1
DOES SCANDINAVIAN EXCEPTIONALISM CREATE HUMANE PRISONS? A
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF NORWEGIAN AND CANADIAN PRISONS.

By
Caitlin Helder

Under the Supervision of
Doug King

An Honours Project submitted
in partial fulfillment
of the Degree requirement for the degree of
Bachelor of Arts – Criminal Justice (Honours)
Mount Royal University

Date Submitted: April 17, 2023

2

Copyright 2023
Caitlin C. Helder
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

This work is completed in its entirety by Caitlin C. Helder. All rights are reserved to the
information provided in this document.

MOUNT ROYAL UNIVERSITY
CALGARY, AB, CANADA

3
Dedication

To Carolin Helder, 1966-2021.
Your passion for making the world a better place has inspired me to do the same.

4
Territorial Acknowledgement

Mount Royal University is located in the traditional territories of the Niitsitapi (Blackfoot) and
the people of Treaty 7 which includes the Siksika, the Piikani, the Kainai, and the Tsuut'ina, and
the Îyârhe Nakoda. We are situated on land where the Bow River meets the Elbow River, and the
traditional Blackfoot name of this place is Mohkinstsis, which we now call the City of Calgary.
The City of Calgary is also home to the Métis Nation.

5
Abstract
The creation of humane prisons is a nearly impossible task, however some countries have
been praised for being better at it than the rest. Scandinavian countries have been praised for
their humane conditions within their prisons and the success of the prisons applications within
their welfare state, leading to the creation of the concept of Scandinavian exceptionalism. This
thesis examines the legitimacy of Scandinavian exceptionalism by comparing Halden maximumsecurity prison in Norway to Millhaven Institution in Canada. The two prisons, while
comparable in their goals and types of inmates, are very different in their perception by prison
officers, inmates, and the public. Halden Prison is praised for architectural design, training for
officers, and programs for offenders, while Millhaven is often critiqued for the same aspects.
This study analyses each prison within the context of their respective country’s prison system as
a whole. The research also points out the strengths and weaknesses of each prison and how they
compare to each other. The study concludes by comparing the two prisons within the context of
Scandinavian exceptionalism and offering suggestions of how elements that each prison could
learn from each other.

6
Acknowledgements
This thesis is dedicated to my mother, Carolin Helder. Losing her was the hardest part of
this degree. She was always the first person I told about what I was doing at school and I have
wanted nothing more than to tell her about this thesis every step of the way. She was endlessly
supportive of my constantly changing plans for my life, and for that I am eternally grateful. I
know that she would be proud of me for pushing through, and not only graduating but doing it
with honours. To my dad, Ed, thank you for being unconditionally supportive of me both
financially and emotionally. Your encouragement to always do what is best for me in my life has
helped make growing up much less scary.
I would like to thank my supervisor Doug King for his role in the completion of this
thesis. His constant support and understanding during this entire process have made this work
possible, and his incredible teaching in each of his classes has kept me inspired and motivated
throughout this degree. I would also like to thank the other faculty of the Criminal Justice
program, especially Dr. Winterdyk, Harpreet Aulakh, and Ritesh Narayan. Every class I had the
privilege of taking with them have strengthened my passions greatly.
Finally, I would like to thank all of my friends, especially Rachel, Lydia, and Nadia, for
commiserating with me over the difficulties of being students and for always being a shoulder to
cry on and an ear to rant to. Words cannot express how excited I am to see what the future has in
store for each of us.

