimilarities but have a very different penal history gives an exceptional perspective to the matter. In fact, theNordic experiences provides an interesting opportunity to test how drastic changes in the penal practices in
one country have been reflected in the crime rates, compared to countries which have kept their penal
system more or less stable. Figure IV.1 provides information on prisoner rates and reported crime in
Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway from 1950 to 2000.

Prison rate 1950-2000(/100 000 population)

200

14 000180

DEN

Offences against the criminal code 1950-2000(/100 000 population)

DEN

12 000

FIN

160

FIN

NOR
140

NOR

10 000

SWE

SWE

120

8 000

100
6 000
80
60

4 000

40
2 000
20

1998

1994

1986

1990

1982

1978

1974

1970

1966

1962

1954

1958

1998

1994

1986

1990

1982

1978

1974

1970

1966

1962

1958

1954

1950

1950

0

0

Figure IV.1. Prison Rates and Crime Rates 1950–2000
Compiled from: Falck, von Hofer & Storgaard 2003
A simple comparison between the Nordic countries reveals a striking difference in the use of
imprisonment, as well as a striking similarity in the trends in recorded criminality. The fact that Finland hasheavily reduced its prisoner rate has not disturbed the symmetry of Nordic crime rates. The figures start todifferentiate only during the 1990s, as reported crime in Norway kept going up, while the Danish figures aregoing down. However, the imprisonment rates in both countries stay at the same level (Norway between 56
and 60 and Denmark between 63 and 68). The figures also confirm, once again, the general criminologicalconclusion that crime rates rise and fall according to laws and dynamics of their own, and sentencing policies
in turn develop and change according to dynamics of their own; these two systems are fairly independent of
one another.

14

135TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

V. FACTORS BEHIND THE CHANGE
The decrease in the Finnish prison population has been the result of a conscious, long term andsystematic criminal policy. But what made it possible to carry out these law-reforms? Describing thetechniques used was easy. Explaining why they were adopted and accepted is harder. Exploring more closely
the dynamics of these changes is important for a number of reasons, in addition to mere scientific curiosity.3

A. Political Culture
Part of the answer could be found in the structure of our political culture. Finnish criminologist Patrik
Törnudd has stressed the importance of the political will and consensus to bring down the prisoner rate. As
he summarizes, “those experts who were in charge of planning the reforms and research shared an almost
unanimous conviction that Finland’s comparatively high prisoner rate was a disgrace and that it would bepossible to significantly reduce the amount and length of prison sentences without serious repercussions on
the crime situation.” (Törnudd 1993, p. 12). This conviction was shared by the civil servants, the judiciaryand the prison authorities and, equally importantly, by the politicians.4
Another and closely related way of characterizing Finnish criminal policy would be to describe it asexceptionally expert-oriented. Reforms have been prepared and conducted by a relatively small group of
experts whose thinking on criminal policy, at least on the basic points, has followed similar lines. The impactof these professionals was, furthermore, reinforced by close personal and professional contacts with seniorpoliticians and with academic research.5 Consequently, crime control has never been a central political issue
in election campaigns in Finland, unlike in many other countries. At least, ‘heavyweight’ politicians have notrelied on populist policies, such as ‘three strikes’ or ‘truth in sentencing’.

B. MediaThis takes us to another element in the Finnish criminal policy composition – the media market and therole of the media. In Finland the media have retained quite a sober and reasonable attitude towards issues ofcriminal policy. Finns have largely been saved from low-level populism. There is a striking difference
between the British and Finnish crime reports in the media. The tone in the Finnish reports is lessemotional, and reports – also when dealing with singular events – are usually accompanied with commented
research-based data on the development of the crime situation.
In fact, the whole structure of the Finnish media market looks a bit peculiar. Firstly, according to theinformation given by the World Association of Newspapers (World Press Trends 2004), the busiest
newspaper-readers in Europe are to be found in Finland and Sweden (90% of the population read a
newspaper every day, while in France, Italy and the UK the figures are 44%, 41% and 33% respectively).
Secondly, the clear market leader can be classified as a quality paper; tabloids have a far less prominent rolein Finland than in many other countries (including the UK). Thirdly, only a small fraction (12%) of newspaper
distribution is based on selling single copies. Almost 90% of the newspapers are sold on the basis ofsubscription, which means that the papers do not have to rely on dramatic events in order to draw thereader’s attention each day. In short, in Finland the newspapers reach a large segment of the population andthe market leaders are quality papers which do not have to sell themselves every day, since distribution isbased on subscriptions. This all may have an effect both on the ways crime is reported, and the ways people
think in these matters.

