Based on a survey administered in 13 prisons in England & Wales and Norway, as part of a research programme with explicitly comparative aims, this article seeks to address both the relative and absolute dimensions of the Nordic penal exceptionalism thesis. It outlines the consistently more positive results in Norway compared to England & Wales, explaining them primarily with reference to the former’s much higher quality and use of open prisons. At the same time, it emphasizes that, even in an unusually humane prison system, prisoners report considerable pain and frustration. The article also makes the case that comparative analysis should strive to be systematic, but that such comparisons are always imperfect, making methodological transparency all the more essential.
Open prisons are portrayed as less harmful custodial institutions than closed prisons, and prison systems that rely more heavily on low security imprisonment are typically considered to have a more humane and less punitive approach to punishment. However, few studies have systematically compared the subjective experiences of prisoners held in open and closed prisons, and no study has yet compared the role and function of open prisons across jurisdictions. Drawing on a survey conducted with prisoners (N = 1082) in 13 prisons in England and Wales and Norway, we provide the first comparative analysis of experiences of imprisonment in closed and open prisons, conducted in countries with diverging penal philosophies (‘neoliberal’ vs. ‘social democratic’). The article documents that open prisons play a much more significant role in Norway than in England and Wales; that prisoners in both countries rate their experience significantly more positively in open compared to closed prisons; and that while imprisonment seems to produce similar kinds of pains in both types of prisons, they are perceived as less severe and more manageable in open prisons. These findings suggest important implications for comparative penology, penal policy, and prison reform.
Evidence on the outcomes of adolescent dating violence (ADV) victimization mainly derives from cross-sectional studies, which have limitations in suggesting causal relationships. Furthermore, the complexity of factors and overlapping dimensions in dating violence research, such as the forms of violence experienced, may have contributed to the variability of findings across the literature. To address these gaps and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of ADV, this study reviews findings from prospective cohort studies, with a focus on the type of violence experienced and the gender of the victim. A systematic search was conducted in nine electronic databases and additional relevant journals. Prospective longitudinal studies were included if dating violence victimization occurred during adolescence and chronologically preceded the outcomes. A quality assessment was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A narrative approach was used to synthesize findings. After screening 1,838 records, 14 publications met the selection criteria and were included in this review. Our findings suggest that experiencing ADV is longitudinally associated with many adverse outcomes, including higher internalizing symptoms and externalizing behaviors, poorer well-being, increased substance use, and increased revictimization. However, the associations are not consistently reported across studies when considering the type of ADV experienced and the gender of the victim. This review highlights the limited number of longitudinal studies examining the outcomes of ADV victimization, the unbalanced approach in investigating different forms of violence, and the lack of diverse samples examining this subject. Implications for research, policy, and practice are outlined.
The present study further supports the established notion that personality traits contribute to the phenomenon of false confessions and compliance in an interrogative setting. Furthermore, the study provides an investigation into the more recent interest in the potential effect of psychopathic traits in this context. A sample of university students (N = 607) completed questionnaires measuring psychopathic traits, interrogative compliance, and the big five personality factors. Of these, only 4.9% (n=30) claimed to have falsely confessed to an academic or criminal offense, with no participant taking the blame for both types of offense. Across measures the big five personality traits were the strongest predictors of compliance. The five personality traits accounted for 17.9 % of the total variance in compliance, with neuroticism being the strongest predictor, followed by openness and agreeableness. Psychopathy accounted for 3.3% of variance, with the lifestyle facet being the only significant predictor. After controlling for the big five personality factors, psychopathy only accounted for a small percentage of interrogative compliance, indicating that interrogators should take into account a person's personality traits during the interrogation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.