7
Table of Contents

Dedication .................................................................................................................................................... 3
Territorial Acknowledgement.................................................................................................................... 4
Abstract........................................................................................................................................................ 5
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Does Scandinavian Exceptionalism Create Humane Prisons? ............................................................... 9
Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 10
Limitations ................................................................................................................................................. 11
Literature Review ..................................................................................................................................... 12
Scandinavian Exceptionalism .............................................................................................................. 12
Critiques of Scandinavian Exceptionalism ....................................................................................... 14
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 15
Present Study......................................................................................................................................... 16
Halden Prison Case Study ........................................................................................................................ 16
Norwegian Views on Justice and Punishment .................................................................................... 16
The Normality Principle .................................................................................................................... 17
Halden Prison ........................................................................................................................................ 18
Background ........................................................................................................................................ 18
The Inmates ........................................................................................................................................ 19
Architectural Design .......................................................................................................................... 20
Prison Officers ................................................................................................................................... 21
Programs ............................................................................................................................................ 22
Results .................................................................................................................................................... 23
Critiques ................................................................................................................................................ 23
Millhaven Institution Case Study ............................................................................................................ 26
Canadian Views on Justice and Punishment ...................................................................................... 26
Restorative Justice Programs ............................................................................................................ 27
Millhaven Institution ............................................................................................................................ 27
Background ........................................................................................................................................ 27
The Inmates ........................................................................................................................................ 28
Architectural Design .......................................................................................................................... 29
Prison Officers ................................................................................................................................... 30

8
Programming ..................................................................................................................................... 31
Results .................................................................................................................................................... 32
Critiques ................................................................................................................................................ 33
Discussion .................................................................................................................................................. 34
Views on Crime and Punishment ........................................................................................................ 35
Prison Officers....................................................................................................................................... 36
Programs................................................................................................................................................ 37
What is the Punishment?...................................................................................................................... 38
Halden and Millhaven in the Context of Scandinavian Exceptionalism .......................................... 38
What Can Each System Learn from Each Other? ............................................................................ 39
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 40
References .................................................................................................................................................. 42

9
Does Scandinavian Exceptionalism Create Humane Prisons?
As countries around the world start making shifts to more humane forms of crime control
and punishment, discourse has been rising on which countries stand out from the crowd.
Throughout these discussions, Scandinavian and Nordic nations have come to be viewed as the
ideal of humane penal systems and prison design. This in turn has led into the concept of
Scandinavian exceptionalism, or that these northern countries like Norway, Sweden, and
Denmark have design their penal systems in such a way that they are not only more humane in
their treatment of inmates, but more successful in rehabilitation. According to Pratt (2008a), who
initially coined the term Scandinavian exceptionalism, these countries stand out in not only the
design of their prison, but also the level of imprisonment within the countries, with
comparatively low numbers of people imprisoned compared to the rest of the world.
The theory of Scandinavian exceptionalism is not without its criticisms. Scholars from
these Scandinavian and Nordic countries critique Pratt for his lack of understanding of the
culture and history of the countries he studies, as Pratt himself is not native to any of them,
which leads to overgeneralization of trends and ignoring of important issues within the systems
(Mathiesen, 2011, p.14). Despite the criticism however, the concept of Scandinavian
exceptionalism is still one that can add valuable insight into the discussions around the best or
most humane designs of prison or penal system. Comparisons to other countries prisons can also
contribute to understanding if Scandinavian exceptionalism actually exists, and if it does to what
extent it can be applied. By comparing prisons in other Western countries, such as Canada, to
those in Scandinavian countries, it can be seen that the prisons in Scandinavian countries take a
more humane approach to punishment and rehabilitation.

