European penology or European penologies?

Abstract

This article explores the penological map of Europe to frame European penology, based on cultural particularities that define the penal practice. One of the main characteristics of the European continent is its diversity, which is not solely reflected in the cultural particularities of nation-states, but also in the specificity of the criminal justice systems and especially the implementation of penal sanctions. Deriving from a theoretical viewpoint, penology as an academic discipline has several definitions, but in a broader sense, it can be defined as the science of penalties and sanctioning. European countries are unique in their abolitionist stance towards the death penalty, and adherence to the international regulations regarding detention and protection of detained persons’ rights imposed by the Council of Europe and monitored by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. However, European countries are also distinct in the ways of punishing delinquents and especially implementing sanctions. Analysis of penal statistics (SPACE I and SPACE II) shows that European countries are as diverse as they can be, ranging from punitive to mild/progressive. The organisation of prison services, level of professionalism, treatment of prisoners, and the size and characteristics of prison and probation populations support the claim of multiple European penologies.

Penology, a term deriving from the Latin word Poena meaning punishment and the Greek suffix logia, is a young science that gained its ‘independence’ from criminology only at the beginning of the 20th century. The Oxford English Dictionary (n.d.) defines penology as: ‘The study of the punishment of crime and of prison management’. Nevertheless, the conception of penology among European countries varies significantly, ranging from extremely narrow to broad, even multidisciplinary in nature. For example, Lewis (1953) defined it as a deterministic social science that focuses solely on predicting behaviour. In contrast, the Dutch definition describes penology as the science investigating the effectiveness of formal sanctions. Similarly, the German definition reduces penology to prison studies, while the French definition focuses on the sociological analysis of penal practices (Snacken and van Zyl Smit, 2013). Brinc (1994) argued that penology is a unique science as it has no natural object of study but is determined by society through criminal law. Since each society ‘makes’ its own law, there cannot be a single definition of penology.

While the multidisciplinary nature of penology can be challenged, its dependence on penal policy cannot be disputed, as the latter derives from the broader happenings in the society (e.g., political, social, and economic), and directly affects the nature of punishment (Flander et al., 2023); courts, through their decisions, not only shape penal practice but also (indirectly) influence the treatment of detained and/or convicted persons. It can be argued that all penal cultures are local, and differences between them derive from the distinctiveness of national history and culture (Tonry, 2007; Zimring and Hawkins, 1991). This fact has sparked numerous comparative (penological) studies, especially in European countries (e.g., Dünkel, 2017; Hacin et al., 2022; Ostaszewski et al., 2024), because one of the main characteristics of the European continent is its cultural diversity (Bijleveld, 2023; Marshall, 2001).

Comparative penology exposed European countries as unique in: (1) their abolitionist stance regarding the death penalty, (2) their adherence to the international regulations regarding detention and protection of detainees’ rights imposed by the Council of Europe and monitored by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and (3) the activities of the European Court of Human Rights (Snacken and van Zyl Smit, 2013). Despite these commonalities, strong commitment to prisoner rehabilitation (especially in comparison to most non-European countries), and efforts of the above-mentioned institutions that strive for the harmonisation of penal and prison policies in European countries, there are profound differences in penal practices between countries. The general nature of the standards provided by the above-mentioned institutions allows countries discretion when implementing them in their national legislations and penal practices.

Most criminologists/penologists (at least partially) rely on SPACE I and SPACE II data (see Aebi and Cocco, 2024; Aebi and Molnar, 2023) when conducting comparative penological research in European countries. ¹ Cavadino and Dignan (2006) argued that assessing the punitivity of countries using a complex comparative approach showed that the ranking of countries is similar to that based on the (crude) prison population rates. Traditionally, deriving from the main prison indicators (e.g., prison population rate and number of prisoners), the European continent was divided into ‘zones’ where former socialist countries of Central and Eastern Europe recorded the highest prison population rates, while countries of Western and Southern Europe recorded medium to high prison population rates (fluctuation in rates is present). In contrast, the Nordic countries, with some notable additions (e.g., Germany, Slovenia, and the Netherlands), recorded the lowest prison population rates (Aebi and Cocco, 2024; Aebi and Molnar, 2025).

As already established, profound differences in penal philosophy, legislation and practice are present among European countries that are reflected in a plethora of treatment orientations, the characteristics of the prison service, relations between prison actors, alternative sanctions, etc. These indicators are crucial for comparative analyses of the penal orientation and practice of European countries.

