.( ..

..... ,

,I

" I

1 -- ---

National Criminal Justice Reference Service

nqrs This microfiche was produced from documents received for inclusion in the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercise control over the physical condition of the documents submitted, the individual frame quality will vary. The resolution chart on this frame may be used to evaluate the document quality.

\\\\\ ~ l:.i 1~112.8 \\\\\2.5 I~ ==== I~ i~~ .2 w. I.:.l ~ ~

\\\\\~ :i I~ Co ~ UfLll.U.

\\\\\~ \\\\\~ tllll 1.6

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANOAROS-1963-A

Microfilming procedures used to create this fiche comply with the standards set forth in 41CFR 101-11.504.

Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author(s) and do not represent the official position or policies of the U. S. Depaliment of Justice.

National Institute of Justice United States Department of Justicle Washington, D. C. 20531

, ,;t'

,,~1~_"''''''';''-~-''''' ,~..J~'l~,:t;,..""~-'~-"'""'.-.- ;""",,-:::5_, '~"';~';";;;;::;;:::";';''''"' __ ~:;~'t."~~;:z; ,,' ,,:;:;::::;;;:~-~,;-.. -,,-"-,:" .. , . ,"

AN ADVISORY GROUP TO THE

~ORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

NORWAY

Background Report No. 2

of the

Strategic Planning Committee

/I1f-1

~ovember, 1980

1+ Correctional Service Canada

Service correction,.nel Canada

If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.

r

L fj

[

[

c· [1

[' -----r

f}

T----~

U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice

This document .has been reproduced exactly as received from the fne~~?n ~r organization originating It. Points of view or opinions stated

IS ocument are those of the authors and do nol necessaril ~:~~~~nt the official position or pOlicies of the National Institute It

PermisSion to reproduce this ~ material has b granted by een

John Rama Canadian Correctl0naI Service

to the NaJional Criminal JUstice Reference Service (NCJRS).

F.urthefrthreprodu~lion outside of the NCJRS system requires permis-sion 0 e ~ OWner.

f. ,. THE CIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

NORWAY

A Background Report No. 2

of the

Strategic Planning Committee

_ v'

---- ~ --~---- --~ ------ --~--~-----

We are grateful to Prof~ssor J. Andenaes,

Rector, University of Oslo, Norway,

for his critical comments on this report.

1

.'

,

, .

[

(

[-

[

c r~ f.' L

r .~ f! U (:.:. !

q .U

~ fi' f·~ U , I

;.~ n . . ~~

I

II

III

IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

A) Philosophy

B) Administration

C) operations

D) Sentencing

E} Sanctions

F) Trends

CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM

A) Philosophy

B) Policy

C) Adminis·tra·tion

D) Conditions

E) operations

F) Evaluation

G) Trends

CONCLUSION ON SYSTEM'S OPERATION

APPENDICES

A) statistics

B) External Factors

C) organizational Charts

D) Reform Proposals

E) Update

, , <

/

tJ

[j {.'] tJ

. .~

I CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

A) Philosophy

- presently there is a shifting toward Scandanavian neo-classical premise of law, with emphasis on the control aspects. Depenalization considered a policy choice.

B) Administration

- Investigating Police and Prosecution under the same administrative agency (State Director of Public Pro­secution); Chiefs of Police, all legally trained, part of the Public Prosecution Authorities; Ministry of Justice responsible for correctional operations;

- courts independent.

C) Operations

- wide police and prosecution discretion; - prosecutional waiver of charge or withdrawal of pro-

cee~ings operative (veto at higher levels possible); pollce proceed on misdemeanors; state prosecutors proceed on all other crimes except treason/serious offences, which are dealt with by State Director of Prosecution;

- apprehended suspect must appear before court within twenty-four hours; lower courts handle cases where maximum punishment is 5 years or less, lay judges utilized;

- Jury courts handle cases where maximum punishment is greater than 5 years imprisonment;

- bail system operative, but rarely used; if offence is punishable by less than 6 months impri­sonment, accused must be released pending trial; criminal code - divided into crimes and misdemeanors· . ' - ~he q~estlon of intent - 'guilty mind' - relevant; lnsanlty plea - operative;

- judge sets maximum remand time (usually 3-4 weeks); - appeal of sentence length possible.