10
Methodology
The first step in comparing Norwegian and Canadian prison models in the context of
Scandinavian exceptionalism was conducting a literature review to understand the history and
context of Scandinavian exceptionalism as well as the research that has been conducted
surrounding it. This literature review was conducted using the Mount Royal University Library
online database. Search terms, “Scandinavian exceptionalism” and “Nordic exceptionalism”
were used to find sources. The results were filtered based on their subject, including only those
who’s subject was criminology, criminal justice, penology, prisons, and other related categories.
Resources were included based on their discussion of Scandinavian or Nordic exceptionalism in
the context of prisons that were based in Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and Iceland.
Resources were excluded if they discussed Scandinavian or Nordic exceptionalism in the context
of parolees, immigration, or art and culture, as well as other topics that did not ultimately relate
back to prisons or prison systems. Resources that were not written in English or could not
reliably be translated into English were also excluded.
To compare Norwegian and Canadian prison systems one federal maximum-security
prison was chosen from each country. The prisons were chosen based on their security level, the
types of offenders housed at the institution, and the age of the prison. The amount of literature,
reports, and research available on the prisons was an additional deciding factor for which prison
from each country was chosen. Ultimately Halden Prison in Norway and Millhaven Institution in
Canada were chosen to be compared for the purposes of this study.
To collect information on both of the prisons, online searches were conducted to obtain as
much information as possible. Mount Royal University Library database, Google Scholar,
Government of Norway, and Government of Canada, were used to find scholarly articles,

11
studies, and reports from each institution. Regular Google searches were also used to find
investigative journalism sources such as documentaries that filmed inside either institution and
memoirs from former inmates. These sources were used to fill the gaps in the available academic
research for perspectives from people who served time in the institutions.
In addition to research on each individual prison, research was conducted on the countries
prison systems as a whole. Books and articles which discussed each country’s perspective on
crime and punishment were used to understand the individual prisons in the context of their
country’s penal system. Additionally, government reports pertaining to each individual prison
and their prison system were included to understand the specific goals that the governments of
each country have for their prisons.
All sources used to gather information about the individual prisons and the Norwegian
and Canadian prison systems were included based on their relevance to the specific system or
prison. Sources that focused on different institutions in each country were included if they
included relevant information on the prison system as a whole. Sources that were written in
Norwegian, French, or another language and could not be reliably translated into English were
excluded.
As this study did not use any primary data, no research ethics approval was required.
Limitations
Only two countries were used in the comparison for this study, limiting its scope to only
the perspectives found in those countries. Although the information found in this study can be
used to gain an understanding of the accuracy of the concept of Scandinavian exceptionalism,
because it only looked at Norway, it can not be directly interpreted onto other Nordic and

12
Scandinavian countries. As Canada was the only non-Scandinavian country studied, it also
cannot be accurately applied to other American or Western countries such as the United States.
As this project was completed within the final two semesters of a degree program, there
were time limitations to how far the research could go. As a result, only one prison was studied
from each country. While these case studies can give a general baseline idea for the state of each
country’s respective prison system, and as much context was given as possible, they are not a
complete reflection of the systems as a whole or all of the nuances that each system experiences.
Further studies into other prisons in each country would have to be conducted to get a thorough
understanding of the topic.
Finally, while this study compared two different countries and their prisons, as a citizen
of Canada from birth, my own biases likely influenced elements of the research. I have
experienced Canadian culture for my entire life and have studied the Canadian justice system
throughout the entirety of my bachelor’s degree. These experiences influence my own
perspective and understanding of the Canadian prison system. On the other hand, I have
extremely limited first-hand knowledge of Norwegian culture and their prison systems. As a
result, there are undoubtedly aspects of the culture and system that are not fully represented
within this research.
Literature Review
Scandinavian Exceptionalism
Scandinavian exceptionalism, also sometimes referred to as Nordic exceptionalism, is
often used to describe the comparatively exceptional standards and results of justice within
Scandinavian countries. One of the most notable studies into this is John Pratt’s, Scandinavian

