RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57

NOTES ON CRIME AND PUNISHMENT
IN SWEDEN AND SCANDINAVIA
Hanns von Hofer*
I. CRIME AND PUNISHMENT IN
SCANDINAVIA: AN OVERVIEW
Geographically, the Scandinavian
countries (here meaning Denmark,Finland, Norway and Sweden) lie on themargins of Europe, and with the exceptionof Denmark are rather sparsely populated,with a total population of around 24
million. All the countries bar Finland are
constitutional monarchies, and all are bothprotestant and very homogeneous in termsof culture. It wasn’t until a few decades
ago that the Nordic countries began to feelthe impact of immigration, this level being
highest in Sweden and lowest in Finland.
The standard of living in the Nordic
countries is among the highest in the world
and the region’s modern political history
has been shaped on the whole by theprinciples of social democracy.
Comparative research into levels of
welfare has shown that there is a rather
clear-cut pattern of national clusters in the
EU-member states of similarity in thewelfare mix, as well as the general
distributive outcome in material living
standards. The European Union appears
to be divided in three homogeneous clusters(Vogel, 1997):• a northern European cluster(including Denmark, Finland,
Norway [not a member of the EU])and Sweden exhibiting high levels ofsocial expenditure and labour market
participation and weak family ties.
In terms of income distribution this* Department of Criminology, Stockholm University,
Sweden284

cluster is characterised by relatively
low levels of income and classinequality, and low poverty rates, but
a high level inequality between theyounger and the older generations;• a southern European cluster(including Greece, Italy, Portugal andSpain) characterised by much lower
levels of welfare state provision andlower rates of employment, but bystrong traditional families. Here wefind higher levels of income and classinequality and of poverty, but low
levels of inter-generation inequality;• a central European cluster with anintermediate position (including
Austria, Belgium France, Germany,
Ireland, Luxembourg, theNetherlands and the UK). The UK
borders on the southern cluster interms of its high levels of income
i n e q u a l i t y, p o v e r t y a n d c l a s s
inequality.
Against this sketchy backdrop
reasonably simplistic descriptions of
traditional crime in the Nordic countries,
and these countries’ responses to crime, arepresented in the following.
1. International Crime Victims
Surveys (ICVS)
Because of variations in the rules
governing the collection and production of
statistics in different countries, it isgenerally accepted by experts thatcomparisons based on crime statistics do
not in principal allow for the possibility ofmaking cross-national level comparisons ofcrime (CoE, 1999b:13). For this reason,

115TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
when cross-national comparisons of crimelevels are considered desirable, theinternational crime victims surveys(Mayhew & Killias, 1990; Mayhew & van
Dijk, 1997) are a great help despite theobvious methodological difficulties whichface even these data sets. The data arecollected by means of telephone interviews(using standardised questions) based on
random samples of between 1,000 and
2,000 persons from each country. A totalof nineteen countries have participated in
the three surveys (1989, 1992 and 1996),
whilst of the Nordic countries, Norway took
part only in 1989, Sweden in 1992 and 1996
and Finland in all three. Denmark has notparticipated at all and must therefore be
excluded from the following presentation.
The offence types covered in the survey are:car theft, motorcycle theft, bicycle theft,
burglary and attempted burglary, robbery,
theft from the person, sex offences andassault/threatening behaviour.
Results from all the surveys between
1989 and 1996, irrespective of how manytimes the individual countries participated,have been summarised and are presented
in the table below.
Generally speaking, the level of criminal
victimisation is reported to be lower inFinland and Norway than in Sweden(however, the Norwegian data refer to 1989
only). For the most part, Sweden lies fairly
close to the European average. Similardifferences between the Nordic countries
were also found during the 1980s whencomparisons were carried out on resultsfrom national victims surveys produced inthese countries. At that point the resultsfrom Denmark were similar in many
respects to those in Sweden (RSÅ, 1990:146
ff). Sweden distinguishes herself (alongwith the Netherlands) with respect to thelevel of bicycle thefts, whilst the Nordic
countries on the whole present relatively
low levels of car vandalism, burglary androbbery. However, the Nordic countries
score higher on sex offences and high on
assaults/threatening behaviour. There has
been speculation that these differences
might in part be explained by higher levels

Table 1
Victimisation over the last year (percentage victim once or more),
1989, 1992 and 1996 according to the ICVS project.
Source: Mayhew & van Dijk (1997, Appendix 4, Table 1).
Car theft
Theft from car
Car vandalism
Motorcycle theft
Bicycle theft
Burglary
Attempted burglary
Robbery
Thefts of personal property
Sexual incidents
Assaults & threats
All eleven offence types
Number of completed interviews

DK
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.

FI
0.5
2.8
4.6
0.3
4.4
0.6
0.6
0.7
3.6
2.3
3.8
18.7
6544

NO
1.1
2.8
4.6
0.3
2.8
0.8
0.4
0.5
3.2
2.2
3.0
16.4
1009

SE
1.5
4.4
4.6
0.6
7.9
1.4
1.0
0.4
4.4
1.9
3.6
22.8
2707

EUR9
1.2
5.4
7.5
0.8
3.5
1.9
1.9
1.1
4.4
2.3
2.7
23.3
29903

n.a. = not available
FI (Finland): 1989,1992,1996; NO (Norway): 1989 only; SE (Sweden): 1992, 1996.
EUR9: Austria, Belgium, France, England & Wales, (West)Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland.

285

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57
of awareness and lower levels of tolerance
among Scandinavian women when it comesto setting limits for the forms of intergender encounters that are consideredsocially acceptable (HEUNI, 1998:132 f,
163, 349, 432).
Additional data from cause of death
statistics regarding the mid-1990s indicate(CoE, 1999:43) that levels of homicide in
Denmark, Norway and Sweden are on apar with those reported in central Europe(around 1.2 per 100,000 of population),whilst Finland still presents considerably
higher frequencies (around 3.0 per 100,000
of population), which had already been
noted in the criminological literature of the
1930s (NCS, 1997:13).
According to various estimates(EMCDDA,1997: Table 5 & 1998: Table 4;
Reuband, 1998:332), national prevalence
rates of problem drug use appear to be near
average in Denmark and below average in
Norway, Finland and Sweden as comparedto central and southern Europe. An
account of the Nordic drug scene in the
1990s is given by Olsson et al. (1997).
The ICVS project surveys not only theextent of criminal victimisation but also
other related phenomena such as levels of
fear, crime-preventive measures, andattitudes towards and experiences of thepolice. Asked whether they felt they wereat risk of being burgled in the course of thefollowing year, respondents from Finlandand Sweden were ranked low (Mayhew &van Dijk, 1997:50). Asked how safe theyfelt outside in their own neighbourhood
after dark, feelings of insecurity were
lowest among respondents from Finlandand Sweden together with Switzerland(Mayhew & van Dijk, 1997:51). In responseto the question of whether they had
installed various kinds of anti break-in
devices (such as burglar alarms, special
locks, or bars on windows or doors) Finland

286

and Sweden also came out below theaverage (Mayhew & van Dijk, 1997:54).
2. Trends
Since there are no victims surveys (ateither the national or European level)
covering the post-war period, descriptionsof crime trends have to be based on recordsof crimes reported to the police. Despite
the well known shortcomings of official
crime statistics, the use of such statistics
to compare crime trends is an accepted
method (CoE, 1999b:13).
The number of crimes reported to thepolice has risen in all the Nordic countries
at least since the beginning of the 1960s.
The smallest increase is found in thenumber of reported incidents of homicide(the number of such reports has doubled,
except in Finland where they seem to haveremained at more or less the same level).
The largest increase (between seven andtwelve times) is to be found in the numberof reported robberies, this being partly due
to the fact that at the end of the 1950srobbery was more or less unheard of inthese countries, a total of only 1,200
robberies being registered in these four
Nordic countries in 1960 (NCS, 1997:72).
The increase is probably linked in part tothe upward trend in juvenile crime and inpart to the emergence of a group of sociallymarginalised males (NCS, 1997:31). It is
nonetheless worth noting that according to
the ICVS, robbery levels in Finland,
Norway and Sweden still remain low in aninternational perspective (see Table 1
supra). The reporting of other offence types(assault, rape and theft) has increased
between two and six times over the same
period. When the countries are ranked on
the basis of increases in five offence
categories (homicide, assault, rape, robbery
and theft), Sweden presents increases of
the greatest magnitude, whilst theincreases are least marked in Finland.

115TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
Crime trends in the Nordic countries areon the whole much the same as those foundin other central European countries.
Westfelt (1998) recently compared crime
trends in Scandinavia with those in Austria,
England & Wales, France, (West) Germany
and the Netherlands. He found that all
countries reported increases in crime, eventhough there were periodical local

differences. Figure 1 clearly shows thestriking similarity between the trend inregistered assault and theft offences in theNordic countries and that in the countriesof central Europe. The similarities in crime
trends have previously been noted by writers
such as Heidensohn & Farrel (1991), Eisner(1994), Killias (1995), Joutsen (1996), andMarshall (1996).

