Conditional Sentence and Probation (From Crime and Crime Control in Scandinavia, 1976-80, P 59-69, 1980, Norman Bishop, ed. - See NCJ-74060)

• NCJ Number: 74069
• Author(s): U Bondeson
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 11 pages
• Publication Format: Document
• Language: English
• Country: Sweden

Annotation

This paper presents statistical comparisons on the use of conditional sentences and probation in the Scandinavian countries in the 1960's and 1970's and proposals and research on alternatives to traditional corrections policies.

Abstract

A growing body of research in the late 1960's and the 1970's in Scandinavia demonstrated the incompatibility of treatment of the offender and imprisonment. The negative effects of deprivation of liberty were evident in all types of correctional institutions. Statistically, conditional sentencing and probation are used much less than fines, the most frequently used alternative sanction to imprisonment. In Sweden, the use of probation declined by 21 percent in the decade following the introduction of the 1965 Penal Code. However, the use of conditional sentencing has risen. A statistical analysis of imprisonment, probation, and conditional sentence penalties in Finland, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden from 1968 to 1977--a period of rising crime rates--show a greater trend toward conditional sentencing and probation than toward imprisonment in Denmark and Finland. Although having the lowest incarceration rate in Scandinavia, Norway showed a greater increase in imprisonment penalties than sanctions not involving deprivation of liberty. In Sweden, for penal code offenses only, more conditional sentences or probation sanctions were meted out than deprivation of liberty sanctions over the 9-year period. Reform proposals in all four Scandinavian countries recommend a reduced use of sentences involving deprivation. Danish proposals include decriminalization of certain offenses to lower incarceration rates and implementation of community service as an alternative. Sweden and Norway still integrate penal control and social treatment in their reform proposals, while Finland urged separation of control and social treatment with a proposal for a new sanction called 'punitive supervision.' An increase in Scandanavian research on probation and conditional sentencing is recommended. Twenty-three references and one table are provided.