13
Exceptionalism in an Era of Penal Excess, two-part study. In the first part of the study, The
Nature and Roots of Scandinavian Exceptionalism, Pratt defines what he considers Scandinavian
exceptionalism as the comparatively low levels of incarceration in combination with the more
humane prison environments often found in the countries he studied (Pratt, 2008a). Moreover, in
this first part of his study Pratt (2008a), explains how these prison systems could come to exist
within Scandinavian countries, attributing it largely to their relative cultural homogeneity and the
development of the Scandinavian welfare state in the early to mid 1900s. The second part of the
study Does Scandinavian Exceptionalism Have a Future?, analyses how the changing
demographics within the countries effected the ability for both the Scandinavian welfare state as
well as Scandinavian exceptionalism to exist (Pratt, 2008b). What Pratt does not discuss in either
part of his study are the specifics of how these exceptional prisons are designed, or what their
individual goals are. Additionally, although he does briefly discuss the role that increasing
diversity has played in the course of Scandinavian exceptionalism, he does not discuss how
diversity issues may impact the ability for other countries to implement similar models.
Many of the existing studies surrounding Scandinavian exceptionalism build on Pratt’s
2008 study. The theory has been tested through comparative studies of prison systems to
determine if its beliefs that Scandinavian prisons are more humane than prisons in other western
countries. One such study that compared the experiences of inmates in Norwegian prisons to that
of inmates in prions in England and Wales found that although the pains of imprisonment in
Norway are still very strongly experienced by inmates, it is generally more humane and less
damaging than the experience of prisoners in England and Wales (Crewe et al., 2022). Another
study of Norwegian prisons found that the relationships between guards and prisoners, which is
often considered part of what makes Scandinavian prisons exceptional, can be indicative of

14
humane prison conditions in small prisons, although in larger prisons within the country that is
not as true in larger prisons (Johnsen et al., 2011). Both of these studies ultimately highlight the
idea that Pratt’s theory can be accurately applied in practise to prisons while also taking the time
to point out the flaw in what can often be an idealized theory.
Critiques of Scandinavian Exceptionalism
Others who have conducted research on Scandinavian and Nordic penal systems,
especially researchers from those countries, offer critiques of Pratt’s ideal of Scandinavian
exceptionalism. Mathiesen (2011), describes that although Pratt’s study offers some strong
suggestions of how Scandinavia can be an example for other countries, his omissions of certain
issues such as suicide rates and drug crimes in prisons, which he believes is largely due to Pratt
not being from any Nordic or Scandinavian country himself, has created an exaggerated positive
idea of the penal systems in these countries. Other scholars similarly conclude that although
Scandinavia can be used as an example of a strong welfare state, the theory of Scandinavian
exceptionalism overplays how exceptional Nordic prison’s really are and underestimates the
increase of punitivism in countries like Norway (Barry & Leonardsen, 2012).
Although it is not always agreed upon which countries are included in Scandinavian or
Nordic exceptionalism, Denmark is often added into the group of exceptional prison systems. A
study of Tina Enghoff’s photography series depicting the experience of prisoners kept inside
solitary confinement cells in Ringe state prison in Denmark concludes that the idea of
Scandinavian exceptionalism is little more than a myth (Wolthers, 2017). Similarly a study by
Reiter et al. (2017) focused on the use of solitary confinement in Danish prisons exposed the lack
of nuance offered by the Scandinavian exceptionalism thesis, in that it ignores the purpose of
prisons being primarily to punish people, and that what makes Danish prisons exceptional is not

15
that they are the ideal of humane prisons, but rather that they actively engage with and attempt to
balance the variety of goals of incarceration. These studies demonstrate well one of the
overarching critiques of Scandinavian exceptionalism, that although Scandinavian prisons
demonstrate humane conditions compared to other countries systems, the theory of Scandinavian
exceptionalism paints them too perfectly completely ignoring the areas in which these prisons
still cause pains to the inmates. Although Scandinavian prisons can be interpreted to do a good
job of imposing less harsh conditions on prisoners, they are ultimately still prisons, and must
uphold the goal of punishing criminals for their offences. In this same way, a study on human
rights violations in Swedish prisons concluded that although the Swedish penal system may be
more lenient that other penal systems, it still includes practices that can generally be seen as
inhumane (Barker, 2012).
Conclusion
Although the idea of Scandinavian or Nordic exceptionalism has become increasingly
popular since Pratt’s initial research, the number of studies conducted to determine its accuracy
in practice is limited. Researchers have also come back with conflicting opinions on the theory in
general. While some wholly reject the theory as overly optimistic about the state of the
Scandinavian welfare state and Scandinavian prison systems, other agree with it, finding that
compared to other prison systems those in Scandinavian and Nordic countries are generally more
humane. The discourse around the theory points both to its ability to distinguish how
Scandinavian countries stand apart from other parts of the world in their ability to create more
humane penal systems, but also the theories inability to account for the distinct challenges that
Scandinavian prisons face and the areas in which they fail.

