Prison-based drug treatment (PDT) has increased markedly in the Nordic countries over the last 15 years. Based on data from Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, we outline the historical development of PDT and analyse the rationales employed in the political discourse in the Nordic countries legitimizing this development. These rationales relate to the reduction of criminality, zero tolerance, rights and the modern welfare state, and managerialism. Though these rationales may appear dissimilar, they have been combined with relative ease in the political discourse. Actually, this elasticity may partly explain the popularity of PDT. We discuss whether the increased use of PDT reflects a criminalization of social problems and signals a rebirth of the treatment ideology in Nordic prisons.
AlbækE (2001) Vidensinteresser og de mange betydninger af evaluering – et udviklingsperspektiv. In: Dahler-LarsenPKrogstrupHK (eds) Tendenser i evaluering. Odense: Odense Universitetsforlag, 21–31.
2.
AnderssonRNilssonR (2009) Kriminalvård – insikter och utblickar. Stockholm: Norstedts.
BjergeB (2008) The re-organisation of drug treatment in Denmark – A welfare reform as policy. In: FrankVABjergeBHouborgE (eds) Drug Policy: History, Theory and Consequences. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 209–232.
5.
BorchC (2005) Kriminalitet og magt. Kriminalitetsopfattelser i det 20. århundrede. Copenhagen: Politisk revy.
6.
BruceRDSchleiferRA (2008) Ethical and human rights imperatives to ensure medication-assisted treatment for opioid dependence in prisons and pre-trial detention. International Journal of Drug Policy19(1): 17–23.
7.
CarlinT (2005) An exploration of prisoners’ and prison staff ’s perceptions of the methadone maintenance programme in Mountjoy Male Prison, Dublin, Republic of Ireland. Drugs: Education, Prevention, and Policy12(5): 405–416.
8.
CavadinoMDignanJ (2006) Penal Systems : A Comparative Approach. London: SAGE.
9.
ChristensenPBHammerbyEBirdS (2006) Mortality among Danish drug users released from prison. International Journal of Prisoner Health2(1): 13–19.
10.
CoolsMDe KimpeSDe RuyverBEastonMVande WalleGPonsaersPVander LaenenFVander BekenTPauwelsLVermeulenG (2009) Contemporary Issues in the Empirical Study of Crime. Antwerp: Maklu Publishers.
11.
CowdenSSinghG (2007) The ‘user’: Friend, foe or fetish? A critical exploration of the user involvement in health and social care. Critical Social Policy27:5–23.
12.
CraigSC (2004) Rehabilitation versus control: An organizational theory of prison management. The Prison Journal84(4): 92–114.
13.
CreweB (2011) Soft power in prison: Implications for staff and prisoner relationships, liberty and legitimacy. European Journal of Criminology8(6): 455–468.
14.
CreweBLieblingA (2012) Are liberal-humanitarian penal values and practices exceptional? In: UgelvikTDullumJ (eds) Penal Exceptionalism? Nordic Prison Policy and Practice. London: Routledge, 175–198.
15.
DahlHVFrankVAKolindT (2008) Cannabis treatment in Danish prisons: A product of new directions in national drug policy. In: KorfDJ (ed.) Cannabis in Europe: Dynamics in Percepton, Policy and Markets. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers, 30–51.
16.
Dahler-LarsenP (2000) Den rituelle reflektion – om evalueringer i organisationer. Odense: Odense universitetsforlag.
17.
DfK (Direktoratet for Kriminalforsorgen) (2006) Kriminalforsorgens årsberetning 2006. Copenhagen: Direktoratet for Kriminalforsorgen.
18.
DfK (2008) Kriminalforsorgens årsberetning 2008. Copenhagen: Direktoratet for Kriminalforsorgen.
19.
DfK (2009) Kriminalforsorgens årsberetning 2009. Copenhagen: Direktoratet for Kriminalforsorgen.
20.
DfK (2010) Kriminalforsorgen Statistik 2010. Copenhagen: Direktoratet for Kriminalforsorgen.
21.
DukeK (2000) Prison drug policy since 1980: Shifting agendas and policy networks. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy7(4): 393–408.
22.
DukeK (2003) Drugs, Prisons and Policy-making. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
23.
DukeK (2006) Out of crime and into treatment? The criminalization of contemporary drug policy since Tackling Drugs Together. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy13(5): 409–415.
24.
EggRPearsonFSClealandCM. (2000) Evaluations of correctional treatment programs in Germany: A review and meta-analysis. Substance Use & Misuse35(12–14): 1967–2009.
25.
EMCDDA (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction) (2010) Annual Report 2010. The State of the Drugs Problem in Europe. Luxembourg: EMCDDA.
26.
Esping-AndersenG (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
27.