Figure 1a
Assault offence trends in the Nordic and some European countries,
1950(63)-1996. Scaled series, per 100,000 of population.
Source: Westfelt (1998; updated).
ASSAULT
8

6

4

2

0
1950

NORD4
EUR5
1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

EUR5 = Austria, England & Wales, France, (West) Germany and the Netherlands

Figure 1b
Theft offence trends in the Nordic and some European countries, 1950-1996.
Scaled series, per 100,000 of population.
Source: Westfelt (1998; updated).
5

THEFT

4

3

2

1

0
1950

NORD4
EUR5
1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

EUR5 = Austria, England & Wales, France, (West) Germany and the Netherlands

287

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57
It has been suggested that theft trends
in the 1990s may be in the process ofchanging direction. Up to now, theobservations on which such statements are
based remain too few for us to be able tospeak with any degree of certainty particularly in light of the fact that we do
not have good theories available which
would be able to explain such a break incrime trends (cf. Steffensmeier & Harer,1999).
The trend in juvenile crime constitutes
a special case. The issue has recently beenstudied by Pfeiffer (1998) and Estrada(1998). According to Estrada, levels ofjuvenile crime (i.e. mostly against property)
increased in all ten of the European
countries studied (Denmark, Finland,
Norway, Sweden as well as Austria,
E n g l a n d , ( W e s t ) G e r m a n y, t h eNetherlands, Scotland, and Switzerland)
without exception in the decades following
the Second World War. In many of thesecountries this upward trend was broken
however, probably at some point between
the mid-1970s and the early 1980s.
Available statistics suggest that there
followed something of a levelling off. In
three countries, however, England, Finlandand Germany no such break is visible injuvenile crime trends, and the increases
have simply continued. The trends inlevels of violent offences committed byjuveniles differ somewhat from the generalcrime trend. Here virtually all thecountries present increases during the lastten - fifteen years (with the possible
exception of Finland and Scotland).
3. The Response to Crime and the
System of Sanctions
The number of police per 100,000 of
population is lower in the Nordic countries
than in either southern or central Europe(data for Germany are unavailable). In the
mid-1990s the Nordic countries reported a
total of 183 police per 100,000 of
population, whilst central Europe reported
291 (although the Netherlands were on apar with the Nordic countries) andsouthern Europe 395 (CoE, 1999b:78). As
is the case in other European countries,
however, the clear up rate has dropped
considerably over the years (see Figure 2).
Exactly how this drop ought to beinterpreted is not altogether clear: purely
as a fall in police efficiency, for example, or
as a result of increases in the number ofoffences which were always unlikely to becleared, or as a combination of such factors(cf. Balvig, 1985:12).

Figure 2
Clear up rates (all offences covered by respective penal codes) in Denmark,Finland, Norway and Sweden, 1950-1997 (every fifth year).
Source: NCS (1997, Table 9; updated).
100

Percentage

80

60

40
FI
NO
DK
SE

20

0
1950

288

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

115TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
The ICVS show that the level of publicsatisfaction with the police is mixed in
Finland and Sweden (data are unavailable
for Denmark and Norway). Sweden tops
the list as regards the extent to which
members of the public report crimes to thepolice (Mayhew & van Dijk, 1997:40).
Concerning the way persons reporting
crime feel the police have acted at the time
the crime was reported, Finland andSweden present a higher than average levelof satisfaction in comparison with the othercountries (Mayhew & van Dijk, 1997:44).
However, in the matter of how satisfied the
respondents were with the police ingeneral, confidence seems to be average in
Sweden and below average in Finland(Mayhew & van Dijk, 1997: 47).
The ICVS have also assessed attitudes
to the kind of sentences dealt out in respectof criminal offences. The respondents wereasked to choose which of a variety ofsanctions they felt to be most suitable fora 21 year old male having committed his
second burglary, stealing a colour television
set in the process. Given the choice
between fines, a prison sentence orcommunity service, just under 50 percentof the Swedish respondents chosecommunity service, 24 percent prison, andfourteen percent fines (Mayhew & van Dijk,
1997:56). The corresponding figures for
Finnish respondents were 47, 16 and 16
percent, and for the Norwegians 47, 14 and23 percent. The view in the Nordic
countries does not seem to deviate too muchfrom the European average, with the
exception of the English speaking nations,where prison sentences are advocated to agreater extent.
Shinkai & Zvekic (1999:120) claim thatpublic attitudes to punishment generally
conform to the actual sentencing options
available. This seems to hold true for theNordic countries, where fines and otherforms of sanction are most common andwhere prison sentences are employed lessfrequently. This is of course due primarily
to the fact that the large majority ofoffences which lead to convictions are of aless or moderately serious nature and thedemand for proportionality between crimeand punishment means that prison
sentences should be reserved for more
serious offences.
The following brief description of choicesof sanction concerns those imposed for all
offences against the penal code taken
together (NCS, 1997:78 ff). A more detailed
description looking at different offence
categories would not have been feasible
given the brevity of this overview. Since
the majority of offences committed against
the penal code are property offences of one
kind or another, the sanctions describedhere are in practise primarily those
imposed for theft offences and the like. The
figures refer to 1995. In the case of Norway,
the data had in part to be estimated since“misdemeanours” are not included in their
entirety in the Norwegian statistics (NOS,
1997: Table 40).
Finland convicts far more people thanthe other Nordic countries (1,238 per
100,000, as compared with 927 in
Denmark, 731 in Sweden and 544 in
Norway). Finland’s unique position may
be partially explained by the legalistic
approach characteristic of Finnish judicial
practise, with its rather strict observanceof mandatory prosecution (Joutsen, [1999])
and also, as has been intimated by Finnish
experts, by the fact that clear up rates havebeen consistently higher in Finland thanin the rest of Scandinavia.
In contrast to the other countries,
however, 81 percent of those convicted in
Finland receive fines (the corresponding
proportions in Denmark, Norway andSweden being 59, 53 and 43 percent
respectively). “Other sanctions” (excluding

289

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57
prison sentences) are used most often in
Sweden (42 percent as against 23 in
Denmark and Norway and eleven percent
in Finland). This very rough outline
nonetheless captures a number of theessential characteristics of the sanctioning
culture of the Nordic countries: Sweden
still appears as the country where thephilosophy of individual prevention, basedon a wide variety of sanctions, is mostpronounced, whilst Finland most clearly
follows the classical tradition of imposing
fines and prison sentences as the mostcommon forms of sanction. Irrespective of
these differences, fines are used extensively
throughout the Nordic countries.
When it comes to the use of prison
sentences, these are imposed more often
in Denmark and Norway - both in relativeand in absolute terms - than in Sweden and
Finland. On the other hand, prison
sentences are longer in Sweden and
Finland. This somewhat complicatedpicture serves as a good indication of the
difficulties faced when trying to measure
and compare the relative “punitiveness” ofthe sanction systems of different countries(cf. Pease, 1994).
In addition, we could note that Sweden
more or less abandoned the use of prison
terms as a means of sanctioning nonpayment of fines at the beginning of the
1980s (Sveri, 1998) and that since the mid1990s electronic tagging has been used as
an alternative for certain categories ofoffender sentenced to up to three months
imprisonment (Bishop, 1995; BRÅ, 1999).
In 1998 almost 4,000 individuals served
their sentence in this way, of whom lessthan 200 dropped out of the programme(KOS, 1998:45).
4. The PrisonsDespite the above differences in thefrequency and length of the prison
sentences imposed in the Nordic countries,

290

their judicial systems result in prison
populations of a similar size. The Councilof Europe (CoE, 1999a:13) reports that theinmate population in the Nordic countries(measured on 1 September 1997) is low ina European perspective (58 prison inmatesper 100,000 of population; the level being
lowest in Norway at 53 per 100,000 andhighest in Denmark at 62 per 100,000).
The corresponding figure for central
Europe was 89 per 100,000, and forsouthern Europe 100 (with Greece included
although she deviates quite drasticallyfrom this figure with a low inmate
population of 54 per 100,000). The
perception that prison sentences areharmful and should thus be avoided asmuch as possible still has a great deal of
currency in the Nordic countries(Bondeson, 1998:94).
Unlike in many other European
countries, there is no general problem ofprison overcrowding in Scandinavia(although such problems can arise in
special types of institutions, CoE,
1999c:115 ff). As a rule, prisons in theNordic countries are small (between 60 and
100 inmates), modern and characterised byhigh staffing levels (CoE, 1999a:51 ff).
Open prisons, where security
arrangements aimed at preventing escape
are kept to a minimum, account for
between twenty percent (Sweden) and forty
percent of prison places (Denmark). For
this reason the Nordic countries, with the
exception of Finland, report high levels of
escapees in comparison with those of othercountries (CoE, 1999a:41).
There are very few persons under theage of eighteen in Nordic prisons (suchindividuals account for way below one
percent of the prison population, CoE,
1999a:16). The proportion of female
prisoners lies - as in many other countries- between five and six percent, whilst the
proportion of foreign citizens among prison

115TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
inmates varies quite considerably - being
lowest in Finland at 4 percent, and highest
in Sweden at 26 percent (CoE, 1999a:18).
The average length of stay in prison canbe estimated (cf. NCS, 1997:82 f) to be
shortest in Norway (2.9 months in 1995)
and longest in Sweden (5.2 months). As
regards the number of individuals serving
life sentences, on a certain day in 1998
there were twelve such ‘lifers’ in Denmark,59 in Finland and 78 in Sweden (KOS,
1999:102). The life sentence has beenabolished in Norway.
Over the last 50 years, prison
populations have been fairly stable in the
Denmark, Norway and Sweden (see Figure3). The increases of the last ten years are
not that large when seen in a European
perspective (CoE, 1999c:17). Finland
constitutes a remarkable exception to thetrend towards rising inmate numbers.
There the prison population has shrunkquite considerably since the mid-1970s(1976: 118 inmates per 100,000 of
population) and is today on a par with thatof her Nordic neighbours. The roots of thepast high Finnish population may be traced

back to the civil war (1918) and its
aftermath (Christie, 1968:171). The
political mechanisms underlying the recent
decrease have been described by Törnudd(1993) and Lappi-Seppäla (1998), who among other things - concludes that thedecrease of the prison population has notchanged the Finnish crime picture in an
unfavourable way as compared to other
Nordic countries (p. 27).
5. Summary
This short overview of the state of thecrime levels and penal systems of theNordic countries, as portrayed by available
statistical sources, indicates that the crimelevel in Scandinavia (as regards traditional
offences) is on a par with or lower than thatof other European countries. Drug abuse
too appears to be less widespread in theNordic countries. Increases in crime rates
during the post-war period have been very
substantial in the Nordic countries just as
they have been elsewhere in Europe indicating that the recorded increases of
traditional crime in Europe may havecommon roots out of reach for varying
national welfare and criminal policies. The
1990s may have witnessed a stabilisation

Figure 3
Prison populations in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden,
1950-1998 (every fifth year). Per 100,000 of population.
Source: NCS (1997; updated)200