16
Present Study
The comparison in this study seeks to begin understanding how humane the conditions
are within maximum-security closed prisons in Norway are compared to those within Canada.
The research looks to fill the gaps in comparative research between Scandinavian prison systems
to other prison systems. It will gain a better understanding of if Scandinavian exceptionalism is a
theory that can be applied in the context of comparative analyses of prisons.
Halden Prison Case Study
Norwegian Views on Justice and Punishment
The Norwegian justice system, including the prison system, is largely centered around the
ideology that inmates are entitled to all the same rights as members of the public (The Ministries,
2018). While this is an incredibly simple concept, its execution is much more complicated, given
that the larger goal of prisons is to punish offenders for the crimes that they have committed
against other individuals or society. It is important to note before going further into the analysis
of the Norwegian prison system, that it was not always the same as it is today. Like all justice
systems, the Norwegian system faces significant challenges when addressing mental health and
racial issues, and in the 1980s and 90s these issues fed into an increasingly hostile environment
within the prisons (Høidal, 2018). During this period, the recidivism rates for offenders were as
high as 63 percent to 80 percent, and two separate incidents occurred that caused the deaths of
prison officers (Høidal, 2018).
For the change from what the Norwegian prison system was in the 1980s and 90s to what
it has become today, a massive paradigm shift had to take place, one that changed the views on
justice from punitive to rehabilitative. To do this, the improved system must both satisfy
society’s need for offenders to be fully punished for the crime they committed, as well as its need

17
for those same offenders to not reoffend after they have completed their sentence (The
Ministries, 2018). This ideal was legislated in what is commonly referred to as White Paper I,
which was created in 1997-1998 and outlined the new values and objectives of the Norwegian
Correctional Service, specifically focusing on the goal of both reducing recidivism and
mitigating the negative effects of serving a sentence (Pratt, 2008a). To do this, prisons rely on
collaboration with other government sectors which coordinate other societal institutions, such as
health and wellness, social services, and work-related assistance (The Ministries, 2018). By
doing so, the lives of offenders after they are released from prison are no longer solely the
responsibility of the justice system, but rather the responsibility of society as a whole. This also
reflects the understanding that when these individuals are released back into society, it is in the
best interest of the people that they will be living around that they are upstanding citizens, who
are less likely to reoffend or potentially harm the communities that they reintegrated into.
The Normality Principle
Norway attributes much of its prison system’s success to their implementation of what
they refer to as the normality principle. This principle outlines how prisoners should experience a
regular routine while living in prison, with a daily framework, and the same rights and
obligations to society that they would hold outside of prison (Tønseth & Bergsland, 2019). This
inclusion of regular rights and responsibilities includes access to education, with mandatory
primary and secondary education being provided in Norwegian prisons, as well as the option for
all prisoners to seek post-secondary education while serving their sentence (Roth et al., 2017).
Each aspect of an inmate’s day to day life is based on what a relatively normal routine would be
outside of the prison’s walls, hoping to relieve some of the pressure put on the inmates to adapt
to a drastically different environment than what they are used to on the outside.