D) Sentencing

age of criminal responsibility is 14; - offender between 14 - 18 years old usually transferred

by the Prosecution to the Child Welfare Boards; - CaPt tal punishment ~bolished 1902;

Capltal punishment under military code abolished 1979;

... /2 f

:; r L; fj r • ~l

c E)

fJ r: r 0

" . '.

'~, [!

[i i

r )--' ~J i( ,

[l , . f,

" U o ~;

fl ( ;;.J

l.~ (I ~ -1 ' 1 t ,

I

~1 , ,

'i .t

0 't' il

..

__ -__ 44li;~. -,

I>,.

.y I ... I,

- 2 -

- maximum sentence set; minimums set for certain offen­ces;

- statute of limitations applicable for all crimes (range 1 - 25 years);

- judge must set maximum on preventive detention senten­ce (usually 5 years).

Sanctions

i) fines

- no maximum or minimum defined in statutes; - based on gravity of offence and offenders ability

to pay; imprisonment for non-payment (1 day - 3 months) .

ii) suspended sentence

- similar to probation; - conditions stipulated by judge; - with/without supervision;

sometimes imposed with a fine.

iii) loss of rights

judge may impose residence restrictions; forbid offender to hold public office; serve in armed forces; etc.

iv) imprisonment

- terms range from 21 days to 15 years; up to 20 years for multiple offences or life.

v) special measures

- preventive detention used for dangerous and/or mentally ill offender; and certain specified crimes (in practice obsolete); security measures - (1)

(2) ( 3 )

(4)

release on supervision to police/residence restric­tions; release to private care; committal to psychiatric hospital; committal to detention in prison;

- Prosecution and Courts decide if security measures to be implemented; courts set maximum sentence length;

- Ministry of Justice can change security measure order, within the limits fixed by the Court.

. .. /3

, ,

, .

~ :

tl

, i )11, i \[u I d

lfi I «.D

in 1

Ju 10 ! , II J ! f) i 1 [J I . I (J' It

I~ [j .

j fl

PJ 10 '0 [J

- 3 -

vi) youth imprisonment

- abolished by Act of Parliament 1975; sanctions for young offenders now include fines, prison sentence or suspended sentence; applicable for offenders aged 14-21 .

F) Trends

- ~ncrease ~n nu~ber of recorded juvenile crime; - 1ncrease 1n cr1me rate; (although crime rate low, ~omparatively speaking);

- 7ncrease in number of persons convicted; - 1ncreased use of prisons for young persons due to

lack of Child Welfare institutions for this group; very low murder rate;

- moderation of harsh prison terms.

... /4

I' ;----~.~-----..--------'-~~~~=="""""'-,..",,~---...--~---.~-~----.. ----_ .. __ . r _>_ .... ..,.N"- ___ .~_, __

I

II

[

f~

- 4 -

CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM

A)

B)

C)

D)

Philosophy

, h-b'l;tation and individual " b l;ef 1n re a 1 ~ - decllnLng e k 'isonment; prev~ntion as purp()~es ~;o=~i~s~icalism _ impriso~ment

- return to scan~anav1a~ h~sis on symbolic affec s , seen as punishment, emp LS "punishment. " not severity 1n , ty seen as pr10rLty.

_ re-adjustment to sOCLe

Policy

tion of young/adult offenders; - separa , hasized o

resocializatL~n emp treat~ent of prisoners. firm and consLderate

Administration

Administration part of the Ministry - Prison Service

of Justice; , ' stitutions and aftercare; pons Lble for 1n d' t ;cts PSA res , d" ded into four 1S r k • prison serVLce 1V1

Conditions

, ' t' s refers to differences in / closed Lnst1tu lon,'

open , ' on regLmei , securLty and P~lsl tight at closed institut10ns; security relatL~e Y 3 open institut10ns; 0

e prison for women, ff ders 14 - 21, was on rate. for 0 en d (1975). youth prison sepa,' tion abolishe , rehabilitative-orLented;hs~ncin physical structure;

, t't tions - arc a1C . local 1ns 1 u _ limited capacity;

Overcrowding; 1 8 20·- 100 for co 0-from 17 - 44 ; bed capacity ranges

nies; '1 capacity 2,187 (1975). total institut10na

E) Operations

i) local prisons

. d hort term prisoners; used for remand an s

small; limited spatce; t programs operative. - few training/trea men

... /5

II 0 ~~=~==-...,,~" __ "_'~~_--:-.. ;-.---;.-." . , "'.,.."'-----1,.,.-· -'07'''-.-,-=-= '. ' 't

....