FaircloughN (2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. New York: Routledge.
28.
FoucaultM (1982) The subject and power. In: DreyfusLRabinowP (eds) Michael Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Brighton: Harvester Press.
29.
FoucaultM (1991) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London: Penguin.
30.
FrankVABjergeB (2011) Empowerment in drug treatment: Dilemmas in implementing policy in welfare institutions. Social Science & Medicine73(2): 201–208.
31.
FrankVADahlHVKolindT (2011) Indsattes erfaringer med narkotikakontrol og hashbehandling i danske fængsler. In: FrankVADahlHV (eds) Kriminalitet og illegale rusmidler. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag, 223–249.
32.
FrankVAKolindT (2008) Dilemmas experienced in prison based cannabis treatment – Drug policy in Danish prisons. In: FrankVABjergeBPedersenEH (eds) Drug Policy – History, Theory and Consequences. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag, 61–86.
33.
GalS (1995) Language and the ‘arts of resistance’. Cultural Anthropology10(3): 407–424.
34.
GarlandD (2001a) The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35.
GarlandD (2001b) Punishment and Welfare. Aldershot: Gower.
36.
HackingI (1986) Making up people. In: HellerTSosnaMWellberyDE (eds) Reconstructing Individualism. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 222–236.
37.
HackingI (1990) The Taming of Chance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38.
HajerMA (1995) The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
39.
HakkarainenPLaursenLTigerstedtC (eds) 1996. Discussing Drugs and Control Policy: Comparative Studies on Four Nordic Countries. Helsinki: NAD Publication.
40.
HaugeR (2001) Behandling som alternativ til straff for rusmiddelbrukere i Norge. NAD40: 59–78.
41.
HollinCRBilbyC (2007) Addressing offending behaviour: ‘What works’ and beyond. In: JewkesY (ed.) Handbook on Prisons. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, 608–628.
42.
HouborgE (2008) Youth, drugs and the welfare state – Constructing the Danish drug treatment system 1965–1972. In: FrankVABjergeBHouborgE (eds) Drug Policy: History, Theory and Consequences. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 181–208.
43.
HouborgEBjergeB (2011) Drug policy, control and welfare. Drugs: Education, Prevention, and Policy18(1): 16–23.
44.
InciardiJAMartinSSButzinCA (2004) Five-year outcomes of therapeutic community treatment of drug-involved offenders after release from prison. Crime and Delinquency50(1): 88–107.
45.
JepsenJ (ed.) (1971) Afvigerbehandling. Aalborg: Thaning and Appels Forlag.
46.
JepsenJ (2008) Danish drug control policy 1945–2007. In: FrankVABjergeBHouborgE (eds) Drug Policy: History, Theory and Consequences. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 151–180.
47.
JöhnckeS (2009) Treatmentality and the governing of drug use. Drugs and Alcohol Today9(4): 14–17.
KolindTFrankVADahlH (2010) Drug treatment or alleviating the negative consequences of imprisonment? A critical view of prison-based drug treatment in Denmark. International Journal of Drug Policy21(1): 43–48.
50.
Kontaktudvalget [Liaison Committee] (1970) Redegøresle II om visse sider af stofmisbrugsproblemets udvikling og forslag til påtrængende foranstaltninger. Copenhagen: Kontaktudvalget vedrørende ungdomsnarkomanien.
51.
KrantzLElmbyJ (2007) Kriminalvårdens redovisning av drogsituationen 2005–2006. Norrköping: Kriminalvården.
52.
Kriminalomsorgen [The Prison Service] (2004) Strategi for faglig virksomhet i Kriminalomsorgen 2004–2007. Oslo: Kriminalomsorgen.
KristoffersenR (ed.) (2010) Correctional Statistics of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden 2004–2008. Oslo: Correctional Service of Norway Staff Academy Oslo.
56.
KyvsgaardB (2001) Strafferetslig ideologi og praksis i det 20. århundrede. NAD40: 107–120.
57.
Lappi-SeppäläT (2001) Sentencing and punishment in Finland: The decline of the repressive ideal. In: TonryMRichardF (ed.) Sentencing and Sanctions in Western Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
58.
Lappi-SeppäläTNiemiH (2010) Kontrolliviranomaisten toiminta. In: Lappi-SeppäläTNiemiH (eds) Rikollisuustilanne 2010. Rikollisuus ja seuraamusjärjestelmä. Helsinki: Oikeuspoliittisen tutkimuslaitoksen tutkimuksia, 285–370.
59.
LieblingAArnoldH (2004) Prisons and Their Moral Performance: A Study of Values, Quality, and Prison Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
60.
LintonenTVartiainenHAarnioJ. (2011) Drug use among prisoners: By any definition, it’s a big problem. Substance Use & Misuse46(4): 440–451.