An examination of penal practices in individual countries showed that in general, prison population rates correlate with the treatment of prisoners in a sense that penal practice in countries with low prison population rates is humane and treatment orientated, while increasing prison population rates coincide with more rigid and harsh treatment of prisoners (e.g., Cavadino and Dignan, 2006; Hacin et al., 2022; Pratt, 2008). In Europe, treatment-oriented prison practice is usually found within countries that record low prison population rates; however, this is by no means typical for non-European countries (e.g., Japan records very low prison population rates, but exercises harsh treatment of prisoners; Amnesty International, 2021; Human Rights Watch/Asia, 1995). Nowhere is this more evident than in Scandinavian and some of the other ‘exceptional’ countries that serve as an example of penal moderation (Flander et al., 2023; Scharff Smith and Ugelvik, 2017). In contrast, the treatment of prisoners in Central and Eastern European countries, and also in some Western European countries (e.g., the United Kingdom) is harsher, focusing primarily on punishment and not the rehabilitation of prisoners (Burciu, 2023; Symkovych, 2018).

In reality, penology has little to do with legal norms, as it is primarily a science about the relationships between prison workers and prisoners in the process of enforcing penal sanctions (Brinc, 1994). Structure and professionalism are crucial, as prison staff–prisoner relations are complex and inherently unstable, due to the coercive nature of prisons, deprivations of prison, differences in possession of power and authority between the groups, etc. While the professionalisation of prison services began in continental Europe in the 19th century (e.g., Germany, France, Switzerland, and Italy), the later developments differed significantly among European countries (Sellin, 1934). In general, the structure of prison workers groups in all European countries follows a classic division into three groups: custodial staff, treatment workers, and management. However, an in-depth analysis of the structures of individual countries reveals significant differences in authority, work responsibility, and the form and level of required training for prison workers; several European countries have established penological academies (e.g., France, Poland, and Ukraine), while shorter versions of training took place in others (e.g., Slovenia) (European Penitentiary Training Academies Network, n.d.).

The hierarchical nature of the prison service is present in all European countries. However, the differences in rigidness and militaristic organisation of the service vary, ranging from the purely militaristic nature of the service (e.g., Russia) to services resembling police and treatment services (e.g., Finland and the Netherlands) (Molleman and van der Broek, 2014; Omel’chenko et al., 2024). The differences in authority and work responsibilities of prison officers, as the largest group of prison staff, should be highlighted, as more punitive countries in Europe restrict their role exclusively to security-related tasks, while prison officers in ‘moderate’ countries help with the implementation of certain aspects of the treatment programmes for prisoners (e.g., Norway and Slovenia) (Arnold et al., 2024; Meško et al., 2022).

A modern (treatment-oriented) penal practice would not be possible without treatment workers comprising various specialists in psychology, pedagogy, and social work, as well as workshop staff. Treatment programmes, including various forms of cognitive behavioural therapy, interventions, educational, vocational and work programmes, etc., are present in all European prison systems. However, the quality of their implementation varies, mostly (but not solely) due to the number of treatment workers. In the last two decades, treatment workers and workshop staff represented, on average, between 4% and 6% of prison staff in European countries (see SPACE I reports; Aebi and Cocco, 2024). The highest percentages were detected in Scandinavian countries, Czechia, Serbia, Slovenia, and Switzerland, and the lowest in Greece, Italy, and Ireland. It could be assumed that countries with a higher percentage of treatment staff are more committed to the rehabilitation of prisoners. However, the classification is much more complex, as approximately half of the European countries outsource services to NGOs, private companies, and other governmental organisations, including treatment-oriented countries (e.g., Norway) (Daems and Vander Beken, 2018; Meško et al., 2022). This also exposes another field of (comparative) penological research, namely the extent of privatisation of prison and probation services. The extent and performance of private prisons and probation services in European countries vary significantly; however, while some examples of cost-effectiveness were detected, the consequences of public transformation to private caused significant challenges for management and are mostly negative for penal practice (i.e., abandoning rehabilitation) (Ludlow, 2014).