Per 100,000

150

100

50

0
1950

FI
DK
SE
NO
1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

291

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57
in theft rates, albeit at a high level.
Increasing equality between the sexes has
probably contributed to an increase in thereporting of violent and sexual offences
against women (and children), making
these offences more visible. The system offormal control in the Nordic countries ischaracterised by relatively low police
density, a falling clear up rate, theimposition of fines in a high proportion of
criminal cases and low prison populations.
The international crime victims surveys(no data being available for Denmark and
Norway) indicate that fear of crime iscomparatively low in Finland and Sweden;
and that (for this reason) people do not feelthe need to take special precautions against
the possibility of crime to any great extent.
Respondents appear to be fairly satisfied
with the performance of the police and also
support limits on the use of prison
sentences.
It should be remembered that debateson crime policy in the mass media or among
politicians at the national level are rarely
based on a comparative cross-national
perspective. Conclusions such as thosedrawn in HEUNI’s “Profiles of Criminal
Justice Systems” (1998), for example,
on Denmark: “In general, therefore, thedata (which is admittedly limited)suggest a relatively low crime problem
in Denmark” (p. 134)or on Sweden: “All in all, therefore, theimage one receives from the data on
crime and criminal justice is that, atleast in the international comparison,
Sweden has been relatively successful
in its crime prevention and criminal
justice policy” (p. 434)
would be rejected by many editorials andpoliticians as artefacts. Instead, thescenarios painted are not uncommonly

292

quite clear in their inclination towards law
and order and the need for tougher anticrime measures.
References
Summary crime and correctional
statistics regarding the Nordic countries arefound in CoE (1999a, 1999b) and NCS(1997). Summary profiles of criminal
justice systems are presented by HEUNI(1999) and in the World Factbook of
Criminal Justice System(www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstracts/
wfcj.htm). EUROSTAT (1997) provides
valuable demographic and social data forthe period 1986-1996.
Balvig, F., Crime in Scandinavia: Trends,
Explanations, and Consequences. In:
Bishop, N. (Ed), Scandinavian Criminal
Policy and Criminology 1980-85, pp. 7-17.
Copenhagen: Scandinavian ResearchCouncil for Criminology, 1985.
Bishop, N., Intensive supervision withelectronic monitoring: a Swedish
alternative to imprisonment. Penological
Information Bulletin. Nos. 19 and 20, pp.
8-10. Council of Europe, 1994-1995.
BRÅ, Intensivövervakning med elektronisk
kontroll. En utvärdering av 1997 och 1998
års riksomfattande försöksverksamhet[Intensive supervision with electronicmonitoring. An evaluation of thenationwide trial period 1997 and 1998].
Brå-Rapport 1999:4 [with a summary inEnglish]. Stockholm: Brottsförebygganderådet, 1999.
B o n d e s o n , U . , G l o b a l Tr e n d s i n
Corrections, Annales Internationales deCriminologie 36(1/2), pp. 91-116, 1998.
Christie, N., Changes in Penal Values,
Scandinavian Studies in Criminology 2,
pp. 161-172, 1968.

115TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
CoE, Council of Europe Annual Penal
Statistics SPACE I. Survey 1997. PC-CP(99) 3 REV. Strasbourg, 5 July 1999a.
CoE, European Sourcebook of Crime andCriminal Justice Statistics. PC-S-ST (99)
8 REV. Strasbourg, 7 July 1999b.
CoE, Rapport finale d’activité. Conseil decoopération pénologique. CDCP (99) 18
Addendum I. Strasbourg, le 13 julliet
1999c.
van Dijk, J.J.M., Mayhew, P. and Killias,
M., Experiences of Crime Across the World:
Key Findings of the 1989 International
Crime Survey. Deventer: Kluwer.
Eisner, E., The Effects of Economic
Structures and Phases of Development on
Crime. In: Council of Europe, Crime andeconomy. Proceedings. Reports presented
to the 11th Criminological colloquium(1994). Criminological research, Vol.
XXXII, pp. 13-51. Strasbourg: Council ofEurope Publishing, 1995.
EMCDDA, Annual Report on the State of
the Drugs Problem in the European Union
1997. European Monitoring Centre forDrugs and Drug Addiction. Lisboa, 1997.
EMCDDA, Annual Report on the State of
the Drugs Problem in the European Union
1998. European Monitoring Centre forDrugs and Drug Addiction. Luxembourg:
Office for Official Publications of theEuropean Communities, 1998.
EUROSTAT, Yearbook ’97. Luxembourg:
Office for Official Publications of theEuropean Communities, 1997.
Estrada. F., Juvenile Crime Trends in PostWar Europe. European Journal on
Criminal Policy and Research 7, pp. 2342, 1999.

Heidensohn, F. and Farrel, M. (Eds),
Crime in Europe. London: Routledge, 1991.
HEUNI, Profiles of Criminal Justice
Systems in Europe and North America
1990-1994. K. Kangaspunta, M. Joutsen,
N. Ollus and S. Nevala (Eds). European
Institute for Crime Prevention and Control,
affiliated with the United Nations.
Publication Series No. 33. Helsinki, 1999.
Joutsen, M., Recent Trends in Crime inWestern Europe. Paper presented at theFifth European Colloquium on Crime andC r i m i n a l P o l i c y, L j u b l j a n a , 2 5 - 2 7
September 1996.
Joutsen, M., Finland. In: G. Newman(Ed.), World Factbook of Criminal Justice
Systems. Internet: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
pub/ascii/wfbjfin.txt [Last modified: 02/23/
99].
Killias, M., Crime Policy in the Face of thethe Development of Crime in the New
European Landscape. Report from theFifth Conference on Crime Policy.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 1995.
KOS, Kriminalvårdens Officiella Statistik[Official Statistics of Corrections].
Norrköping, 1999.
Lappi-Seppälä, T., Regulating the Prison
Population. Experiences from a Long-Term
Policy in Finland. National ResearchInstitute of Legal Policy. ResearchCommunications 38. Helsinki, 1998.
Mayhew, P. and van Dijk, J.J.M., Criminal
Victimisation in Eleven Industrialised
Countries. Key findings from the 1996
International Crime Victims Survey.
Onderzoek en beleid 162. WODC, 1997.
Marshall Haen, I., How Exceptional Is theUnited States? Crime Trends in Europe
and the U.S., European Journal on

293

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57
Criminal Policy and Research, 4(2), pp. 735, 1996.
NCS, Nordic Criminal Statistics 19501995. Hanns von Hofer (Ed). Stockholm:
Department of Criminology, 1997.
NOS, Kriminalstatistikk 1995 [Official
Statistics of Norway, Crime Statistics
1995]. C 392. Oslo-Kongsvinger, 1997.
Olsson, B., Stymne, A., Hakkarainen, P.,
Schmidt, D., Skretting, A. and Valsson, K.
S., The Nordic drug scene in the 1990s:
recent trends, Nordic Studies on Alcoholand Drugs 14 (English Supplement), 1997.

1999.
Steffensmeier, D. and Harer, M.D., Making
Sense of Recent U.S. Crime Trends, 1980
to 1996/1998: Age Composition Effects andOther Explanations, Journal of Researchin Crime and Delinquency 36(3), pp. 235274, 1999.
Sveri, K., Incarceration for Non-paymentof a Fine. In: H.J. Albrecht et al.,Internationale Perspektiven in
Kriminologie und Strafrecht. Festschrift
für Günther Kaiser, pp. 681-690. Berlin:
Duncker & Humblot, 1998.

Pease, K., Cross-National Imprisonment
Rates. Limitations of Method and Possible
Conclusions, British Journal of
Criminology 34, pp. 116-130.

Törnudd, P., Fifteen Years of Decreasing
Prisoner Rates in Finland. National
Research Institute of Legal Policy.
Research Communication 8. Helsinki,
1993.

Pfeiffer, C., Juvenile crime and violence inEurope. In: M. Tonry (Ed), Crime andJustice: A Review of Research 23, pp. 255328. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press, 1998.

Vogel, J., Living conditions and inequality
in the European Union 1997. Eurostat
Working Papers. Population and social
conditions. E/1997-3. [Working document].
1997.

Reuband, K.-H., Drug Policies and Drug
Prevalence: The Role of Demand andSupply, European Journal on Criminal
Policy and Research 6(3), pp. 321-336,
1998.

Westfelt, L., Utvecklingen av registreradebrott under efterkrigstiden. Sverige ieuropeisk belysning [Development ofregistered offences during the post-war
period. Sweden compared with Europe].
In: H. von Hofer (Ed), Brottsligheten i
Europe [Crime in Europe], pp. 20-40.
Lund: Studentlitteratur, 1998.

RSÅ, Nordisk kriminalstatistik [Nordic
criminal statistics]. In: Rättsstatistiskårsbok 1990 [Yearbook of Judicial Statistics
1990]. Official Statistics of Sweden.
Stockholm: Statistics Sweden, pp. 142-152,
1990.
Shinkai, H. and Zvekic, U., Punishment.
In: G. Newman (Ed), Global Report on
Crime and Justice, pp. 89-120. Published
for the United Nations Office for Drug
Control and Crime Prevention. Centre forInternational Crime Prevention. New
York/Oxford: Oxford University Press,

294

II. THE SWEDISH PRISON SYSTEM
1. Incarceration in Sweden
Since the end of the 1980s, the Swedish
penal system has been officially based ona model of just deserts (cf. Lundquist, 1990;
Tham, 1995). This means that theperceived gravity of the offence, or the‘penal value’, is the most important factor
in the decision of an appropriate sanction
for the crime. This does, however, not115TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
imply that there is a heavy reliance on theuse of imprisonment as a sanction forcrimes. Quite the contrary: the modern
official view is “that, preferably, people
ought not to be locked up. To deal withoffenders by keeping them in thecommunity is considered to be the best way
of getting them to lead crime-free lives”(Basic Facts, 1997: 1). Thus, probation,community service, civil commitment(contract treatment), suspended sentences
and fines are the preferred methods ofpunishment. This is further emphasized
by a special provision in the Criminal Codewhich prescribes that in all cases the court“is required to give notice to any
circumstance or circumstances suggesting
the imposition of a sentence milder thanimprisonment”.
In 1998, about 125,000 people (or 1,400
per 100,000 population) were found guilty
for a variety of criminal acts. The
breakdown of sanctions imposed was asfollows: 77,000 fines; 15,000 prison
sentences (of which 4,000 were converted
into ‘electronic monitoring’, see below);
10,000 probation orders (including
supervision of young offenders); 8,000
penal warnings (suspended sentence), andless than 400 committals to psychiatriccare. In addition, the public prosecutor
waved prosecution for 14,000 people.1
All prison sentences are for a fixed termor for life, depending on the gravity of theoffence. The minimum prison sentence is
14 days. Most often the actual prison
sentence is for a relatively short period.
During 1998, a total of 9,497 persons wereadmitted to prison, of whom 30 percent
received a sentence of two months or less1