C. Nordic Co-operation
The early 1960s was a period of intensifying Nordic co-operation in legal matters. Crime and criminal
justice were among the key issues in this agenda. In 1960, The Scandinavian Research Council wasestablished with the support of the respective Ministries of Justice. This Council became a central forum for

3 In order to put things in perspective, it should be stressed that instead of a massive move towards decarceration one could

also describe the change merely as a ‘normalization’ of prison rates: a move from a level that was totally absurd to a level thatcan be considered to be a fair Nordic level – albeit ten times lower than the present U.S. level.
4 At least to the extent that they did not oppose the reform proposals prepared by the Ministry of Justice.
5 Several of our Ministers of Justice during the 1970s and 1980s have had direct contact with research work; indeed, one ofthem, Inkeri Anttila, was a professor of criminal law and the director of the National Research Institute of Legal Policy at thetime of her appointment as Minister.

15

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.74

the exchange of information between the Nordic countries. Interest in criminological research expanded andthe status and resources of criminology were strengthened in the Nordic countries. The reform work of the
1960s and 1970s in Finland was heavily influenced by this exchange of ideas, as well as by the legislativemodels offered by our Scandinavian neighbours (especially Sweden). In many instances liberal reforms could
be defended with reference to positive experiences gained from other Nordic countries and the need forInter-Nordic harmonization. This ‘Nordic identity’ was strengthened in Finland by the fact that Finland in the
1960s was quickly reaching the levels of other Scandinavian partners in economic and welfare resources.
A specific feature of this co-operation was that it was not founded on conventions but on non-binding
agreements between the nations.6 It was not led by politicians and governments, but by Ministries of Justiceand their experts. It proved to be very effective and less bureaucratic. The results of this co-operation weremanifested in legislative acts that have been adopted separately in each Nordic country, but with identicalcontents. This concerns, for example, extradition from one Nordic country to another as well as theenforcement of sentences within these countries.

D. Judicial Culture and Sentencing Structures
Micro-level institutional arrangements and specific professional practices have also contributed to thischange. Co-operation with the judicial authorities – the judges and the prosecutors – and their ‘attitudinalreadiness’ for liberal criminal policies have been of great importance in Finland. In many cases, legislators
have been strongly supported by the judiciary and especially by the courts of first instance. Quite often the
courts had changed their practice even before legislators had changed the law.
Also, the fact that judges and prosecutors are career officials with training in criminology and criminal
policy in the law schools contributes to this explanation. In addition, different courses and seminars arranged
for judges (and prosecutors) on a regular basis by judicial authorities – in co-operation with the universities –have had an impact on sentencing and prosecutorial practices.
The Finnish sentencing structure, which treats sentencing as an area of normal judicial decision making,guided by valid sources of sentencing law, may also function as a shield against political pressures. Finlandand Sweden have highly structured systems with detailed written provisions on the general principles andspecific sentencing criteria to be taken into account in deciding both the type and amount of punishment.
Arguments that affect sentencing must be presented in a form that fits the accepted rules and standards.
The specific structure of the decision making-process, as outlined in the general sentencing provisions (the“notion of normal-punishments”) stresses the importance of uniformity in sentencing (avoiding unwarranted
disparities). This places the existing sentencing patterns in a central position as starting points insentencing. And this, in turn, gives sentencing strong inertia; rapid changes are unlikely to occur, unlessthese changes have not been channeled through the valid sources of sentencing law (see in general LappiSeppälä, 2001).

E. Social Factors
But there are even more fundamental factors related to social structures and values. It needs to be notedthat penal reform in Finland was a part of a larger social policy movement. Finland revised its penal policy
together with its social policy. And the fact that reformulation of the basic principles and practices in criminaland social policy took place shortly after Finland had joined the Scandinavian welfare family is more than justa coincidence. Since those days explaining Finland is more or less the same as explaining the specificfeatures of the Scandinavian penal policy as a whole, including the comparative leniency, and the pragmaticand less politicized and non-moralistic approach in penal policy.
VI. CONCLUSIONS – NORDIC MODEL OF PENAL POLICY TODAY – AND TOMORROW?
Nordic penal policy has been an example of a pragmatic and non-moralistic approach, with a clear social
policy orientation. It reflects the values of the Nordic welfare-state ideal and emphasizes that measuresagainst social marginalization and inequality work also as measures against crime. It stresses the view that

6 The foundation for the co-operation is based on Helsinki Treaty (1962). The treaty obliged the contracting parties to “strive
to create uniform provisions concerning crime and sanctions of crime.” A general overview is to be found in Lahti, 2000.

