"A restorative criminal justice system focuses on the rehabilitation
of offenders through reconciliation with victims and the community
at large. This forms the base of the Norwegian criminal justice
system. Norwegians view their penal system in terms of
rehabilitation (rather than retribution), following the notion that
the closer you are to the society you are going back to, the less
challenging it will be to re-integrate upon release.
In Norway, the level of crime is relatively low when compared to the
U.S., The Bureau of Diplomatic Security (OSAC) reported. The number
of people spending time in prison is also low with 3,679 people in
prison as of January 1, 2016, or 70 people in prison per 100,000. In
2014, the U.S. had 2,217,947, or 693 people in prison per 100,000,
which is the highest rank in the world. Another difference between
Norway and the U.S. lies in the rates of recidivism, where Norway
comes out on top with a 20% recidivism rate. Earlier this year, the
U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) came out with a comprehensive
study stating that of the U.S. offenders released in 2005, 49.3%
were rearrested within the follow-up period of eight years. In a
jaw-dropping comparison, offenders released from U.S. state prison
in 2005 had a 76.6% recidivism rate where re-arrest took place
within five years (USSC). Why is there such a stark difference
between recidivism rates in Norway and the U.S.? This has a lot to
do with Norway’s comprehensive Restorative
Justice system.
In Norway’s restorative approach, removing someone’s liberty is
punishment enough, which is evident when looking at Norwegian
sentencing. Over 89% of Norwegian jail sentences are shorter than a
year. Comparatively, “in U.S. federal prisons, longer sentences are
much more common, with fewer than 2% serving a year or less,
according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons” (CNN). The maximum
sentence a person can get in Norway is 21 years with the exception
of genocide and war crimes, in which case one can be sentenced to a
maximum of 30 years. Previously, lifetime sentences were used for
grave crimes such as rape, murder, and treason, but these were
abolished in 1981. However, if there is a clear risk for recurrence
in a serious criminal case, an indefinite sentence of detention can
be imposed every five years.
Prison life in Norway may sound very pleasant and luxurious, yet
this is not a product of naïveté. It is meant to prepare inmates for
“difficult or painful internal reformation” (The Atlantic).
Imprisonment is a way of treating people for the social or
psychological issues that led them to commit crimes.
Many have studied the Norwegian system and findings have shown that
restorative justice works. Restorative justice systems have been
successful in reducing the cost of imprisoning criminals, reducing
recidivism rates, and reducing crime. When the point is not to
punish, but rather to help a person become a productive and
contributing member of society, the Norwegian system is a great
example of how restorative justice can be used in practice."
"In response to this work the Texas legislature adopted, and the governor approved, a budget that included greater treatment capacity in the prison system and the expansion of diversion options in the probation and parole system. A total of 4,500 new diversion beds and 5,200 new program slots were funded. The final budget adopted by the legislature for the 2008–2009 biennium reflected an increase of $241 million in funding for additional diversion and treatment capacity. The expansion of these programs translated into a net savings of $443.9 million in the FY 2008–09 budget by reducing funding for contracted bed space and canceling funding for the construction of the new prison units originally proposed. The initiative has stabilized the growth of the Texas prison population. The increase in treatment capacity and intermediate sanction facilities funded by the initiative has helped to increase the number of people on probation connected to services and reduce the number revoked to prison. Looking at where Texas is today in the management of its state correctional policies in comparison to California, “be more like Texas” may not be a bad thing. Unlike in California, the actions of Texas policy makers has maintained the prison system operating within capacity, and, more importantly, has led to major strengthening in the treatment and community corrections system that should serve the state well in the future in terms of reducing correctional costs and improving public safety outcomes."
A report prepared by the Justice Center for the National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons titled
Improving
Responses to People with Mental Illnesses: The Essential Elements of Specialized Probation Initiatives (Octidentified the below 10 key components found in successful initiatives to improve outcomes for people with mental illnesses under probation supervision with specific recommendations to probation and mental health policymakers and practitioners for effectively responding to the U.S. population’s complex treatment and service needs while seeking to improve public safety and health.
1 | Collaborative Planning
and Administration
2 | Defining, Identifying,
and Assessing a Target Population
3 | Designing the
Initiative and Matching Individuals to Supervision and Treatment Options
4 | Setting Conditions of
Community Supervision
5 | Developing an
Individualized Case Plan
6 | Providing or Linking to
Treatment and Services
7 | Supporting Adherence to
Conditions of Community Supervision and Case Plans
8 | Providing Specialized
Training and Cross-training
9 | Sharing Information and
Maintaining Confidentiality
10 | Conducting Evaluations and Ensuring
Sustainability
SOCIETY’S RESPONSE TO THE VIOLENT OFFENDER
-
Australian Institute of Criminology (First published in 1989, subsequently
updated) explains from page 21 that options/treatments
to "REHABILITATE "
violent criminals is an exceedingly complex issue
which has to be tailored according to the plethora of factors that
influenced the particular crime. These "exceedingly complex issues"
to "REHABILITATE "
violent criminals is an argument for re-introducing Capital Punishment for
Sadistic, Brutal, Premeditated, Unprovoked Murderers.
"Comparing the costs and
savings for these two cohorts showed that, in the short-term, the imprisonment
cohort incurred costs to the offender, government and wider community that were
more than nine times those for the community cohort (Figure 4)."6