If not otherwise stated, all statistical data are takenfrom the following official sources: Crime andCriminal Justice Statistics 1998 and Correctional
Statistics 1998. The Swedish population amounted
to 8.85 million people in 1998.

and 33 percent between two and six
months. The average prison population
amounted to 5,156 prisoners (of whom
1,071 were remand prisoners) or to a totalof 58 prisoners per 100,000 population.
Prisoners released in 1998 had served anaverage of 154 days in prison.
2. The Prison System: An Overview
The Ministry of Justice is responsible forestablishing prison policy, but has no
authority to interfere in the daily work of
the prisons and probation service centrally
or regionally. This is, instead, theresposibility of The Swedish Prison and
Probation Service (SPPS), which is headed
by a government appointed board thatconsists of trusted citizens (members ofparliament, charitable organizations,labour unions, and so forth). The
government also appoints the DirectorGeneral.
All prisons and gaols (remand prisons)in Sweden are state controlled and there
are no county jails. Privatization of prisons
is a non-issue in Sweden, despite
Parliament’s decision, in 1998, that
authorized private security firms may be
used, under special circumstances, to carryout functions such as transporting
prisoners or guarding hospitalized
prisoners.
The penal administration of the country
is divided into five regional units. The
regional offices are responsible for theadministration of gaols and prisons,aftercare and non-custodial sentences(supervision). In October 1998, the SPPS
employed approximately 7,800 persons, 42
percent of whom were female; 4,487 of staff
were employed in prisons and 1,553 ingaols. In 1997, the staff/inmate ratio
amounted to 0.9: 1 in the prisons and to
1.4: 1 in the goals. The total budget,
including expenditure for requirements
such as non-institutional care, for the 1998

295

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57
fiscal year was 4,150 million Swedish
Kronor (SEK) (about 460 million US
Dollars). The daily cost per inmate,depending on the prison category (seebelow), has been calculated at between 200
US Dollars in open prisons and 300 US
Dollars in maximum-security prisons.
The management style in Swedish
prisons is ‘organic’, rather than militaristic.
Armed guards do not exist. In very serious
unrest situations, the local police
department is contacted and authorized todeal with the situation. However, riots andother forms of unrest are extremely rare
events in Swedish prisons. In 1994 a major
incident occurred at the maximum security
Tidaholm prison, when inmates set fire toparts of the prison.
Presently an increasing number ofprison officers are required to maintaincontact with a specified number of inmateson a daily basis. The purpose of this contact
responsibility is to assist inmates withtreatment, education and activity
planning, as well as to assist in the
granting of routine parole. The minimum
requirements for a position as correctional
officer is at least two years of senior highschool education or the applicant must be
at least 26 years of age with at least four
years of work experience. In addition to
the general educational requirements,
prospective correctional officers are
required to have at least two years of seniorhigh school training in the English
language, Swedish and in the social
sciences. Hiring is based on personal job
interviews with prospective officers.
2.1 Prison Classification
In Sweden there are four different
security categories for prisons. Prison
categories I to III are known as ‘closed
prisons’ and category IV prisons are
considered ‘open prisons’. This system wasintroduced in the first half of the 1990s.

296

Before that, a distinction was madebetween national and local, or‘neighbourhood’ prisons. National and local
prisons could be open or closed prisons.
National prisons were usually maximumsecurity prisons but could vary frommaximum to minimum prisons.
Neighbourhood prisons were usually
minimum or medium security prisons.
Category I prisons are similar to
maximum-security prisons in othercountries. They are designed with thehighest level of security possible, given thecurrent state of technology and security
methodology, in order to prevent escapesand release attempts. The only difference
between category II and category I prisons
is that category II prisons do not havesecurity measures preventing releaseattempts. Category III prisons arebasically designed to thwart ‘impulse
escape’ attempts. These prisons only
provide minimum security measuresagainst escapes. Finally, category IV
prisons, known as ‘open prisons’, have nophysical barriers or technology aimed atpreventing escape. The only barriers toescape are the (unarmed) prison officers
themselves. Persons convicted of drunken
driving and less serious offences are often
sent to category IV prisons. Prisoners
serving time in these prisons may beallowed to pursue employment or education
during the day outside of the prison.
In 1998, the average number of available
prison beds (including gaols) wasapproximately 5,600 with the national
average being at about 87 percent ofoccupancy. On average, six percent of theprisoners were placed in category I prisons;18 percent in category II prisons; 30 percent
in category III prisons; 21 percent in
category IV prisons; and 26 percent wereremand prisoners.
From an international perspective,

115TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
Swedish prisons are modern, expensive,and small. The largest prison, Kumla,
which is a maximum-security prison, has
about 260 (nominal) beds and only 177
were in use during 1998. The typical
Swedish prison has far fewer than 100
beds. Single celling at night is the rule andover-crowding does not occur.
In 1998, no escapes were reported fromcategory I and II prisons, 36 escapes fromcategory III prisons, 155 escapes fromcategory IV prisons and no escapes fromgaols. Over and above these numbers,
another 178 abscondings (in connection
with furloughs, during transport, etc.) werereported. By official Swedish standards,
this level of security is considered high.
3

The Swedish Prison Philosophy
Even if sentencing in Sweden is now
based on a just deserts model, treatment,
presently called special ‘programmes
activities’ is still an explicit goal ofcorrection. According to the current Prison
Treatment Act of 1974 (PTA), the primary
goal of the prison sentence is to promote
the inmate’s adjustment to the community
as well as to counteract the detrimental
effects of imprisonment. Already in the
Prison Treatment Act of 1945, the view was
expressed that the deprivation of freedom
itself should be regarded as the penal
element of a prison sentence and not theactual prison experience itself. Thus, the
PTA of 1974 states explicitly that an inmate
shall be treated with respect for his or her
human dignity.
The PTA of 1974 is based on four
principles:(i) imprisonment as last resort, that is,
the usual punishment should be a fineor a community sentence, since
imprisonment normally has
detrimental effects;(ii) normalization, that is, the same rules
concerning social and medical care andother forms of public service should
apply to prisoners just as they apply
to ordinary citizens;(iii) vicinity, that is, the prisoner should beplaced in prison as close as possible tohis or her home town; and(iv) co-operation, meaning that all parts ofthe correctional system (probation
service, gaols and prisons) should work
closely together in individual cases aswell as in general.
Due to a general shift in Swedish
criminal policy towards a pro-active andmore repressive model, increasingemphasis has been placed on security
during the late 1980s and the 1990s withthe result that the vicinity principle is now
obsolete. Recently, the aim of the prison
system has been officially described asfollows: “The correctional system’s
operations shall be characterized by ahumane attitude, good care of and active
influence upon the prisoner, observing ahigh degree of security as well as by due
deference to the prisoner’s integrity and todue process. Operations shall be directed
towards measures, which influence theprisoner not to commit further crimes. The
objective should be to promote andmaintain the humane treatment ofoffenders without jeopardizing security”(author’s translation). Or in the words of
the SPPS itself : “The Prison and Probation
Service has two main goals. To contributeto the reduction of criminality, and to work
to increase safety in society. To achievethese goals we work with sentenced
persons in order to improve their
possibilities of living a life withoutcommitting new crimes.”
4

Specific Aspects of theCorrectional System
4.1 Medical Treatment of Prisoners
All newly received inmates arequestioned about their state of health by
the admitting prison official. In the event

297

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57
of any health complaints, the prison official
sends them to a prison nurse. In 1998, a
total of 163 nurses were employed by the
Prison Service. Typically, all new inmatesare examined by a prison nurse within 24
hours of arrival. Any prisoner who isidentified as possibly having a serious
medical problem is then referred to aphysician for a closer examination and, if
necessary, any further referrals are made.
In the event that an inmate requires
specialized treatment, the treatment isobtained from outside medical services.
Inmates that require hospitalization aretransferred to an outside hospital for as
long as necessary.
Inmates are offered the opportunity tohave an HIV test performed upon entry
into the facility. Prisoners who are seropositive or who have the Aids virus may
request separation from other prisoners.
On April 1, 1998, 25 inmates were classified
as HIV-positive.
In 1998, three prisoners and sevenremand prisoners were reported to havecommitted suicide. In 1994 the European
Council’s Committee for the Prevention of
Torture and Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (CPT) criticized
Sweden for keeping remand prisoners
under excessive restrictions and inisolation.2 Recently, Parliament decided toease restrictions and that, as a rule,remand prisoners must be given theopportunity to stay with other remandprisoners.
4.2 Prison Labour
All inmates must participate inprogrammes activities in one form or
2

The Swedish Government had requested the
publication of this report and it is available fromthe CPT’s website (www.cpt.coe.fr/cpt/swe.htm). The CPT paid a new visit to Sweden in February
1998.