18
Fundamentally, Norway’s attitude towards punishment for crime centers around the belief
that the sentence should never be unnecessarily severe, and that a person being deprived on their
personal liberty is the punishment, without the conditions within the prison being additional
punishment (Høidal, 2018). In Norway, to take a person out of the life they had, and removing
their freedom to move around wherever they want, is a harsh enough punishment for crime.
Rather than focusing on creating a harsh punishment within prison walls, the focus is rather
placed onto rehabilitating the inmates so that after they have completed their sentence they can
reintegrate into society as individuals who members of the public would be comfortable calling
their neighbours.
Halden Prison
Background
Halden prison is a maximum-security men’s prison and is the second largest correctional
institution in Norway, with the capacity to house up to 250 inmates (Abdel-Salam & Kilmer,
2022). It was the first prison constructed after the creation of White Paper I, designed with the
intention of setting inmates up to be able to rejoin their communities after their sentence (Høidal,
2018). Halden is only one of 47 prisons in Norway, that serve a total population in the country of
4.6 million people (Pratt, 2008a), a ratio that is much different from other non-Scandinavian
countries. This large quantity of prisons over a relatively small country, both geographically and
by population, allows for most inmates to be sent to a facility nearby their own home, thereby
keeping them close to their friends, families, and communities, as well as the social services that
they will need upon release (Pratt, 2008a). All of this is designed to contribute to the inmates’
successful reintegration once they have completed their sentence.

19
The creation of Halden prison was in part to reduce the length of the waiting list for
Norwegian prison places in the 1990s and early 2000s, with one of its initial goals being to
reduce some of the pressure on the prison system (Høidal & Hanssen, 2023, p. 41). In addition to
alleviating pressure on the system, Halden was also designed as a modern approach to
punishment. It was to implement the new principle in the Norwegian Correctional Service of
helping inmates progress towards reintegration into society during their sentence, by moving
them from higher levels of security to lower levels over time until they are released onto parole
(Høidal, 2018). To do this, Halden must follow its motto of “change that lasts”, which hopes to
rehabilitate offender, leading them to take preventing themselves from committing crime into
their own hands (Høidal, 2018). This goal is worked towards in every aspect of how Halden is
designed, as well as the training that staff receive and the programs and services available to
offenders.
The Inmates
Given that Halden is a maximum-security prison, most of the men serving sentences there
have committed serious criminal offences. Large percentages of the men have committed violent
crimes or drug offences, and the average sentence being served is approximately six years
(Abdel-Salam & Kilmer, 2022). An average prisoner is also likely to have experienced an
unstable childhood, with drug addiction, split parents, and abuse being regular parts of their life,
and likely have not completed a secondary school education (Høidal & Hanssen, 2023, p. 22).
Many of the prisoners also suffer from various mental disorders, with reports showing that a vast
majority of the prisoners in Norwegian prisons demonstrating signs of at least one personality
disorder or mental illness (Høidal & Hanssen, 2023, p. 58). Overall, the prisoners in Halden are
troubled men, most of whom are serving sentences for serious offences. Taking this

20
understanding of who the prisoners are who are serving time at Halden can help to comprehend
the magnitude of the challenge that the Norwegian Correctional Service has been facing when
attempting to create a system that rehabilitates them and reduces recidivism.
Architectural Design
Halden’s goal of reintegrating offenders is a common theme across the architectural and
spatial design of the prison. Its architecture reflects its overarching goals of creating a prison that
can also serve as a rehabilitative space for the criminals that it houses. It attempts to create a
space that is less hostile than other prisons and can facilitate therapeutic measure for the inmates.
The physical design of Halden prison had to achieve multiple different motives of human
centered design simultaneously. Not only did the designers have to create a punitive space where
prisoners could be faced with the consequences of their crimes, but also a place where the
inmates could learn and grow. The prison’s architects have described the concept for it as a
contrast between the ‘hard’ removal from freedom, and the ‘soft’ aim of rehabilitation (Helsing
Almaas, 2016, p. 90). These two seemingly clashing objectives required an incredibly innovative
design for a prison that would not be solely focused on punishment. This is reflected in the
prison’s design being centered around natural life. Halden is designed in multiple buildings,
causing prisoners to have to regularly walk outside in nature to get from place to place, a
representation of life outside prison as people move from home to work, while also focusing on
the impact that spending time connected to nature has for building self-esteem (Høidal &
Hanssen, 2023, p. 42). The outdoor landscape itself is also designed with this importance of
nature in mind. The landscape maintains the natural topography of the land, and pre-existing
vegetation was maintained as much as possible, effectively creating natural outdoor spaces
(Helsing Almaas, 2016, p. 90).

