Abstract
In 2010 a cross-sectorial reentry framework was launched as the ‘Schedule of the Good Release’. The ambition was to implement the actions outlined in the Schedule to all prisons and municipalities in Denmark to strengthen the cross-sectorial collaboration concerning parole and to support the parolees. The primary purpose of the Schedule was to prevent crime and secure parolees’ rights to social security and support. This chapter focuses on parolees in Denmark; their experiences of transitioning from prison back into society and life after prison; and whether the Danish state’s reentry ambitions can be mirrored in the parolees’ first-hand experiences. Our findings suggest that parolees experienced their reentry as chaotic; that their supervision lacked vision; and ‘informal’ punishment was severe and permeated their lives post-prison.
…the most severe punishment we get is probably the one we face when we get out of prison. Landon, newly released on parole
(Olesen 2013: 211).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Greenland and the Faroe Islands have their own parliaments but are still part of the Danish Realm with two members each in the Danish parliament. Greenland and the Faroe Islands are not included in the following analysis.
- 2.
Of the 4,571 prisoners 587 had their parole application rejected. The others could not be paroled either due to the sentence being below two months or the type of sentence (partly conditional/unconditional).
- 3.
This rule does not play an individual role in this analysis.
- 4.
Due to minor differences in the statistical method the numbers may not be directly compared for the whole period from the 1980s forward.
- 5.
The data later formed the discussions regarding the ‘Schedule of the Good Release’ policy launched in 2010, but we must underline that some positive changes have taken place since the data collection ended in November 2012.
- 6.
One of the fundamental principles of the ’Nordic Welfare Model’ is that all citizens have access to basic social services regardless of their social background and independent of insurance contributions, user charges, co-payments, etc. The Danish welfare regime and social policies are nevertheless challenged by workfare policies (Vis, 2007; Kananen, 2012). Cut-downs as well as politically initiated reforms of social services have over the years been launched to foster obligation to labour and limit eligibility for social services. Social services are adjusted for inflation according to the cost of Danish living standards. In 2016 citizens aged 30+ being parents or guardians of (a) child(ren) are eligible to receive max. DKK 14,575 [EUR 1,958] per month in social security benefit. Citizens aged 30+ without children are eligible to receive max. DKK 10,968 [EUR 1473] per month in social security benefit. Citizens under 30years with a qualifying education are eligible to receive social security benefit at the same level as the State education grant (amounting to DKK 5,941 [EUR 798] per month for citizens living away from their parental home) with possibilities to add benefit supplements. Citizens under 30 years without a qualifying education are eligible to receive education support amounting from DKK 2,590 [EUR 348] to DKK 14,575 [EUR 1,958] per month depending on their legal status, mental health and housing situation (http://bm.dk/da/Satser/Satser%20for%202016/Kontanthjaelp.aspx).
- 7.
Denmark and Norway have over a decade intensified and implemented methods and programmes to improve and structure the reentry processes for released prisoners. Norway invites local authorities to get involved in prisoners’ needs, rights and complex problems in prison, while Denmark is more focused on smoothing and optimising the released prisoners’ transitioning back into society. In both countries a systematic improvement of cross-sectorial collaboration has been in focus due to a growing realisation that released prisoners do not always manage to achieve their fundamental rights. However, neither Denmark nor Norway have stressed specific rights to ex-prisoners. Norway introduced a reintegration guarantee in 2008/2009 that originally placed the responsibility for reintegration on the Norwegian Prison and Probation Service as well as the Government. Yet, the reintegration guarantee did not induce legally binding outcomes. Hence, the Danish and Norwegian reentry frameworks should encourage prisoner involvement in organising and structuring time in prison, pre-release and post-release but the execution of the Norwegian reintegration guarantee and the Danish Schedule of the Good Release will take place regardless of prisoners’ involvement. Still, little is known about the prisoners’ and ex-prisoners’ experiences of the reentry frameworks as well as their ability to meet the ex-prisoners’ needs (Storgaard et al., 2013; see also Olesen, forthcoming).
- 8.
Prisoners with sentences of four months or shorter and prisoners under the age of 18.
- 9.
The originating authority is the authority where the citizen lives or usually stays. According to the Danish Consolidation Act on Legal Protection and Administration in Social Matters the originating authority has as a starting point the obligations to coordinate and pay for the social services the citizens within its area qualify to receive (for example social security benefit, childcare fee subsidy, kindergarten fee subsidy, rent subsidy, budgeting loans, etc.). The aim of the originating authority’s obligations is to make sure that every citizen receives the help they need and qualify for.
- 10.
Informal supervision and informal punishment are alternative terms used to describe the hidden supervision and punishment experienced by the parolees which are not supervision or punishment in a legal sense (see also Travis, 2005).
- 11.
The police’s seizure of the parolees’ money happened regardless of any instalment agreements between the parolee and the Tax Authority.
- 12.
The police’s seizure of money must not contravene the Danish Administration of Justice Act, section 805(3).
References
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity.