298

another. The programmes include‘conventional work’, education, specialized
rehabilitation or treatment programmes,
day releases for the pursuit of study orwork outside the prison during normal
business hours, internal service, that is,
kitchen duties, building and generalmaintenance, and finally, training ineveryday social skills, like how to dolaundry, maintain a clean living space,cooking, and planning a personal budget.
In 1998, work programmes comprised
about 47 percent of all programmes
activities, education formed 20 percent,service and maintenance programmes
comprised 15 percent, specialized rehabilitation and treatment programmes,
six percent, and other activities 12 percent.
The industrial prison work is
administrated by a special unit known as
KrimProd. This unit is responsible for
manufacturing operations within theprison system and also functions as asupplier to civilian companies or sells
various prison products directly to retailers
and wholesalers. KrimProd employs
modern managerial work ethic principles.
The employment fields traditionallyavailable to inmates are industry,
agriculture, horticulture, forestry,
construction and various service
occupations. Those inmates who areemployed in the conventional employment
sector receive a wage of about 1.20 US
Dollars per hour. Prisoners participatingin educational programmes are paid a
specific allowance of about 1 US Dollars
per hour.
4.3 Disciplinary and Security Measures
Unlike other countries, solitaryconfinement, as a formal disciplinary
punishment, is not used in the Swedishp r i s o n s y s t e m . H o w e v e r, s o l i t a r y
confinement can be resorted to under thosespecial circumstances (disturbing thegeneral order, being under the influence of

115TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
intoxicating substances, attempts toescape, investigations of breach of
discipline). In 1998, a total of 2,100 casesof solitary confinement were reported.
According to the law, amended on
January 1, 1999, there are two official
sanctions that prison officials may impose
upon a prisoner for violating prison rules,
although, serious violations whichconstitute a criminal offence, can bebrought before a court. The principal
sanction available for use by the prison
officials is a decision that up to 15 days of
release can be postponed. The second
sanction is a formal warning to theprisoner. In 1998, 3,700 warnings and1,600 cases of postponed release were filed.
The average number of days additionallyspent in prison amounted to 3.6 days.
Another informal, but documented
disciplinary measure is the use of a prisont r a n s f e r. I f a p r i s o n e r s e r i o u s l ymisbehaves, the prison officials may
transfer the unruly inmate to anotherprison. In 1998, the number of transfers
amounted to 330 cases. Despite theavailability of these sanctions, informal
discussions with the fractious prisoner are
the usual method of dealing with
infractions unless the infraction is of anespecially serious nature (Bishop, 1991).
The illegal use of drugs in prison orwhilst on furlough and escapes or
attempted escapes are the most common
reasons for imposing disciplinary measureson an inmate (Bishop, 1991). It should be
noted that escapes from prison or
attempted escapes are not viewed as acriminal offence in Sweden. Therefore, nofurther sanctions can be imposed on an
escapee other than the official disciplinary
sanctions. However, disciplinary problems
are not a priority issue in debates about
Swedish prisons. Nor is violence between
prisoners and prison employees, between

prisoners amongst themselves or prison
rapes a major issue. In 1998, a total of 241
employees, including staff of gaols andafter-care services, reported that they had
been subjected to threats or violence
perpetrated by inmates or clients.
Approximately 45 percent of the reports
referred to intentional violence, while 55
percent were reports of different forms of
threats. However, since 1993, at least four
prisoners were killed by other prisoners.
No prison killings had ever been reported
prior to 1993. All killings occurred in
maximum-security prisons.
4.4 Complaints procedures
The complaints procedures are laid downin the Prison Treatment Act (PTA) and thePrison Treatment Ordinance. In general,
the role of the courts is down played in the
Swedish system. Only decisions ofindividual cases, decided by the central
p r i s o n
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n(kriminalvårdsstyrelsen), can be sent on
appeal to the administrative court.
Statistical data on the number and natureof prisoners’ complaints and the outcomeof complaints are not available.
Like every other citizen, prisoners also
have the option to appeal to theombudsman. During the period 1 July
1997 to 30 June 1998, the ombudsman
concluded a total of 410 complaints in thefield of corrections, of which 32 cases led toadmonitions or criticism by theombudsman.
Inmates in Swedish prisons have theright, guaranteed by law, to meet anddiscuss issues of mutual interest and topresent their views to the warden of theprison. Prisoners can hold regularmeetings, unattended by the prison staff
to discuss the pertinent issues. Proposals
emanating from such inmate ‘community’
meetings are discussed with the warden bya specially elected council of inmates. The

299

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57
inmate council is elected by the otherinmates and represents them.
Swedish prisoners are entitled to votein the general elections.
4.5 Visits and Other Contacts with
the Outside World
From an international perspective, theSwedish prison policies regarding visits
and furloughs are quite liberal. Regularcontact with the outside world is officiallyviewed as an important component in thetreatment of the offender. Inmates are
granted furloughs, or short-term leave,
outside of the prison, on a regular basis.
The average length of a normal furlough isthree days. Special furloughs are also given
on a case by case basis. Before regularfurloughs are granted, inmates must ‘prove’themselves during various qualifying
periods. In 1998, 18,500 normal and 33,000
special furloughs were granted.
In 1998, it was reported that about 1.3
percent of normal furloughs and 0.2 percentof special furloughs had been abused.
‘Abused’ means that the specificstipulations of the individual furlough wereviolated such as drug or alcohol abuse while
on furlough or that the inmate did notreport back to the prison at the end of theperiod of leave, thereby constituting anescape from prison.
Visits may take place unattended by aprison officer. However, the visitor may besearched prior to the visit as is the inmate
after the visit is concluded, all in an effort
to squelch the importation of drugs andother unauthorized materials into theprison environment. If necessary, prison
officials and the police perform backgroundchecks on the visitors of inmates to assess
the security threat. In cases where it isbelieved that the character of the visitor is
doubtful, that is, he or she may attempt tosmuggle in contraband for the inmate,

300

visits are supervised by a prison officer.
Facilities for regular conjugal visits are also
made available for those prisoners who
have a partner. Another form of visit is
the regular visits paid by members oforganizations like the Red Cross, Amnesty
International, the Churches, and so on.
Special visiting apartments, in close
proximity to three of the prisons, areavailable to facilitate children’s contact
with their imprisoned parent.
4.6 Opening the PrisonsDue to the classification scheme of
Swedish prisons, that is, security
classifications I to IV, the only prisons thatare considered completely open are thecategory IV facilities. Policies regarding
frequency of furloughs are also more liberalin the open facilities than at the otherlevels. Provision for day-release are madefor prisoners in open prisons in order topursue outside employment, maintaintheir regular job, or pursue outside
educational activities. In 1998, about 640
such day-release cases were granted.
Furthermore, in about 17,000 cases,
inmates were allowed to participate invarious social activities outside the prison.
Another 670 inmates were placed intreatment facilities for drug abusers or in
foster homes.
4.7 Early Release
Inmates, who are serving a time-limited
sentence of more than 1 month areconditionally released when 2/3 of thesentence has been served. The length of
the test period, upon early release, isusually commensurate with the length ofthe original sentence, but of at least one
year. During the test period, theconditionally released person can be placed
under supervision. Prior to January 1,
1999, inmates with sentences of more than
2 years could be released after 1/2 of thesentence has been served. This possibility
is now abolished and the 2/3-rule applies.

115TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
5 Special Categories of Prisoners
5.1 Prisoners in Maximum Security
Section 7(3) of the Prison Treatment Act
states that any prisoner who is serving asentence of at least four years or serving asentence of at least two years for either anaggravated drug offence, any attempt at
conspiracy or aggravated drug smuggling,must serve the sentence in a closed,
maximum security national prison, if there
is reasonable cause to believe that theprisoner will attempt to escape before theminimum sentence is served. This sectionof the PTA was promulgated on 1 July 1988
after the escape of a Swedish spy who had
been sentenced to life imprisonment.
Usually, one-third of those prisoners towhom s. 7(3) applies are in fact placed in aclosed, maximum-security prison. On 1
October 1998 there were a total of 338‘Section 7(3) prisoners’. Half of them wereconvicted for drug offences.
Furthermore, s. 20 of the PTA provides
for the separation of prisoners in maximum
security. Section 20 states that a prisoner
may be separated from the general prison
population if: (a) the convicted person is
an imminent threat to national security;(b) if the inmate seriously disrupts thenormal order and general discipline within
the prison; (c ) if the inmate continues toengage in criminal activity and there isreason to believe that the inmate willattempt to escape; and (d) if it is necessary
to separate the inmate in order to prevent
criminal activities while in the prison
environment. This section of the PTA also
states that, if the duration of the separationfrom the general prison populace is likely
to be lengthy, the convict may be placed ina special maximum-security wing within
the prison.
A prisoner in a maximum-security
facility may be transferred to a minimumsecurity facility four months before the endof the sentence in order to facilitate

preparation for release into the community.
Inmates, who are serving time as s. 7(3)prisoners, are not afforded the same
regular furloughs as other prisoners.
Section 7(3) prisoners will only receive theirfirst furlough after one-quarter of theirsentence, or two years of their sentence,has been served, whichever comes first.
Special leave may also be granted to s. 7(3)prisoners at the discretion of the prison
authorities. Those prisoners who would
normally not be given a furlough, that is,serious offenders and ‘lifers’, are allowed,
what is known as a ‘breathing space’ leave.
This type of leave is very restrictive relative
to the normal three-day furlough. A
prisoner, who receives special leave of thiskind, is accompanied by two prison officers,
who are dressed in casual civilian clothes,for the entire duration of the leave. The
duration of this special leave is normallyfor four hours and can include various
activities such as a visit to a shopping mall,a meal in a restaurant or a walk through apark. Prisoners in maximum security areof necessity more strictly controlled thanthose serving time in medium or open
prisons, thereby inevitably reducing theamount of contact these prisoners havewith the outside world.
Section 7(3) has been criticized as being
unfair and was changed on 1 January 1999.
Currently, individualized decisions are
made for each case, spelling out exactly the
special conditions and restrictions of theprison term.
5.2 Long-Term Prisoners
Prisoners who are serving a sentence ofat least two years are considered long-term
prisoners in Sweden. A sentence of life canbe commuted, by a pardon, to a fixed termby the government. Once a life sentence iscommuted to a fixed term, the normal
provisions of conditional release apply tothe prisoner once he or she is released. The
average period of incarceration of301

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57
prisoners, who have been sentenced to life
imprisonment, is now above 12 years andthis period has increased during the last
decade. A sentence of life imprisonment is
imposed for murder and, in exceptional
cases, for high treason. In the last two
decades the number of life sentences has
steadily increased (despite a low and stablehomicide rate at about 1.2 killings per
100,000 population). Between 1988 and
1998, 77 ‘lifers’ were admitted to Swedish
prisons, of whom approximately one-third
were foreign citizens. The total number of‘lifers’ has increased from 24 on 1 October
1988 to 81 by 1 October 1998. The numberof prisoners, with a sentence of four years
or more, has also almost doubled. On 1
March 1989, there were 600 such prisoners
and by 1 October 1998 this amount hadrisen to 1,038.
5.3 Women Prisoners
As in most other countries, womenconstitute a small percentage of theSwedish prison population; in 1998 they
made up five percent. For a long time, theHinseberg prison was the only all-female
facility in the country. In 1989 and 1996,
two additional all-female prison wereopened, known as Färingsö (nearStockholm) and Ljustadalen in the northof the country. These prison were opened
in response to the growing number ofwomen prisoners, at the Hinseberg facility
which is some distance from the Stockholm
area, who were eligible to serve theirsentences in neighbourhood prisons. In
1997, Hinseberg could accommodate 115
prisoners, Färingsö about 30 and
Ljustadalen 20 prisoners. The remaining
prisoners were divided between different
neighbourhood facilities that accommodate
both men and women.
From an international perspective, of amixed-gender facility may seem odd and it
is, in fact, contrary to international
conventions. A study of women prisoners