, ,

'" I! J! III \1 U~ 1/

i ~ /1 U 11 U J i' 1 f Ii ~(

n

- 5 -

ii) open institutions

a) prison colonies - used for low risk offenders and gradual r('lease purposes from closed prisons;

b) forestry camp - capacity for 60 inmates.

iii) closed institutions

- used for long sentences; - usually have open auxiliary institutions.

iv) special institutions

- used for preventive detention inmates and long­term prisoners (ioe. one to six years) i

- more treatment/security oriented.

Operations - General

- weekly visits: - censorship;

- extensive leave system - special short leaves - wel-fare leaves for community contacts - eligibility after six months or one-third of sentence;

- institutional programs focus on work, training and treatment;

- payment for work; - work usually assembly line/mechanical production; - treatment programs encompass social, medical and

psychiatric therapies.

i) discipline

- Institutional Board - composed of institutional staff, responsible for discipline, treatment ap­propriations, transfers and parole decisions;

- discipline measures - solitary confinement for one month, beyond and up to one year is a Prison Administration decision - exclusion from work for 14 days - cancellation of pay; Prison Administration may extend length of sen­tence up to one month;

- Board of Supervisors - community representation _ function to advise on prison administration and treatment.

o •• /6

&

I i f,

I: i: Ii ~ Ii ' 11 i'

r f?

L ['

t: {j . I i

f' L 1"

"

fl

it") I I . I j • to'

1 rl ,:n ':: ..... i'

i

F)

G)

- 6 -

ii) parole

_ inmates eligible after serving two-thirds of sentences, remand time counted as part of sen­tence. Under exceptional circumstances parole can be awarded after serving one half of the sentence; f th

_ applies to sentences greater than ou~ mon s; lifers eligible for parole after servlng twelve

years; . d f preventive detainees if paroled, supervlse or five years; . ' .

_ supervision given to Rehabilitatlve Socletles (private organizations government funde~);

_ pre-release semi-liberty schemes operatlv~ where possible - work in community days, returnlng to institution at night.

iii) inmate profile

_ average inmate is a young single male from a working class background, convicted of theft.

iv) inmate rights

. "d ess" to date there are no effectlve ue proc . routes available to inmates. Ombudsmen operatlons not fully utilized.

Evaluation Research

_ Research conducted within Scandanavian Research stu­dies - focus on special treatment methods for offen-ders.

Trends

- increase in recidivism rate; .' t f all Nordic countries. lowest rate of lmprlsonmen 0

... /7

J _~~.,.." . '_" . .,:' "_::---__ <_ r-:-:.,.., .... , ).. '-. .-

I, ,

" ....

,

"

,

I

u u ['t

<-

fi

U U fl fJ fl

n 1J

! rf U ~~r.".....,.."",""",--,~<

III

- 7 -

CONCLUSION ON SYSTEM'S OPERATION

Social defense is seen as the main aim of the criminal justice system. This goal is achieved, theoreti­cally, through general deterrence (including attitude sha­ping), and resocialization of the offender while under control of the correctional system. Limited recidivism statistics indicate a 34.3% reconviction rate within a 3 year period.

The Norwegian system shares many similarities with other Nordic countries, i.e. broad police/prosecutio­na1. discretionary powers; centralized bureaucracy, compre­hensive network of institutions, etc. The emphasis on re­habilitation juxtaposed with deterrence can be seen in the treatment programs for offenders. Social, psychiatric and psychological theropies play a large role in inmate pro­grams, knowledge of their impact is not available.

A current problem in Norway focuses on youth of­fenders. with the abolition of youth imprisonment, a Bor­stal system protege, the number of young offenders incar­cerated in traditional prisons has increased due to the hesitancy of Child Welfare Authorities, who can intervene up to age eighteen, to provide institutions for persistent young recidivists. Thus the prosecution and the courts feel inclined to pass sentences of imprisonment.

As in other Nordic nations, Noxway has a penal reform movement (KROM), which have been and can be influen­cial in penal policy.

... /8

l; ; i

! f

I

·n " n u fl [t q

;'. (J }",'

~\

1 I , , ~

.... #,

.-----~--------------------- -- --- - - - ~-------- - --------------

IV APPENDICES

A) Statistics

'-

l.