21
Considering the rates of mental illnesses and disorders that are found amongst people
who have committed criminal offences, this use of nature and environment in the prison design
appears to reflect the goals of rehabilitation. This concept is rooted in the ideas of biophilic
design, which outline that connecting people to nature, or biophilia, through the design of the
environment around them, encourages a love of life, while also steering them away from further
psychological regression (Söderlund & Newman, 2017). Applying these concepts hopes that by
allowing inmates to have a degree of regular exposure to nature, their mental health will be
positively impacted and their likelihood of reoffending will be decreased. Halden’s design also
reflects campus or cottage style of prison design, in which the prison is laid out in separate
buildings and use ‘softer’ design elements, based on the idea that harsher prison environments
create negative psychological and behavioural outcomes (Nadel & Mears, 2018). Put all together,
Halden’s architectural design attempts to create a space that allows prisoners to reflect and grow.
Prison Officers
A traditional relationship between prison guards and inmates cannot often be described as
friendly. In Halden however, the guards are encouraged to maintain friendly relationships with
the inmates. Host of “Inside the World’s Toughest Prisons” Raphael Rowe asked one of the
working guards at Halen about this relationship who said, “…we need to be good examples in
terms of how they’re supposed to treat others. It reflects how they should behave on the outside”
(McConnel, 2018, 14:17). This relationship demonstrates the normality principle that Halden
focuses on. It implements methods of dynamic security, which is an approach to security that
requires officers to engage with inmates to be able to identify threats before they become a largescale issue, while also using the relationship-building as a rehabilitative treatment method
(Kilmer et al., 2023). By treating the relationships between officers and inmates as another form

22
of rehabilitation, each offender’s path towards a life without crime on the outside is helped along
within even the smallest everyday interactions they have during their sentence.
The officer’s role in the prison is not just to be friendly with the inmates while they move
them through their day-to-day routine. Officers are also assigned two or three inmates who they
assist in creating a specific plan for the future, helping them to determine what rehabilitation or
treatment they will need during their incarceration (Kilmer et al., 2023). Through this, the
officers take an active role in the inmates’ lives. This positive relationship with authority could
help to reduce the negative associations that formerly incarcerated individuals hold towards
authority figures after they complete their sentence, in turn making it easier for them to reach out
for help when they need it.
Programs
The most notable way that Halden seeks to rehabilitate its inmates is through the
programs and systems that are available to them, whether they be voluntary or required. One
example of this is the heavy emphasis placed on the importance of education in reducing
recidivism. Studies found that inmate populations had much lower average education than that of
the regular population, with the average prisoner having only completed primary schooling
(Tønseth & Bersland, 2019). Since it has been demonstrated that convicts with higher education
are able to find a job more easily after their release, thereby more effectively reintegrating into
society, educating prisoners has been determined to be a crucial factor in rehabilitation (Roth et.
al, 2017). The education system in the prisons is the responsibility of the county governor for the
area that the prison is in, also providing for follow-up classes for convicts that complete their
sentence before they get the chance to finish their schooling (Tønseth & Bergsland, 2019). By
making the education of inmates the responsibility of the broader Norwegian education system,