302

in Sweden revealed, however, that the
majority of women prisoners preferred toserve time in a mixed facility; 56 percentof the respondents said they preferred
mixed-sex prisons, whilst 16 percent of the
respondents preferred women-only
facilities (Somander, 1994). However, from
1 January 1999, the system of mixedgender facilities was abolished. Currently,
a woman prisoner may only in exceptional
cases and only with her explicit consent beplaced together with male prisoners in thesame prison.
In 1998, the majority of female prisoners
were between 30 and 44 years of age. The
two most common crimes for which female
inmates had been convicted were theft anddrug offences.
Women prisoners are allowed to havetheir babies with them. In 1998, there were
13 such prisoners and the average timespent in prison was four months. All of thechildren were younger than two years ofage.
Prison sentences are usually shorter for
women than for men. In modern times, up
until 1996, no women have been sentenced
to life imprisonment. According to official
recidivism statistics, there is no differencein the recidivism rates of men and womenwith a prior criminal record. Dependingon the number of prior convictions, it isanticipated that between 45 and 90 percent
of prisoners, male and female, will bereconvicted3 within three years.
Corresponding recidivism rates for persons
who have been fined tend to vary between
20 and 80 percent. Seen from anotherperspective, more than half of the inmateshas prior prison experience (56 percent in1998).

3

Note, that the reconviction can refer to a minor
offence.

115TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
5.4 Juvenile Prisoners
In Sweden the age at which criminal
responsibility begins is 15 years. According
to law, juveniles below the age of 15 cannot
be punished; they are taken care of by thesocial authorities. Between the ages of 15
and 21, the age of the offender is taken into
special consideration for sentencing
purposes. Section 7, Chapter 29 of the
Criminal Code states that particularconsideration shall be given to theyouthfulness of the offender if an offence
has been committed before the age of 21.
It further states that no person under theage of 21 shall be given a sentence of life
imprisonment. In general, the Swedish
Welfare Service is the agency who is
responsible for dealing with juvenile
offenders and the guidelines for dealing
with such persons are laid down by theCare of Young Persons Act of 1990 and theSocial Welfare Act of 1980.
The most frequent criminal sanctions
against juveniles are fines, waivers ofprosecution and transfer to the social
authorities. In 1998, only 21 persons, aged
between 15 and 17 years, and 544 persons,aged between 18 and 20 years, were
imprisoned. Of the 15 to 17 year old
category, four boys were sentenced forviolence and eight for robbery. Fourteenboys had a prison sentence of up to 6
months and three boys were sentenced tomore than one year of imprisonment.
Special youth prisons were abolished in
1980. Instead, one entire prison and one
wing in another prison is set aside forjuvenile offenders.
On 1 January 1999, a new sanction
called closed youth care became operative.
This new sanction, which may be imposed
for a period between 14 days and four years
is intended to replace the relatively rareprison sentences for offenders who commit
serious crimes prior to their 18th birthday.

Such young offenders are now placed in ahome administered by the social
authorities.
5.5 Drug Addicts in Prison
In a European context, Sweden is known
for its repressive drug policy (Lenke andOhlson, 1998; Tham, 1998). The drug
policy is one of the major explanations forthe many changes of prison conditions andprison policies since the early 1980s. A
growing number of people have beensentenced to imprisonment for drug
offences, the lengths of sentences for drug
offences have increased and various
aspects of the prison regime have been
‘toughened’.
In 1998, almost one third of the prison
inmates were imprisoned for a drug offence.
This percentage includes cases where thedrug offence was not the principal offence.
The number of prisoners who have been
convicted of drug related offences is
unknown. It was also reported that 47
percent of all prison inmates were classified
as inmates with a history of drug addiction
and that the likelihood of the frequency of
drug addiction of the convicted person
increases relative to the length of thesentence. For instance, 59 percent of theinmates sentenced to two months or more
imprisonment were considered drug
abusers. Two-thirds of that percentage areinmates who are 30 years of age or older.
One of the official policy goals is to havedrug-free prisons. Drug use while in prison
is relatively rare in the category I prisons
but the incidence of drug use increases witheach more lenient prison classification.
Obviously, this is due to the tighter security
in the category I prisons and the gradualrelaxing of security measures in the otherclasses of prisons. Inmates are subjected
to frequent urine tests as well as room
searches. Even tracker dogs are used. In
1998, 81,000 urine tests and 66,000 cell303

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57
searches were reported. Positive urine
tests usually indicate the use of cannabis
and of amphetamines.
Other measures used in an effort toeliminate drug use within prison are thesearching of personal mail and visitors.
The prison service also collaborates withthe welfare service to identify and makecontact with the drug users in order tomotivate drug users to seek treatment. The
Standing Committee on Justice has
recently agreed with the Government’sview that seizures of narcotic drugs in theprisons and gaols are few in number andthat the majority of prisons seldom or never
have occasion to report the occurrence ofdrug abuse on their premises.
By law the prison system is not required
to provide comprehensive drug treatment
programmes. Rather, the prison system
works with other agencies and privateorganizations to arrange and provide drug
treatment programmes. On 1 October 1998
there were a total of 400 prison beds
especially reserved for the treatment ofdrug abusers. In other prisons, there areless structured programmes. In all, 45
percent of all inmates who were considered
to be drug abusers participated in someform of anti-drug programmes. About 130
prisoners were placed in drug treatment
programmes outside the prisons.
Finally, special ‘drug-free’ sectors havebeen set up within various prisonsthroughout the country. These are special
sectors within a prison that are officiallydesignated as being completely drug-free.
Inmates may request transfer to suchsectors only after signing a contract whichaffirms their desire to give up drugs and toremain drug-free while in the sector.
Special rehabilitation and coping
programmes are set up within these special
sectors in order for the inmate to realize
the drug-free goal.

304

In some cases, where the offence is drugrelated, the court may hand down asentence of contract treatment, which is aform of civil commitment, in lieu of a prison
term. This sentence is a probation orderwith a specific order to enroll in a drug
treatment and rehabilitation programmes.
In most cases, if this contract is broken,
the court will order the remainder of thesentence to be served in prison. In 1998,
959 contract treatment sentences wereordered by the courts, of which the vast
majority (69 percent) were handed down
to offenders between 30 and 59 years of age.
The high percentage of older offenders isdue to the fact, that, in Sweden, drug
addiction is not an unduly prevalent
phenomenon among younger people.
5.6 Foreign Nationals in Prison
In 1998, a total of 2,135 foreign
nationals, including non-residents, wereadmitted to prison which translates into
22 percent of the total number of people
admitted to prison in 1998. In relation totheir total percentage of the general
population in Sweden, foreign nationals areover-represented in the prison system aswell as in judicial statistics (von Hofer etal., 1997; Martens, 1997).
Foreign prisoners are placed among
Swedish prisoners. Special prisons orwings, exclusively dedicated to foreignprisoners do not exist. Approximately 15
percent of the foreign prisoners are usuallydeported from Sweden after having served
their prison sentence. For obvious reasons,foreign prisoners who are not permanent
residents in Sweden, are not granted
furloughs to the same extent as Swedish
prisoners are. International agreements
between Sweden and a number of countries
allow the execution of the prison sentencein the home country of the sentenced
person.

115TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
6

Conclusions
According to the description given above,
one could conclude that the Swedish prison
system is a system in balance. This is also
borne out by the fact that, during the 1990s,
Swedish mass media has not focussed on
the prisons, but on the police and othersectors of the criminal justice system. In
contrast with a number of other European
countries, the prison population in Sweden,
as well as in other Scandinavian countries,
has remained rather stable during last 30
years. In Sweden this was partly
accomplished by the introduction ofalternatives to imprisonment like civil
commitment (1988), community service(1990) and electronic monitoring (1994).
Especially electronic monitoring, which canreplace a prison sentence of up to threemonths, is considered to have saved prison
space (between 350 and 400 beds per year,
see Part III below). During the 1970s and1980s efforts were also made to shorten thetime spent in prisons (for example, shorter
sentences, deduction of time spent in gaol,
conditional release after one-half of theimposed prison sentence). In the 1990s,
however, this process has come to a
standstill. Periods of imprisonment appear
to be on the increase since prisoners withvery short sentences, such as drunk
drivers, are granted alternative sanctions
and prisoners, sentenced for serious crimes,
are receiving longer sentences. This
process of “bi-furcation” [Bottoms] has been
observed in many countries in recent years.
From a historical perspective, theSwedish prison system is, as are its
European counterparts, a rather young
institution. Its rise to prominence can bedated to the first half of the nineteenth
century. At that time, imprisonment was
substituted for the death penalty andcorporal punishment. Originally theprisons, with their roots in the earlymodern workhouses, functioned as an
assembly point for the poor, jobless andmarginalized populace. This function isstill very much alive today. According to a
recent level-of-living survey among
prisoners, only one-third of the interviewed
prisoners had been employed during the
12 months prior to their admission and only
half had had some work during the same
period. Almost all prisoners were in debt.
Tw e n t y - n i n e p e r c e n t h a d n oaccommodation of their own and 15 percentof these were totally homeless. About halfof the prisoners were living alone.
Nineteen percent reported alcohol
problems and 47 percent regular drug use.
Forty-nine percent reported psychologicalproblems and 38 percent suffered fromphysical ailments.
From a structural perspective, thedevelopment of (officially registered)criminality and the use of imprisonment(measured as daily prison population) are
seemingly two independent processes in
Sweden. Even if the data, shown in Figure
1a & 1b, is partially based on estimates, it
becomes clear that the Swedish prison
population has not been determined by thecourse of (known) criminality. Neither isit possible to apply the widely discussed
idea of the ‘stability of punishment’ to the
Swedish system (Blumstein, 1995).
Whether the fluctuating use of
imprisonment has influenced the course ofcrime, is more difficult to answer.
Obviously, prior to World War I there is no
relationship at all. The prison trend was
decreasing, whilst the offence rates
remained stable. After World War I, thepicture changed drastically with more orless stable prison trends, but soaring
offence rates. In the case of theft, which
determines the shape of the offence curveafter World War I, a comprehensive
analysis of the data’s secular trends andinterruption in trends has shown that theSwedish theft data lends very little support
to the deterrence hypothesis in a

305

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57
Figure 1a
Sweden: Number of prisoners (at year-end), 1841-1999.
Remand prisoners excluded. Rate per 100,000 of the population.
125

100

75

50

25

0
1840

1860

1880

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

Figure 1b
Sweden: Number of registered offences against the Criminal Code, 1866-1999.
Estimated figures 1866-1949. Rate per 100,000 of the population.
15000
12500
10000
7500
5000
2500
0
1840

1860

1880

1900

longitudinal perspective (von Hofer andTham, 1989); a result which reminds us of
the trivial fact that statistical co-variation
does not necessarily imply causality.
Selectected References in English
The Swedish Prison and Probation Service
maintains a website at www.kvv.se[Basic Facts 1997], Basic Facts About
Prison and Probation Service in Sweden.
Norrköping: Kriminalvårdsstyrelsen. [ASwedish government publication.]