Bourdieu, P. (1996). Understanding. Theory, Culture and Society, 13(2), 17–37.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, LJD. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bushway, S., Stoll, MA., & Weiman, DF. (Eds.), (2007). Barriers to reentry. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Diller, R., Bannon, A., & Nagrecha, M. (2010). Criminal justice debt.
Ewick, P., & Silbey, SS. (1998). The common place of law. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.
Finstad, L. (2000). Politiblikket. Oslo: Pax.
Graunbøl, HM. et al. (2010). Retur. Oslo: Kriminalomsorgen.
Harris, A., Evans, H., & Beckett, K. (2010). Drawing blood from stones. American Journal of Sociology, 115(6), 1753–1799.
Holmberg, L. (1999). Policing the customers. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 9, 169–184.
Kananen, J. (2012). Nordic paths from welfare to workfare: Danish, Swedish and Finnish labour market reforms in comparison. Local Economy: The Journal of the Local Economy Policy Unit, 27(5−6), 558–576.
Kyvsgaard, B. (1998). Kriminalforsorgen i frihed. Copenhagen: The Danish Prison and Probation Service.
Lappi˗Seppälä, T., & Storgaard, A. (2014). Unge i det strafferetlige system. Tidsskrift for Strafferet, 4, 333–359.
Levine, K., & Mellema, V. (2001). Strategizing the street. Law & Social Inquiry, 26(1), 169–207.
Lofland, J., Snow, D., Anderson, L., & Lofland, L. (2006). Analyzing social settings. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
McCann, MW. (1994). Rights at work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Nielsen, LB. (2004). License to harass. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Olesen, A. (2013). Løsladt og gældsat. Copenhagen: Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag.
Olesen, A. (2014). Retlige, retssikkerhedsmæssige og resocialiserende omkostninger ved sagsomkostninger i straffesager. Nordisk Tidsskrift for Kriminalvidenskab, 101(3), 248–270.
Olesen, A. (2016). Debt as an indirect criminal risk factor. Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 6(3), 676–706.
Olesen, A. (Forthcoming). Ex-prisoners’ need for legal aid in Denmark. In O. Hammerslev & OH. Rønning (Eds.), Legal aid in the Nordic countries: Flaws in the welfare states and challenging power. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roxell, L. (2009). Tur och retur. Efter løsladelse. NSfK’s 51. Forskerseminar, 34–43.
Sarat, A. (1990). The law is all over. Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities, 2, 343–379.
Silbey, SS. (1992). Making a place for a cultural analysis of law. Law & Social Inquiry, 17, 39–48.
Storgaard, A. (2014). Dominant automatic release: Denmark. After prison you are free. In M. Herzog-Evans (Ed.), Offender release and supervision (pp. 137–50). Oisterwijk, AH: Wolf Legal Publishers.
Tankebe, J. (2013). Things differently: The dimensions of public perceptions of police legitimacy. Criminology, 51(1), 103–135.
Tranæs, T. et al. (2008). Forbryderen og samfundet. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.
Travis, J. (2005). But they all come back. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Trubek, D. (1984). Where the action is. Stanford Law Review, 36(1/2), 575–622.
Vis, B. (2007). States of welfare or states of workfare? Welfare state restructuring in 16 capitalist democracies, 1985–2002. Policy & Politics, 35(1), 105–122.
Wood, J., Kade, C., & Sidhu, M. (2009). What works for offenders and staff. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15(7), 661–678.
Reports
Deloitte (2015). Barrierer og udfordringer for tværgående indsats, styring og organisering.
Lindstad, JM. (2015). Brugerundersøgelsen 2014. Copenhagen: The Danish Prison and Probation Service.
Ramsbøl, H. (2003). Kriminalforsorgens og de sociale myndigheders samarbejde. Esbjerg: Formidlingscentret for socialt arbejde.
Ramsbøl, H., & Rasmussen, N. (2009). Projekt God Løsladelse. Copenhagen: The National Board of Social Services.
Rönneling, A., Sørensen, N., & Bak, PC. (2011). Undersøgelse af tilsynsvirksomheden. Copenhagen: The Danish Prison and Probation Service.
Rönneling, A., Lund-Sørensen, N., & Bak, PC. (2013). Hvordan og hvor meget? Copenhagen: The Danish Prison and Probation Service.
Rönneling, A., & Lund-Sørensen, N. (2014). Hvad er planen? Copenhagen: The Danish Prison and Probation Service.
Storgaard, A. et al. (2013). Løsladelse. Planlægning og samarbejde i Danmark, Norge og Sverige. The Scandinavian Research Council for Criminology.
The Danish Prison and Probation Service (2002). The annual report of the prison and probation service 2002.
The Danish Prison and Probation Service. (2011). Handleplansarbejdet på kriminalforsorgens tjenestesteder. Copenhagen: Minister of Justice.
The Danish Prison and Probation Service (2014). The annual report of the prison and probation service 2014.
The National Board of Social Services (2010). Køreplan for god løsladelse.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Olesen, A., Storgaard, A. (2016). Released from Prison in Denmark: Experiences vs. Ambitions. In: Armstrong, R., Durnescu, I. (eds) Parole and Beyond. Palgrave Studies in Prisons and Penology. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95118-5_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95118-5_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-95117-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-95118-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)