Lost in translation: The principle of normalisation in prison policy in Norway and the 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 general 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 principle translates into national laws and policies of Norway and the Netherlands. The analysis 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 important implications for the principle itself and the norms that are taken as point of reference.

Normalisation by default and normalisation by design: A systematic review of empirical studies on the normalisation of prison life

“…By linking normalisation to reintegration, behavioural norms become intertwined with an intrinsic right of prisoners to humane prison conditions. A focus on resocialisation might sway the normalisation effort towards behaviour instead of prison conditions, resulting in efforts to normalise the individual as a form of responsibilisation (Van de Rijt et al, 2023;Van Ginneken, 2018). Here, normalisation transgresses into a form of discipline conform with Foucault's definition of the concept of normalisation (Foucault, 1977).…”

“…From the above line of argumentation, it becomes clear that it is not possible to make a straightforward distinction between the rights-based principle of normalisation and disciplinary normalisation in the Foucauldian meaning of the word. We therefore treat these two forms of normalisation not as static opposites, but rather as a ‘sliding scale’ where both forms can appear as a result of the same effort (De Vos, 2021; Van de Rijt et al, 2023).…”