61.
LongshoreDTeruyaC (2006) Treatment motivation in drug users: A theory-based analysis. Drug and Alcohol Dependence81(2): 179–188.
62.
MartinsonR (1974) What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. Public Interest35: 22–45.
63.
MathiesenT (2006) Prison on Trial. London: Waterside Press.
64.
NealeJSavilleE (2004) Comparing community and prison-based drug treatment. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy11(3): 213–228.
65.
NealeJSheardLTompkinsC (2007) Factors that help injecting drug users to access and benefit from services: A qualitative study. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy2(1): 31.
66.
Nordskov-Udvalget [Nordskov Committee] (2000) Placering af indsatte. Indstilling afgivet af Differentieringsudvalget. Copenhagen: Direktoratet for Kriminalforsorgen.
67.
Oikeusministeriö [Justice Ministry] (1999) Vankeinhoitolaitoksen päihdestrategia 1999. I osa. Toimintaohje vuosille 1999–2001 [Prison Drug Strategy 1999. Part I. Directives for the Years 1999–2001]. Helsinki: Oikeusministeriön vankeinhoito-osaston ohje, 27.1.1999.
68.
PollackS (2010) Labelling clients ‘risky’: Social work and the neo-liberal welfare state. British Journal of Social Work40: 1263–1278.
69.
PrattJ (2008) Scandinavian exceptionalism in an era of penal excess. Part I: The nature and roots of Scandinavian exceptionalism. British Journal of Criminology48: 119–137.
70.
PrestjanA (2004) Att bota en drinkare. Ideer och praktik i svensk alkolistvård 1885–1916. Örebro Studies in History 5. Örebro: Örebro University.
71.
RamströmJ (1983) Narkomani. Orsaker och behandling. Stockholm: Tiden/Folksam.
72.
Regeringen [The Government] (2003) Kampen mod narko – handlingsplan mod narkotikamisbrug. Copenhagen: Regeringen.
73.
Regeringen [The Government] (2010) Kampen mod narko II. Handlingsplan mod narkotikamisbrug. Copenhagen: Regeringen.
74.
Regeringens proposition [Government Bill] (2001) Nationell narkotikahandlingsplan [National Action Plan on Drugs]. Prop. 2001/02:91. Stockholm.
75.
Rikosseuraamuslaitos [Criminal Sanctions Agency] (2011) Rikosseuraamuslaitoksen strategia 2011–2020 [Strategy of the Finnish Criminal Sanctions Agency 2011–2020]. Helsinki: Rikosseuraamuslaitos, 17.1.2011. URL (accessed 19 February 2013): http://www.rikosseuraamus.fi/uploads/ezg5sofwogs0.pdf.
76.
RoseN (1996) The death of the social? Refiguring the territory of government. Economy and Society25: 327–356.
77.
SeddonTWilliamsLRalphsR (2012) Tough Choices: Risk, Security and the Criminalization of Drug Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
78.
SmartC (1984) Social policy and drug addiction: A critical study of policy development. British Journal of Addiction79(1): 31–39.
79.
SNCCP (Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention) (2008) Behandling av narkotikamissbrukare i fängelse – en effektstudie. Stockholm: SNCCP.
80.
Sosiaali- ja Terveysministeriö [Ministry of Social Affairs and Health] (1999) Valtioneuvoston periaatepäätös huumausainepolitiikasta 1999 [Decision-in-principle on Drug Policy 1999]. Helsinki: Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriön julkaisuja 1999: 4.
81.
Socialstyrelsen [National Board of Health and Welfare] (2007) Nationella riktlinjer för missbruks och beroende vård. Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen.
82.
SpangerM (2007) Myndigheternes köns- och sexualsyn. Lösaktiga kvinnor i 1930-talets Danmark. In JansdotterASvanströmY (eds) Sedligt, renligt, lagligt. Prostitution i Norden 1880–1940. Göteborg: Makadam Förlag, 197–225.
83.
StöverHWeilandtCZurholdHHartwigCThaneK (2008) Final Report on Prevention, Treatment, and Harm Reduction Services in Prison, on Reintegration Services on Release from Prison and Methods to Monitor/Analyse Drug Use among Prisoners. Brussels: Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Affairs.
84.
StöverHMichelsI (2010) Drug use and opioid substitution treatment for prisoners. Harm Reduction Journal7(17).
85.
TammiT (2007) Medicalising Prohibition: Harm Reduction in Finnish and International Drug Policy. Helsinki: National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Helath. Research Report 161.
VilladsenK (2008) Freedom as self-transgression: Transformations in the ‘governmentality’ of social work. European Journal of Social Work11(2): 93–104.