If ,"'''=~-".,-~~,.--,

\' ~,

H H l } f! fl

Ili U 11 "r L fJ U U

U B [j

U n {, ~ .

U

- 8 -

PERSONS SENTENCED, FINED, OR SUBJECT TO WAIVED OR SUSPENDED PROCEEDINGS

1964

7,267

1965

7,112

1966 1967

7,739. 8,130

1968

8,434

PERSONS IMPRISONED IN PENAL INSTITUTIONS

1966 1967

Custody 4,626 4,723 Fines ( subsidiary impri-

sonment) 2,349 1,924 Prison, youth prison and

military arrest 3,484 3,483 Hard labour (workhouse) 13 10 Security detention 7 4

1969

9.113

NEW

1968

5,406

1,771

3,629 5 3

1970

9,347

PRISONERS

1969

5,524

1,920

3,602 2 5

1970

5,584

711,---- '"

3,919 1 4

10,479 10,144 10,814 11,053 10,219

14 to 17 18 to 20 21 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59 60

1-Ien: Women:

Total:

Source:

NEW PRISONERS BY AGE

1966 1967 1968 1969 1970

years 358 427 455 601 739 895 958 1,041 999 1,347

1,569 1,625 1,873 2,020 2,302 1,245 1,253 1,450 1,503 1,545 2,090 1,886 2,106 2,143 1,893 2,138 2 .. 106 2,082 2,020 1,381 1,464 1,276 1,267 1,286 783

and over 720 613 540 481 229 ---Total 10,479 10,114 10,814 11,053 10,219

THE DAILY AVERAGE IN PENAL INSTITUTIONS

1965

1,781 48

1,829

1966

1,737 43

1,780

1967

1,820 43

1,863

1968

1,831 42

1,873

Social Defence in Norway, 1977.

1969

1,786 36

1,822

1970

1,664 28

1,692

... /9

1971

1,681 31

1,712

' -,

i i , I

I 1 t f

·r ~,

1\

1\ d ", P: I, f

I \ } j

r [

r r [

r r f f, [

\: f

;Y I

- 9 -

DISCHARGED PRISONERS BY

1966 1967

Central prison for men 287 242 Central prison and work-

house for women 248 264 Security measures insti-

tution 97 60 Youth prison 45 58 Workhouse for men 260 268 Local prisons 9,469 9,203

Total 10,406 10,095

INSTITUTION

1968 1969

205 233

227 304

90 105 83 83

283 246 9,943 10,301

10,831 11,272

----~ ---~------ ----------

1970

215

218

90 88

376 9,307

10,294

- 10 -

General Statistics (1977)

Population: 4 million

90% of criminal cases receive a prison sentence; 4 out of 5, the sentence is unconditional (excluding drunk drivers).

two-thirds of persons receiving unconditional prison terms are drunk drivers (7,000).

- one-third to one-fourth of daily number of prisoners are pre-trial detainees.

- 3,500 annually sent to prison (excluding drunk dri­vers) (unconditional sentence).

PERSONS WITH AND WITHOUT NEW CHARGES IN A 3 YEAR PERIOD average daily prison population is 1,800 (1977).

1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Within 1 year 1,506 1,619 1,699 1,842 2,119 Within 2 years 2,238 2,360 2,550 2,740 3,061 Within 3 years 2,705 2,849 3,123 3,292 3,636 No new charges 6,567 6,187 6,345 7,113 6,967

Total 9,272 9,035 9,468 10,405 10,603

PERCENTAGE OF RECIDIVISM

1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Within 1 year 16.2 17.9 17.9 17.7 20.0 Within 2 years 24.1 26.1 26.9 26.3' 28.9 Within 3 years 29.2 31. 5 33.0 31.6 34.3 Without 70.8 68.5 67.0 68.4 65.7

Source: Social Defence in Norway, 1977.

. ,-~-.....-..---.--~-~~'~- .. '-~~. . \'

.. '

1969 1970

2,449 2,706 3,483

11,074 11,781

1969 1970

22.1 23.0 31.5

.•• /10

~ n If!

fJ [J

lJ'-lU

:" f

- 1,000 young offenders sent to prison annually.

- average time served for life sentence - 11 1/2 years.

- average conditional prison sentence is 5 1/2 months, excluding drunk drivers.

