Lost in translation: The principle of normalisation in prison policy in Norway and the Netherlands
Published date | 01 July 2023 |
DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/14624745221103823 |
Author | Jill van de Rijt,Esther van Ginneken,Miranda Boone |
Date | 01 July 2023 |
Lost in translation: The
principle of normalisation in
prison policy in Norway and
the Netherlands
Jill van de Rijt
Institute for Criminal Law and Criminology, Leiden University,
Netherlands; Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency, Netherlands
Esther van Ginneken
and Miranda Boone
Institute for Criminal Law and Criminology, Leiden University,
Netherlands
Abstract
The principle of normalisation has gained more prominence in international prison law,
with both the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules (UN SMR) and the European
Prison Rules (EPR) promoting normalisation to the guiding principles. In general
terms, normalisation refers to shaping life in prison in resemblance to life outside prison.
However, it largely remains unclear what this principle entails for prison policy. The gen-
eral formulation in the UN SMR and EPR leave much discretionary room to national
prison authorities. By conducting a (comparative) policy analysis, this article aims to
uncover the normative standards derived from the UN SMR and EPR and how the prin-
ciple translates into national laws and policies of Norway and the Netherlands. The ana-
lysis shows that although the main provision is generally formulated, some detailed
norms are provided in other provisions on how elements of life in prison should be
shaped, including limits and restrictions. In Norway and the Netherlands, normalisation
is not explicitly mentioned in law, but is (to a varied extent) incorporated in policy. It is
shown that, in practice, normalisation is closely tied to reintegration, which has import-
ant implications for the principle itself and the norms that are taken as point of
reference.
Corresponding author:
Jill van de Rijt, Institute for Criminal Law and Criminology, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9520, 2300 RA Leiden,
the Netherlands.
Email: j.i.b.van.de.rijt@law.leidenuniv.nl
Article
Punishment & Society
2023, Vol. 25(3) 766–783
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/14624745221103823
journals.sagepub.com/home/pun
Keywords
normalisation, prison life, equal rights, reintegration, comparative analysis
Historically, prisons have been regarded as places of total confinement. This means that
every aspect of life takes place within the parameters of the prison walls; home, work,
education, even doctor’s appointments and family visits. In these total institutions,
their inhabitants must adapt to the regime in order to cope with life in the institution.
Life in these ‘total institutions’, as Goffman (1961) stated, could therefore never be
normal. Nevertheless, the principle of normalisation has gained traction in international
legislation and scholarly debate. The main provision of the United Nations Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (UN SMR) and the European Prison
Rules (EPR) leave much discretionary room to national prison authorities (Chantraine,
2010; Livingstone, 2000). The principle refers to shaping prison life in resemblance to
life outside prison. This, however, raises important questions that warrant further exam-
ination, namely what the goal of normalisation is and what norms are considered as points
of reference. In trying to answer these questions, the inherent complexity of the principle
of normalisation becomes apparent. In this contribution we discuss this complexity with
specific attention to the application of the principle of normalisation in the Netherlands
and Norway, to highlight how these debates play out in practice.
A comparison between Norway and the Netherlands is particularly interesting because of
the apparent similarities between the two countries. Notwithstanding the widespread academic
debate, the prison systems in both countries have both been characterised as progressive and
exceptional in the past (Liebling et al., 2021; Reiter et al., 2018; Smith and Ugelvik, 2017a;
Todd-Kvam, 2019). Moreover, in 2015, Norwegian prisoners were housed in a Dutch
prison. The Dutch government stated in one of the parliamentary debates that the
Netherlands and Norway have substantively equivalent programmes in prisons (Dutch
Ministry of Justice, 2015). Despite the apparent similarities, the research conducted on the
incarceration of Norwegian individuals in the Netherlands shows there are far-reaching differ-
ences on the executive level, for example in the provision of services (Liebling et al., 2021).
By examining laws and policies of both countries, we will contribute to a better under-
standing of the translation and application of the complex concept of normalisation. The
research question is: ‘How are principles of normalisation as outlined in international guide-
lines translated into national laws and policy of the Netherlands and Norway and how do
countries deal with the inherent complexities within the principle of normalisation?’As
the analysis will show, in international soft law the normalisation principle strictly applies
to the conditions in prison. However, in translating the principle into national policy and
practice, normalisation becomes more focussed on the individual, at the risk of becoming
not just instrumental, but a conditional principle tied to prisoners’behaviour.
Theoretical debates about normalisation of prison life
The meaning of normalisation is not straightforward. While it has connotations related to
behaviour,
1
most definitions of normalisation focus on normalisation of the prison
van de Rijt et al. 767
To continue reading
Request your trial