16

135TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

crime control and criminal policy are still a part of social justice, not just an issue of controlling dangerous
individuals. These liberal policies are to a large extent also a by-product of an affluent welfare state and ofconsensual and corporatist political cultures. These structural conditions have enabled and sustained
tolerant policies, made it possible to develop workable alternatives to imprisonment and promoted trust andlegitimacy. All of this has relieved the political system’s stress for symbolic actions and it also has enabled
norm compliance based on legitimacy and acceptance instead of fear and deterrence. Further factors
explaining the Scandinavian leniency included strong expert influences, (fairly) sensible media anddemographic homogeneity.
However, the changes that have occurred during the last five to ten years raise unavoidable questions.
Has this now come to its end; what is the nature of these changes; are they more a result of changes inexternal conditions or signs of revised policy preferences; how are things going to proceed in the future, etc?
There is space for only short tentative replies.
Any overall assessment of complicated phenomena such as penal policy, covering several countries, faces
the risk of being incorrect, misleading or trivial. Also, the use of imprisonment as an indicator begins to lose
its validity as we wish to focus our picture. Furthermore, qualitative indicators must be included which, inturn, leaves more room for interpretation. Still, ample evidence supports the main conclusion; if we look at
the whole of Scandinavia, crime policy has become more offensive, more politicized, more adaptive to theviews and voices of the media. There are more diverting views, more agents involved, and less agreement
on matters of principle. One outcome of all this is that the role of penal expertise has diminished, being
partly replaced by grass-roots knowledge, views of influential interest groups, and by politicians themselves.
The expansion of the EU and the politically driven efforts to harmonize penal legislation among the EU
member states is perhaps the most significant single factor contributing to these changes. It has bothdamaged the quality of the legal drafting processes and increased the amount of penal repression. This is thebasic reason why a large segment of Nordic scholars have remained quite critical of political attempts toharmonize criminal law.7
How deep and how extensive is this change? Prisoner rates would justify (at least) the talk of a relatively
serious shift (an increase by some 40%). In absolute terms and from a comparative point of view, thesituation looks much less alarming (from 60-65 to 70-80 prisoners/100,000). There is also some indicationthat these figures might stabilize on this new level. In Finland, the prisoner rates have again declined byaround 10% during the last two years.
Which, then, are the issues that have undergone the most severe changes? If the measure is the ‘degreeof politicization’ the answer is clear: drugs, sex and violence (in that order). During the last 25 years over 30
law reforms have been passed to increase penal control in these issues. In drug issues, the Nordic countries
have emulated practices from each other, following the example given by the most severe system (at thattime). Norway started the race in the early 1970s, but soon Sweden took over. Under the pressure of these‘axel-powers’ the others were to follow. The last one to bend was Denmark in the early 2000s. This spiral ofmoralistic and populist rhetoric seems to be extremely hard to break, despite the widely shared critics from
both, legal, medical and social experts.
Drug laws are the most explicit example of politically motivated penal policy and, at the same time, themost evident anomaly in today’s Scandinavian crime policy. Something akin has taken place also in the fieldof sexual offences and violent crime. These reforms have received visible places among the governments’lists of political ‘achievements’, especially in Sweden and Denmark. Criminal law and increased severity
have become a question of equality between the sexes, which has made it politically very difficult to oppose
these reforms. Other supporting arguments for tightening control have been fetched from the need tocombat organized crime, especially motorcycle gangs. These deviations from traditional, detached andevidence-based pragmatic penal policy have had significant practical consequences. Expansive drug control

7 See for example Jareborg 1998, Greve 1995, Träskman 1999, and Nuotio 2003. These concerns are, by no means, restricted

to Nordic Countries: “I remain very nervous that in the current political climate if we were to agree, at an EU-level, on
common principles of punishment, these would lead to increased sentences of imprisonment without any real debate as to theefficacy and justice of such sentences.” (Padfield 2004 p.89)

