![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
In the early twentieth century, European criminal justice systems started to discuss new security measures for dealing with persistent habitual criminals and mentally disordered offenders. New preventive institutions were established in the Nordics in the shift of the 1920–1930s. Indeterminate confinement came to cover both persistent property offenders, and repeat serious violent and sexual offenders. The success of these measures and the effectiveness of institutional treatment more generally, came to be questioned in the Nordic countries in the 1960s and 1970s. Disappointment about treatment effectiveness, combined with increased stress on legal safeguards, predictability and proportionality in the administration of criminal justice, undermined professional support for indeterminate sanctions and compulsory care. The use of preventive detention was either restricted, as in Denmark and Norway, or abolished altogether, as in Finland and Sweden. However, there were other arrangements in the latter countries, which partly served the same purpose.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 J Hamel, ‘International Union of Criminal Law’ (1912) Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 22.
2 T Lappi-Seppälä, ‘Life Imprisonment and Related Institutions in the Nordic Countries’ in D van Zyle Smti and C. Appleton(eds), Life Imprisonment and Human Rights (Hart Publishing) 465–505.
3 Statens offentliga utredningar (SOU), ‘Skyddslag. Statens offentliga utredningar’ (Committee Report no 55, Statens offentliga utredningar,1956).
4 Greve, V., Straffene (2nd edn, Jurist-og Økonomforbundets Forlag 2002).
5 T Lappi-Seppälä, ‘Nordic Youth Justice: Juvenile Sanctions in Four Nordic Countries’ in M Tonry and T Lappi-Seppälä (eds), Crime and Justice in Scandinavia: A Review of Research (vol. 40, University of Chicago Press, 2011).
6 T Lappi-Seppälä, ‘Nordic Sentencing’ in M Tonry (ed), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research (vol. 45, University of Chicago Press, 2016).
7 See European Prison Rules 2006, s 5.
8 Torsten Eriksson, Kriminalvård Idéer och experiment (Thule, 1967); I Anttila, ‘Incarceration for Crimes Never Committed’ Report of the National Research Institute of Legal Policy no. 9 (National Research Institute of Legal Policy 1975).
9 T Lapi-Sepällä and M Lehti, ‘Cross-Comparative Perspectives on Global Homicide Trends’ in M Tonry (ed), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research (vol. 43,University of Chicago Press 2015).
10 Straffelovrådet, ‘Betænkning om de strafferetlige særforanstaltninger’ (Betænkning nr 667, Straffelovrådet 1972) 309.
11 See also .
12 J Andenaes, M Matningsdal, and G Rieber-Moghn, Alminnelig strafferett (5th edn, Universitetforlaget 2004) 499.
13 Justis- og politidepartementet, Om kriminalpolitiken (Justis- og politidepartementet 1978) 123.
14 Ot.prp. nr. 62 (Om lov om endringer i straffeloven mm., 1980–1981), 31–32.
15 ibid.
16 B Johnsen, ‘Forvaring – fra saerreaksjon og “straff” til lovens strengeste straff: Ett skritt frem eller tilbake?’ (2011) Nordisk Tidskrift for Kriminalvidenskab 2.
17 Both the old and the new Code define forvaring as a criminal punishment (while the old Code listed forvaring together with other ‘special measures’). See Johnsen (n 16) 3–5.
18 Norwegian Criminal Code, s 40.
19 B Johnsen and H Engbo, ‘Forvaring i Norge, Danmark og Grönland – noen likheter og ulikheter’ (2015) Nordisk Tidskrift for Kriminalvidenskap 175.
20 Kriminalomsorgen ‘Preventive Detention’ (Factsheet, 20 February 2016) <http://www.kriminalomsorgen.no/publikasjoner.242465.no.html> accessed 11 March 2016.
21 European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, ‘Report to the Government of Denmark on the visit to Denmark carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 11 to 20 February 2008’ (CPT/Inf, 2008) 61.
22 The Committee also criticised the possibility of placing minors between 15 and 18 years of age in preventive detention and recommended restricting this possibility to exceptional and extraordinary cases according to specific and strict criteria defined by law. As noted above, this restriction was implemented by the law reform of 2015. See ‘UN Committee against Torture’ (2012) para 9.
23 V Greve,J Asbjorn,. and N Toftegaard, Kommentaret straffelov (8th edn, Kobenhavn, Jurist- og Okonomsforbundets Forlag 2005) 327.
24 In addition, there were 19 offenders from Greenland placed under forvaring. See Anstalten ved Herstedverster, ‘Fakta om indsatte’ (2012) <http://www.anstaltenvedherstedvester.dk/Fakta-om-indsatte-2329.aspx> accessed 11 March 2016.
25 See CPT (n 21) 78.
26 Ibid.
27 M Tolvanen, A Keski-Valkama, T Koskela, J Pajuoja, M Rautanen, J Tiihonen, S Tyni, M Törölä, and E Eskelinen, Vaarallisuuden ja väkivaltariskin arvioiminen (VNK 2021)70.
28 For enforcement practices, see ST Lappi-Seppälä, ‘Prisoner resettlement in Finland’ in F Dünkel, I Pruin, A Storgaard, and J Weber (eds.), Prisoner resettlement in Europe (Routledge 2018).
29 Lappi-Seppälä (n 2).
30 Tolvanen (n 27).
31 R Lahti, ‘Life Imprisonment and Other Long-Term Sentences in the Finnish Criminal Justice System: Fluctuations in Penal Policy’ in Khalid Ghanayim and Yuval Shany (eds), The Quest for Core Values in the Application of Legal Norms. Essays in Honor of Mordechai Kremnitzer (Cham 2021) 215; M Tonry, ‘Predictions of Dangerousness in Sentencing’ in M Tonry (ed) American Sentencing What happens and why? Crime and Justice (vol. 48, University of Chicago Press 2019) 473.