306

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

Bishop, N. (1991). ‘Nyköping Closed
Neighbourhood Prison, Sweden’. In
Whitfield, D. (ed.). The State of the Prisons- 200 Years On. London, New York:
Routledge & Keagan Paul.
Bishop, N. (1995), ‘Intensive supervision
with electronic monitoring: a Swedish
alternative to imprisonment’. Penological
Information Bulletin: 8-10.
Blumstein, A. (1995). ‘Crime andPunishment in the United States Over 20
Years: A Failure of Deterrence and115TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
Incapacitation?’. In Wikström, P.O.H., R.V.
Clarke, R.V., and J. McCord (eds.).
Integrating Crime Prevention Strategies:
Propensity and Opportunity. Stockholm:
National Council for Crime Prevention.
[Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics
1997]. Kriminalstatistik 1997. Sveriges
officiella statistik. BRÅ-rapport 1998:3.
Stockholm: Brottsförebyggande rådet. [ASwedish Government publication.][Correctional Statistics 1997].
Kriminalvårdens Officiella Statistik 1997.
Norrköping: Kriminalvårdsstyrelsen. [ASwedish government publication.]

Lenke, L. and B. Olsson (1998). ‘Swedish
drug policy in perspective’. In Albrecht,
H.J., A. Kalmthout, and J. Derks (eds.).
Current and Future Drug Policies in
Europe. Problems, Prospects and Research
Methods. Freiburg: Max Planck Institutefor International and Comparative
Criminal Law.
Lundquist, A. (1990).
‘Recent
Developments in Swedish Criminal Policy’.
In Bishop, N. (ed.). Scandinavian Criminal
Policy & Criminology 1985 90. Stockholm:
Scandinavian Research Council for
Criminology.

Hofer, H. von and H. Tham (1989).
‘General deterrence in a longitudinal
perspective. A Swedish case: Theft, 18411985’. European Sociological Review: 2545.

Martens, P.L. (1997). ‘Immigrants, Crime,
and Criminal Justice in Sweden’. In Tonry,
M . ( e d . ) . E t h n i c i t y, C r i m e , a n d
Immigration. Comparative and CrossNational Perspectives. Crime and Justice.
A Review of Research. Chicago, London:
The University of Chicago Press.

Hofer, H. von, J. Sarnecki, and H. Tham(1997). ‘Minorities, Crime, and Criminal
Justice in Sweden’. In Haen Marshall, I.
(ed.). Minorities, Migrants, and Crime.
Diversity and Similarity Across Europe andthe United States. Thousands Oaks,
London, New Dehli: Sage Publications.

Svensson, B. (1995). Criminal Justice
Systems in Sweden. BRÅ-report 1995:1.
Stockholm: National Council for Crime
Prevention. [A Swedish government
publication.]

Jareborg, N. (1995). ‘What Kind of
C r i m i n a l L a w D o We Wa n t ? ’ .
Scandinavian Studies in Criminology: 1736.

Somander, Lis (1993), Women Prisoners.
Research paper No. 4. Norrköping:
Swedish Prison and Probation
Administration. [A Swedish government
publication.]

Kriminalvården (no date), The Link to alife free of crime. Norrköping: The Prisonand Probation Administration. [A Swedish
government publication.]

Tham, H. (1995). ‘From Treatment to Just
Deserts in a Changing Welfare State’.
Scandinavian Studies in Criminology: 89122.

Leander, K. (1995). ‘The Normalization of
Swedish Prisons’. In Ruggiero, V., M.
Ryan, and J. Sim (eds.). Western European
Penal Systems. A Critical Anatomy.
Thousands Oaks, London, New Dehli: Sage
Publications.

Tham, H. (1998). ‘Swedish Drug Policy A Successful Model?’. European Journal
on Criminal Policy and Research: 395-414.
Wikstrom, P.O.H. and L. Dolmen (1998).
World Factbook of Criminal Justice
Systems: Sweden. [Internet:

307

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57
w w w. o j p . u s d o j . g o v / b j s / p u b / a s c i i /wfbcjswe.txt].
III. ELECTRONIC MONITORING
OF OFFENDERS IN SWEDEN
Since 1994, Swedish authorities have
had the power to use electronic monitoringof sentenced offenders. On a trial basis,
electronic monitoring was first introducedin six court districts and the experiment
was subsequently extended (1997) to cover
the entire country. Since January 1st, 1999
it has been a standard tool under the
Swedish penal system.
1

Background
The political initiative to introduce
electronic monitoring was instigated in
1993 by the then Conservative Minister ofJustice. Although this introduction had
long been debated among experts andunder the previous Social Democrat
government, it had ultimately been
rejected. However the impetus behind thetrial’s extension in 1997 and the final
establishment of the policy came from theSocial Democrat government.
In Sweden there is no political dissent
over the issue of electronic monitoring.
Political parties to both right and left, as
well as the Swedish Green party, viewelectronic monitoring positively. The sameis true of the press. Hearings were held,
as is normal in Sweden, prior to the initial
trial introduction in 1993, and only the
Swedish Data Inspection Board voiced
objections in principle, in part because
electronic monitoring was held to be apreviously unknown intrusion into theprivate domestic sphere. The fact thatarguments based on the integrity of theperson carry somewhat less political weightin Sweden than in other European
countries may in part be due to historicalcircumstances specific to Sweden. The
country has never been occupied by

308

external forces in modern times, and it has
not played an active part in wars since thebeginning of the 19th century. Sweden is
not prone to violent political upheavals andthere is no tradition of radical citizens
insisting upon civil rights. State abuse of
power has little direct relevance as apolitical argument in Sweden.
During the advance work on the firstlaw, the Justice Ministry in charge madeexpress reference to positive experiencesfrom the United States. There was noevidence to the contrary from a European
perspective. The introduction of electronicmonitoring was justified with the following
principle arguments. There was a generalconsensus that periods in prison tend tohave damaging consequences for convicted
offenders, and therefore that the use of
imprisonment ought to be restricted.
Electronic monitoring was felt to allow a
restriction of the offender’s freedom of
movement that closely approximates toimprisonment, thus presenting a suitable
alternative to (short) prison sentences.
Another point in favour of electronicmonitoring was the cost-saving element. It
was not believed that electronic monitoring
harmed the integrity of the person any
more than a full prison sentence.
T h e S w e d i s h p a r l i a m e n t ’s l e g a lcommittee put forward no objections andthe law was passed unanimously inprinciple. The same applied to the later
amendments. The only point of contention
was whether a prison sentence of two, threeor six months should be the upper limit
qualifying for the use of electronicmonitoring.
2

Legal Rulings(Lag (1994:451) om intensivövervakning
med elektronisk kontroll [Law on intensive
supervision by means of electronicmonitoring])

115TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
It is central to the way that electronicmonitoring is framed in Swedish law thatit does not stand as a sentence in its own
right, but is formulated as a special
implementation of prison sentencing. This
construction is to be understood in termsof the Swedish tradition since the penal
code came into force in 1946, whereby thepunitive element of sentencing wasrestricted solely to the withdrawal of
personal freedom of movement, in place ofother forms of punishment. Approachedfrom this perspective, electronic monitoring
can be understood as withdrawal of
freedom of movement - provided that it is
implemented in such a way as toapproximate to a term in an open prison.
Under the law currently in force, prison
sentences of up to three months can beserved at home under electronic monitoring
instead of in a penal institution. It is not
the court of law but the regionalcorrectional authorities that make thisdecision, in response to an application fromthe convicted offender. If this applicationis refused, offenders can appeal to theadministrative court for a review of thedecision.
The duration of electronic monitoringcorresponds exactly to the length of theprison sentence imposed by the court. The
core of the ruling is § 3 of the law.
Permission to serve the sentence outside a
prison is conditional upon a ban on leaving
one’s home except at specifically statedtimes and for specifically stated purposessuch as paid work, training, medical
treatment, shopping for essentials etc.
Adherence to these regulations ismonitored using electronic equipment. The
person being monitored must refrain fromconsuming alcohol and other drugs
including banned stimulants (§ 4).
Furthermore, assuming the person has anincome during the sentence, a daily fee ofup to 50 Swedish crowns (SEK) is levied,

up to a maximum of 3,000 SEK(approximately 350 USD). The fee ispayable in advance and is directed to thestate crime victims’ fund (§ 5).
In practice, electronic monitoring isorganized as follows: The local state
probation service (part of the Swedish
Prison and Probation Service) conducts aninvestigation of the personal and social
circumstances of the convicted person. The
person must live in appropriate
accommodation with a telephone
connection. They must also have a placeof employment or training, although evenvoluntary work for an organisation or
church group is sufficient. It is a central
prerequisite for the monitored person tohave some form of employment since the
Swedish legislature is expressly against
turning electronic monitoring into a formof house arrest. The agreement of other
adults living in the person’s householdmust also be secured. The person being
monitored makes a commitment to adhere
to the monitoring schedule drawn up andthe conditions imposed therein. All
participants in the monitoring programmemust normally take part in what is known
as a “motivation course” operated by theprobation service to address theconsequences of the crime committed, anddiscuss ethical issues, alcohol and drug use
and conflict management.
Besides the electronic monitoring theperson is also subject to repeatedunannounced personal visits (which may
also take place in the evenings or at
weekends). Supervision also includes tests
for alcohol using automatic breath testing
kits, which transmit results directly down
the telephone line. Urine tests and otherdirect drug tests are also administered.
Electronic monitoring takes place
according to the “active system” (for details,
see Haverkamp, 1998) whereby the person
being monitored wears a transmitter on the309