17

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.74

is responsible for over half of the increase in the Scandinavian prisoner rates. Drugs and violence explain
together some 75-80% of the increase. The role of the politically highly visible sex offences has remainedmuch more modest.
Criminal policy has lifted its political profile in Scandinavia. But how populist and how punitive are thepresent policies, actually? Again, much depends on the point of reference. What appears to be an example ofpunitive response for a Scandinavian commentator may not look the same for readers from the US or UK. A
six month increment in rape penalties from two years to two and a half years may be a great deal in Finland,
but not necessarily in other countries. The key phrase “humane and rational criminal policy” may havedisappeared from political rhetoric and official statements; still, examples of expressive justice, public
humiliation and the denial of an individual’s social and political rights are conspicuously absent in the Nordic
penal policy. The issues of crime control are discussed at governmental level more often than before, but,much of these discussions take place in the form of crime prevention programmes which focus on social andsituational prevention – not on criminal law. The first National Programme for Preventing Violence in Finland,in 2006, defined measures against social marginalization as key factors and hardly mentions criminal law at all.
There are also differences in the degrees of politicization between the countries. Penal issues haveplayed a major role in national elections in both Sweden and Denmark, but were totally absent from the 2006
presidential election in Finland. Even the political systems seem to react differently: the Swedish politicalfield seems to be dividing more and more clearly into two blocks, thus resembling more and more the AngloSaxon bi-polarized structure. In Sweden, the Ministry of Justice has promised to build 1,500 new prison
places. In their web-pages the Swedish prison administration proudly claims that they are building new
prison places “more actively than any other country in Europe”. In Finland, the Ministry of Treasury has
refused to fund new prisons; consequently the Ministry of Justice has declared that the “control of prisoner
rates” is one their key targets for the period of 2007-2011. Some signs indicate that prison overcrowding is,again, entering political and public debate as a problem which requires serious attention, at least in Finland.
However, the changes in the composition of agents in the criminal political field have made the situation
unstable. The long-term consistency granted by strong involvement of civil servants and penal experts has
weakened, and this year’s plans to reduce the prison population may look different next year. Still, it might
be too pessimistic to announce the end of expert knowledge in penal policy. One of the major culturalchanges in politics (elsewhere than in criminal policy) has been the growing importance attached toresearch-based knowledge in social and political planning. All major political plans – starting from theGovernment Programmes – define knowledge as the key factor, on which the development of the“competitive welfare state” must be built. Building the infrastructures which “support the production of thesocial and technological innovations” is the mantra of today’s Scandinavian governments. No doubt, thedrafters of these programmes have something other than rational and humane criminal policy in their minds.
Still, this general urge to promote evidence-based policies may provide a footing for demands that this same
logic should be applied also to penal policy.
Is the bottle half-full or half-empty? Despite the most recent changes, there still may be room for some
optimism. Overall, prisoner rates are still low – even after these changes. Neither is the path taken by manyother penal systems an inevitable one. Very few of those social, political, economic and cultural backgroundconditions which explain the rise of mass imprisonment in the US and UK apply to any of the Scandinavian
countries, as such. The social and economic security granted by the Nordic Welfare State may still function
as a social backup system for tolerant crime policy. The judges and the prosecutors are, and will remain,
career officials with a professional touch in these matters. Political culture still encourages negotiations andappreciates expert opinions – at least that is something one may hope for.
Luckily enough, this is not only a matter of hope. In a political culture which, in general, values rational,
pragmatic and responsible argumentation there is lot that can be done. We must improve the pre-conditionsof rational policy-making over populist posturing by producing more and better information for thepoliticians, the practitioners and the public. We should apply the normal rules of political accountability inpenal discourse. Nowhere else in political life can plans and proposals be presented without estimations ofcosts, benefits and possible alternatives. Why should this be allowed in criminal policy where decisions
infringe legally protected basic rights and are hugely expensive? And, we should take advantage of the fact
that, in politics in general, there prevails distaste for populism and political cynical score-hitting - if exposed.

18

135TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Exposing populism and showing the attitudinal oversimplifications, false premises, and the dubious valuecommitments of populist proposals are important intellectual weapons in the hands of political opponents ofany penal populist.
For those Scandinavian politicians, who otherwise are strongly devoted to welfare values but who, at thesame time, are tempted by the strong rhetoric and powerful gestures of Anglo-Saxon penal politics, all thisshould present a difficult question: when we, in all other respects, defend policies based on social equality,
full citizenship, solidarity, respect for reason and humanity, why should we choose to carry out criminal
policy which shows so little appreciation to these very same values and principles?

19