There are still many issues in our criminal justice system that scholars, community members, and policymakers are trying to address. One way to think about different possibilities for this system is by looking at how other countries have tackled these problems. Using our sociological imagination, we can critically examine our institutions and think more deeply about what we could learn from the different ways crime is addressed around the globe.

Next, we explore three examples of how other countries have addressed criminal justice issues. In these examples, we’ll look at how countries have reformed their systems, effectively addressed recidivism, and created cultures of rehabilitation rather than punishment. In each system, crime is taken seriously, especially violent crime. At the same time, these systems address many of the issues we have examined in the U.S. system.

Policing and Prison in Nordic Countries

Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, and Norway) have very different systems of policing and imprisonment compared to other wealthy Western nations. While there are differences between each country’s political system, there are many more commonalities in their approach to criminal justice. Foremost, compared to other wealthy Western nations, they have much lower punishment severity, imprisonment rates, and violence rates. The primary focus of these systems is preventing crime from occurring in the first place. When crime does occur, the goal of these systems is to reduce recidivism and restore justice rather than simply punitively punishing an individual for an offense. Nordic countries have strong welfare states. By providing the essential resources that individuals need to survive, fewer individuals turn to criminal activities to make ends meet (Lappi-Seppälä and Tonry 2011). Figure 7.12 shows comparisons between a prison in Iceland and Oregon prisons.

Differences in social policies and lower crime levels between Nordic countries and the United States are not the only factors leading to lower incarceration rates. The structure of the police looks very different in Nordic countries. Unlike in the United States, where police are organized at the state and local levels, all Nordic countries have unified, federally-organized police forces (Lappi-Seppälä and Tonry 2011). From here, the country is divided into police districts that are then overseen by chiefs of police. Police training looks much different in Nordic countries, as well. Police in these countries spend considerably more time being trained and cover topics such as criminological theory, health science, behavioral science, and social work. Use of force against citizens is incredibly low in these countries, with fatal police shootings being rare rather than commonplace, as they are in the United States.

In terms of incarceration, all Nordic countries have abolished the death penalty and only use incarceration for the most serious offenses. Generally, penalties for crimes are less severe in these countries, tending to hold individuals accountable through formal warning, fines, and community sanctions rather than imprisonment. When possible, the goal is for individuals to remain in their communities and access resources including therapy, job training, and other services to prevent individuals from committing crimes again. These policies are incredibly effective. Nordic countries have some of the lowest rates of lethal violence and extremely low levels of recidivism.

Decriminalization of Drugs

There have been multiple countries around the world that have decriminalized drugs, aiming to address inequality created by criminalization policies and to focus on addressing drug addiction as a health issue. Uruguay has decriminalized personal possession of all drugs since 1974. Uruguay took this one step further in 2013, becoming the first country in the world to fully legalize cannabis and establish a regulatory framework for its sale. Similar policies can be seen in places like Portugal, where drugs have been decriminalized since 2001. In the decades since, there have been significant increases in the number of people voluntarily entering drug treatment, while they have seen decreases in several negative drug-related outcomes, such as overdoses, HIV infections, problematic drug use, and incarceration. In both of these countries, drug trafficking is still heavily criminalized, but people who use drugs every day are now more likely to be connected to health resources or (at the very least) not face the prospect of incarceration for possession of a personal stash of drugs. These examples of policy interventions helped inspire Measure 110 in Oregon, which established similar decriminalization, meaning people possessing a personal amount would not face serious criminal charges and could more easily gain access to drug treatment.

Roots of Restorative Justice

In some jurisdictions in the United States, courts have begun engaging in practices of restorative justice in their efforts to reform the criminal justice system. Restorative justice is a set of practices that bring together the person who committed the act, those who were harmed by the action, and other relevant community stakeholders to identify ways to heal the harm caused by an offense. The practice has roots in North American Indigenous communities, and as such, is particularly significant for community members, representing a return to Indigenous healing and values. These communities did not conceptualize law and the state in the same way as European or American societies, and acts against individuals or the community were seen as crimes (Centennial College [N.d.]). Rather than punish offenders, the goal was to repair harm and promote healing (Centennial College [N.d.]).

Similarly, restorative justice today is a community-based and trauma-informed practice used to build relationships, strengthen communities, encourage accountability, repair harm, and restore relationships when wrongdoings occur. Participating in restorative justice is voluntary. Working with a facilitator, participants identify harms, needs, and obligations, then make a plan to repair the harm and put things as right as possible. Through victim-offender dialogues, both groups gain an opportunity to express the impact the offense had on them. It also allows the offender to potentially take responsibility directly to the victim(s) and to the community as a whole for the acts committed.

Restorative justice has been shown to have positive outcomes in accountability for harm, and both offenders and victims have reported satisfaction in the restorative justice process. Some research suggests there may be cognitive change that occurs as individuals complete restorative justice programs. This approach is becoming an area of increasing interest for practitioners who may find this tool useful in their work within community justice and community corrections.

Licenses and Attributions for Cross-Cultural Comparisons

Open Content, Original

“Cross-Cultural Comparisons” by Alexandra Olsen is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Open Content, Shared Previously

“Roots of Restorative Justice” modified from “9.10. Restorative Justice” by David Carter in SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System by Alison S. Burke, David Cater, Brian Fedorek; Tiffany Morey, Lore Rutz-Burri, and Shanell Sanchez, which is licensed under CC BY 4.0. Reorganized, edited for consistency and clarity.

All Rights Reserved Content

Figure 7.12. Prison cell in Hólmsheiði Prison in Reykjavik, Iceland, by Hreinn Magnússon in Arkís is included under fair use (top left); Photo by Beth Nakamura for The Oregonian is included under fair use (top right); Photo by Tom Wilkinson from The Architectural Review is included under fair use (middle); Photo by Beth Nakamura for The Oregonian is included under fair use (bottom).