In recent years, probation has increased in importance in all European criminal justice systems (Morgenstern and Larrauri, 2013; van Kalmthout and Durnescu, 2008). While efforts were made by the Council of Europe and the European Union to harmonise probation measures in European countries, differences between probation systems and (to a certain extent) measures remain significant. Similar to the organisation of prison services, probation has developed based on a specific cultural, historical, and legislative context. For example, Czechia and Croatia emphasise victim–offender mediation and victim's rights, and England and Wales focus more on control measures and privatisation of services (Durnescu, 2013). Unfortunately, the categorisation of European countries based on probation population rates is even more complex than when based on prison population rates.

Probation population rates show no parallel with the prison population rates. In theory, the use of probation measures (i.e., alternative sanctions) should decrease the use of imprisonment; however, the practice has shown that the effect of widening the net of the criminal justice systems is much more common (Aebi et al., 2015), where probation measures increase while the rate of imprisonment (after a slight initial decrease) remains practically unchanged or even increases. In general, countries can be divided into four groups where the first ‘most punitive’ group includes countries with high prison and probation population rates (e.g., Poland, Turkey, and the Baltic states); the second group consists of countries where probation measures to a large extent replace prison sentences (e.g., Slovenia and the Netherlands); the third group comprises countries where prison sentences are the dominant form of punishment (e.g., North Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia); and the final group is characterised by penal moderation, as low prison population rates coincide with low probation population rates (e.g., Finland) (Aebi and Cocco, 2024; Aebi and Molnar, 2023).

In conclusion, what is the answer to the question in the title: ‘European penology or European penologies?’. Evidence shows apparent efforts of European institutions to harmonise penal legislation (and consequently penal practice), as rules and recommendations on the implementation of prison sanctions and probation measures of the Council of Europe can be seen as the minimal standards to which all European countries must adhere. The standards present the basis to enforce strict adherence to the protection of human rights in European countries, resulting in the expansion of the penal apparatus. In this context, the protection of human rights also presents (one of) the driving forces behind increasing punitiveness in European countries (Lohne, 2019). However, the broad nature of the standards allows significant discretion in their implementation in national legislations that dictate penal practices in European countries. Nevertheless, individual countries’ discretion is limited; if they deviate from human rights standards, the European Court of Human Rights can intervene. Also, penologies of European countries (and not European penology) are more unified than non-European countries, emphasising respect for human rights, and (at least at a declarative level) support for the treatment of prisoners and persons under probation, and their reintegration.

While international (European) organisations strive towards harmonisation, the influence of a specific cultural, historical, socioeconomic, and judicial development is dominant in determining penal policy and practice in European countries. Diversity is the staple of the European continent and is also seen in the penological field. The organisation of prison services, level of professionalism, treatment of prisoners, and the size and characteristics of prison and probation populations support the claim of multiple European penologies. While the efforts of the Council of Europe and the European Union to harmonise and enforce high standards regarding the implementation of penal sanctions (especially in the fields of protecting human rights and treatment) should be supported and admired, it is questionable whether harmonisation and unification of penologies and penal practices in European countries are necessary or even desirable, as differences present an opportunity to learn from each other. Also, on a more practical level, the influence of broader factors that influence penology in individual countries should be acknowledged. The characteristics of criminal offences and offenders have a profound effect on penal practice. For example, treatment programmes developed in countries with a significant percentage of foreigners in the prison population differ significantly from those in countries with a homogeneous prison population, as they must consider language barriers, cultural sensitivity, etc. Also, countries with a low rate of violent offenders (e.g., Slovenia) can ‘afford’ less emphasis on security in prisons and increase rehabilitation efforts, as well as greater reliance on probation measures (i.e., alternative sanctions). Economic development should also be acknowledged in the context of penological diversity, as some European countries simply cannot afford to ‘update/upgrade’ penal practices (prisons and probation services) with state-of-the-art technologies and treatment programmes. While harmonisation of rules on the protection of human rights of prisoners and persons under probation measures, and especially their implementation in practice, in European countries is necessary, a ‘forcible’ implementation of standards that work in a specific social context could have dire consequences in different cultural environments. Penology, or rather penal practices, should be tailored individually based on the specific needs of European countries. Despite significant efforts to politically unify the European continent, European countries remain diverse, and the same should be expected in the field of punishment in the future. European criminology/penology should encourage comparative research in this field, with a clear goal of identifying best practices in individual countries that other countries may adopt (but are in no way obligated to do so) and implement (in a modified form) in their penal systems. The European Society of Criminology presents an ideal forum for debate on different views on the matter of punishment, while the European Journal of Criminology offers a forum for experts from across Europe and beyond to present their views and gain insights into penological matters in European countries.