- one-half of those imprisoned for traditional proper­ty crimes; less than, 10% for crimes of violence.

rate of imprisonment - 43/100,000.

..• /11 ,

. i \ , J)

'. ,

[

L r"i

L r.i l 1

, C'

1J

e :'. rj'

t,.!

"

[]

B) External Factors

, . ,I •

.I

- 11 -

Political

hereditary constitutional monarchy; - politically stable;

compulsory military service; - population 4 million.

Economic

- rapid economic expansion, due to NO.rth Sea oil.

Social

- expensive health care system (i.e. free hospital and den tal care);

- free education; - compulsory schooling for ages 7 - 16; - 100% literate; - religously and ethnically homogeneous; - compulsory National Pension Scheme;

large social welfare system.

Cultural/Historical

- invaded and occupied by the Nazis during World War ll;

- belief in collective security within the NATO-system; - tolerant (non-violent) people.

•.. /12

[,

L· "-

fi f;

r , ,

n ..

r:

L C) Organizational Chart

"" [i

,n - Not Available

,- D fi J

[1

0 f 0

--- --------- --------------

\ A, g~----- .' .. _.-.. - ..... __ ._ ..... -. -.. ... ....- ..... .

ld U

I, n !

In o fJ [J

I [I fJ

n [J

fJ

n o [I

n ," []

I,;" [,,',r II..-

D) Reform ~roposals

-----------~ .. ------,

,

J'"., In

, . '---..--" ~'w-.~_ .......... _____ ~~..:::."":t_,==, _~~fjJ ___ ~~~,_._. _____ ~_~"'"'~ __ ".,." .. .,,~"".«~~~ .. ~ .'''- _~_.,,~"-~ .. _~"" --:--:--~ / " .

f:

. ~ [ ......... , ,

r~~ . ;

, [I :£

\ '

~ ,i 1) ,j

[1 \ q

;1 'I :1 :1 n I il " , .;{

· ., ;1 U j

il II ., n rl , 'I 1 " "

,,' ~ [l 'I

· :! --...

· ~ [I J .'

:! n ~,

n L1 .{

'j \I

~ .,' . ~:-; "it / ·r "

- 12 -

Reform Proposals:

Government Report - "On Criminal Policy" (1978) Ministry of Justice. (Still Under Parliam~ntary Debate) •

Recommendations:

1. General diminished utilization of imprisonment.

2. Reduction in minimum term of imprisonment from 21 to 7 days.

3. Abolish subsidary imprisonment, due to unpaid fines.

4. Abolish internment and lifelong confinement.

5. Raise age of criminal responsibility from 14 to 15 years.

6. Reduction in use of imprisonment for certain tradi­tional property offences .

7. Stricter punishments for modern forms of economic crimes. (Le. Tax evasion) •

< -. ,

• 't,

~--;:;-~--- ---" ---------------

\

[ f '--

[f

If

J 1/ {f

U , III

n <Lf

n [J

fl [J

I LI

[/

/j

fJ

E) Update

."" .-'-'"~,--,.---"-'-~~-~.'"~

f

I f if [l II f r{ Ii

;: r

[

r [-

r. [

r f

f

[: ~ .

r. '--[;

"J C [1

,\ U1 ';/' .!

.' V ,f\

U

Ii,' a: 17~~ Ir

I

------------------------- -- --.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AndencJes, J., "Dovelopments in Criminal Law cJnd Penal Systems, Norway", Criminal Law Review 1977 (406-409).

Bjornsen, B., "The Obstacles to Prison Reform in Norway", The Center Magazine, Jan./Feb. 1980, (25-32).

Bondeson, U., itA Critical Survey of Correctional Treatment Stu­dies in Scandinavia 1945-1974", Chapter V, Comparative Criminal Justice # 208 (251-333).

Evensen, A., "Social Defence in Norway", U.S. Department of Justice, Washington D.C., (Film 1976).

Mathiesen, T., "The Future of Control Systems - the Case of Norway", International Journal of the Sociology of Law 1980, 8 (149-164).

"Scandinavian Studies in Criminology", Scandinavian University Books, Norway, 1971, Chapter 2.

SncJre, Annika, "Imprisonment in Norway", Paper presented at 1979 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Philadelphia, Nov. 7-10, 1979.

------------------------------------------------------------------

-,

.. '

! ! 1

r !

! !

1 1 ~ I

I