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57
leg and the signals it constantly emits aretransmitted to the computer in themonitoring centre.
3

Empirical Data
During the trial period, electronicmonitoring has been systematicallyevaluated (most recently in BRÅ [1999]
with English summary). There follows abrief summary of key empirical findings.
In 1998 a total of 3,930 persons were
subject to electronic monitoring, of whom
(in line with expectations) six percent were
women. The majority of them wereconvicted for drink driving (53 percent).
Assault was the principle offence in 21
percent of cases, and property offences, thethird highest category, accounted for eightpercent. In seven out of ten cases, the termof imprisonment was one month or less. In
barely ten percent of cases it exceeded twomonths (in which case - as for normal
prison sentences - release on parole is likely
after two months). One quarter of those
who might legally have been considered forelectronic monitoring did not in fact apply
for it. Some 15 percent of applications wererefused, and around 4,000 people were
finally monitored. The average age of thosemonitored was in the range 31-40 years.
Tw o t h i r d s o f t h e m h a d p r e v i o u sconvictions and somewhat fewer than half
had previously served terms ofimprisonment. In 1998 there were just 200
cases where monitoring had to beterminated prematurely. The principal
cause was - typically for Sweden - violationof the ban on alcohol consumption. The
reoffending rate was studied in the years
1994-95. This revealed that theelectronically monitored offenders were no
more or less likely to reoffend than thecontrol group. After three years, 26 percentof the monitored persons were known tohave reoffended; in the control group thecorresponding rate was 28 percent.

Around two thirds of those monitored
were living with a partner in a joint
household. Twenty percent had children
under the age of eighteen. More than 90
percent of those monitored and over 80
percent of their partners stated that theywould prefer electronic monitoring to a
prison term if faced with the same choiceagain in future. Even the quarter of thosesurveyed who said that they often or nearly
always found it “unpleasant” to wear theelectronic “foot shackle” gave this same
response. The majority of those monitored
viewed electronic monitoring as a lesssevere punishment than a prison term, as
did their partners.
The probation officers interviewed weregenerally very positive about electronicmonitoring but wished for improvements
to the technology and better workplacesupervision of those being monitored.
The cost savings for the year 1997 depending on the method of calculation were put at between 70 and 140 million
SEK (approximately 8 and 16 million
USD). In that year around 3,800 offenders
had been monitored which corresponds tosome 390 prison places in the year as awhole. Furthermore, certain economic
benefits accrue since the person undergoing
electronic monitoring continues in paid
employment. In general it should be notedthat the cost of a prison place in Sweden(and Scandinavia) is high in comparison toother countries (Council of Europe, 1999).
For example, the cost per day of a place inan open prison was put at 150-185 USD
for the years 1997/98.
The evaluation also revealed that only
about half of those being monitored had
paid the daily fee of 50 SEK. In total thevictims’ fund benefited to the tune of some
350,000 USD in 1997.
On its current scale (approximately

310

115TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
4,000 persons), electronic monitoring
contributes to an annual reduction of theSwedish prison population by between 350
and 400 places.
Two points of criticism were particularly
highlighted in the evaluation mentioned
above (BRÅ, 1999). Firstly, supervision in
the workplace was inadequate - partly fortechnical reasons (the electronicmonitoring is inoperative during working
hours), partly for other reasons: the contact
persons in the workplace do not necessarily
report every infringement of the rules tothe penal authorities. The evaluation
study was critical that the principle ofequality had not been observed. The rulesof electronic monitoring were deemed tohave been applied differently from region
to region. For example, the unannounced
monitoring visits varied between the
different districts from 1.8 to 4.4 visits aweek.
The judiciary criticised the fact that the
final decision on whether to impose
electronic monitoring fell to thecorrectional authorities and not to thecourt. Electronic monitoring was not, in
their view, a special form of executing aprison sentence but a standard
punishment. In its statement, the Justice
Ministry stood by the current solution above all out of practical considerations but left the door open for an amendment
to the law.
4

Further Extensions
As indicated in the introduction,
electronic monitoring is not a politicallydisputed issue in Sweden. Hence it is no
surprise that a range of ideas and proposals
have been put forward for extending
electronic monitoring - in some cases
beyond the confines of criminal law. The
following proposals are under discussion in
Sweden.

Extension to early release
According to the American model,
applications of electronic monitoring canbe categorised by the “front door” and “backdoor” principle. Electronic monitoring
serves on the one hand to curb entries into
prison (the principle currently adhered toin Sweden) and/or to increase releases fromprison. The “back door” principle thus
entails that part of the prison term isserved as a remainder period outside theprison, under electronic monitoring.
Electronic monitoring of prison leave
The Swedish penal system has long
made use of a broadly drawn prison leavesystem. On condition that a positive costbenefit analysis is produced, many are infavour of electronic monitoring but theirmotives are diverse. On the one hand, theleave granted to date can be bettersupervised; on the other hand, certain
categories of prisoner who were previously
unable to benefit from leave, or could do soonly under great restrictions, can be given
the opportunity to interrupt theirsentences.
As an alternative to imprisonment on remand
Electronic monitoring is also
recommended as an alternative to
imprisonment on remand so long as there
is no danger of concealment, and there is
felt to be little risk of the offender ’s
absconding.
As a measure against persons (i.e. men)
who breach the terms of an injunction
In Sweden it has been permissible since1988 for the prosecution service to prohibit
a person for a limited period of time fromvisiting certain other persons, making
contact with them or following them,insofar as it is likely that this person willcommit crimes against the other person orharass them in any way. In the Swedish
J u s t i c e M i n i s t r y, t h e l e g a l a n dorganisational basis is currently being

311

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57
examined for the commencement ofelectronic monitoring of those who haverepeatedly violated injunctions. According
to investigations by the Swedish Crime
Prevention Council this would betechnically possible.
5

The Past and the Future
I would like to conclude this summaryof Swedish experiences of electronicmonitoring with a few speculative
thoughts. In many ways the introductionof electronic monitoring in Sweden isreminiscent of the introduction of
imprisonment during the first half of the
19th century. Both periods can beunderstood as times of radical societal
change. At that time the industrial age wasdawning; today it is the electronic age. The
prison as a “spatial” form of control overconvicts was something fundamentallynew, just as electronic monitoring is today.
Both are the expression of previously
unknown technical innovations. Prison
then and electronic monitoring now havenot been issues surrounded by politicaldissent (unlike specific implementations
such as the Auburn and Philadelphia
systems). What prison has in common withelectronic monitoring is that they
incorporate both a progressive and a
repressive potential. The prisons werewelcomed and promoted by philanthropists
as a humane alternative to corporalpunishment, among other things. Long
sentences and harsh penal measures(including isolation and beatings) wereused to appease doubting hard liners.
Electronic monitoring is prized today as asuperior alternative to short prison
sentences but can equally be used to step
up repression. The introduction of prisonscame at a time when new forms of formalsocial control were being developed. In thefirst half of the 19th century organizedpolice forces came into being, institutional
reforms were undertaken and state
education was extended, to name but a few

312

aspects. Modern developments in recent
decades have been characterised by rapid
progress of compulsory pre-trial measures,and Sweden is not alone in this. In parallel,a general breakthrough has been noted in
non-penal areas with strategies formonitoring and recording generalsegments of the population - in private andin public - for instance, via camera andtelevision monitoring, (electronic) records,
user profiles, GPS systems and DNA
techniques (see Wright, 1998).
Modern technology has brought about
the possibility of comprehensive
supervision of the individual citizen. In
drastic terms, the electronic tagging of
livestock is already a reality, and similarregistration of citizens now only remains aquestion of political desirability. How longthe introductory phase will last, and how
all-embracing the ultimate result will be
are questions that cannot yet be answered.
However, electronic monitoring - in one
form or another - will be a ubiquitous
phenomenon in a few generations’ time,
exactly as prisons once became and still
remain; this, to me, seems a near certainty.
SELECTED REFERENCES
Bishop, Norman (1995), “Intensive
supervision with electronic monitoring: a
Swedish alternative to imprisonment”.
Penological Information Bulletin. Nos. 19
and 20 - December 1994-1995, pp. 8-10.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
BRÅ (1999), Intensivövervakning med
elektronisk kontroll. En utvärdering av
1997 och 1998 års riksomfattande
försöksverksamhet. BrÅ-Rapport 1994:4.
Stockholm: Brottsförebyggande rådet/Fritze. [With English summary]Council of Europe (1999), Rapport finaled’activité. Conseil de coopération
pénologique. CDCP (99) 18 Addendum I.
Strasbourg: Conseil de l’Europe.

115TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
Haverkamp, Rita (1998), “‘Electronic
Monitoring’. Die elektronischeÜberwachung von Straffälligen”.
Bürgerrechte & Polizei/CILIP 60 (2/98).
[http://infolinks.de/cilip/ausgabe/60/
elekhaus.htm]
Haverkamp, Rita (1999),“Intensivüberwachung mit elektornischer
Kontrolle - Das schwedische Modell, seine
Bedingungen und Ergebnisse”.
Bewährungshilfe, Jhrg. 46 (1), S. 51-67.
Wright, Steve (1998), An Appraisal ofTechnologies of Political Control. Working
document. Scientific and Technolocial
Options Assessment, STOA. Directorate
General for Research. PE 166 499.
European Parliament.
[http://
cryptome.org/stoa-atcp.htm]

313