23
the government’s import model is used to encourage different ministries serving a different
societal need to work together in taking responsibility for decreasing recidivism.
Results
One of the main ways that the effectiveness of a particular country’s prison system is
typically measured is based on the number of inmates who reoffend after they are released after
completing their sentence. Between the years of 2014 and 2018 in Norway, the percentage of
offenders who were reconvicted within two years of their release from prison ranged from
eighteen to twenty-four percent, with the percentage of reconvictions dropping slightly every
year (Kristoffersen, 2022). While this number can be insightful for the general understanding of
how well the Norwegian prison system appears to work, it does not directly represent the
offenders of Halden prison. This is especially relevant because although this recidivism
percentage is renowned for being on of the lowest in the world, Norway does have some unique
characteristics that could contribute to driving this number so low, such as their imposition of
harsh sentences such as imprisonment on groups of offenders who are at a low risk of recidivism
such as traffic offenders (Høidal & Hanssen, 2023, p. 27), whereas other countries are more
likely to sentence these types of offenders with fines. While the low number of offenders who
reoffend within the first two years in Norway is low, it is crucial to understand it in this context
to get a properly nuanced comparison to other countries’ prison systems.
Critiques
The creation of a more rehabilitative approach to punishment is not an approach without
its critiques. Inmates especially have discussed with various researchers and reporters about their
own critiques of the system. Despite the appearance that the prison is lavish when compared to
other international maximum-security prisons, the inmates quickly come to understand that their

24
time at Halden is not going to be easy. Even for inmates who have experience much harsher
conditions in life outside prison walls, the conditions in Halden can be a painful transition. One
inmate stated to reporter Raphael Rowe that,
… you’d be fooled if you think coming into a cell where you have these privileges is not
tough. Why? For people who have experienced nothing but shit in their lives, all their
lives, to be treated like this is gonna challenge everything they’ve learned. (McConnel,
2018, 7:20)
Even being treated with dignity can be a shock and challenge. Prisoners who are not used to
being treated as a human in their life outside the prison can be shocked by the respect they are
given inside, which can fundamentally challenge their worldview.
Inmates have also pointed out the dichotomy they experienced between the portrayals of
Halden by the media and corrections officials, and what they actually experienced while serving
time there, pointing out that they did not get to actually spend time in the natural spaces but
rather could only look at it from inside (Abdel-Salam & Kilmer, 2022). While the use of
biophilic design in the creation of Halden may have intended therapeutic effects, those effects are
not likely to be strongly experienced if the inmates are not actually able to spend time in the
natural areas. Rather than create an area of escape or peace for the inmates that could help with
rehabilitation, the extremely limited access to outdoor spaces, while being able to see the nature
from inside, could serve more strongly as a reminder of their own imprisonment and inability to
experience aspects of life. Inmates also note that despite any therapeutic intentions, Halden is
still a prison, a reality which they simply cannot escape no matter how “normal” it is designed to
be (Abdel-Salam & Kilmer, 2022).

25
Discussions of how well the more friendly relationship with guards assists in the normal
or therapeutic environment intended in Halden have also given interesting insights on the inner
workings of the prison. Inmates have explained that although they can be comfortable making
jokes with the guards, they can never fully trust them with more personal details about
themselves because the uniform they wear and the institution they work for deeply represent a
position of authority that the officers hold that does not allow for the inmates to ever fully trust
them (Kilmer et al., 2023). Although the guards are encouraged and trained to be friendly with
the inmates, they also must represent and work towards the goal of security within the prison.
These two goals struggle to coexist, as to fully create a secure environment the guards may often
have to use information they learn from prisoners in a way that feels to the inmates as if the
guards are working against them, preventing them from being able to trust them.
Overall, Halden, alongside the rest of the Norwegian prison system, operates under lofty
goals. Truly rehabilitating all offenders is likely not a goal that will every be entirely actualized.
The most referred to statistics regarding recidivism within the Norwegian correctional service
look extremely promising. However, if you are to look at the same offenders through different
definitions of recidivism, the statistics can change drastically (Høidal & Hanssen, 2023, p. 26).
This does not mean that it is not working. Other measures of prison success could also be
referred to such as the dignity and respect that the offenders receive, the access they have to
education and job training, and the connections they are able to maintain with social supports
after finishing their sentence. There is no one way to definitively define the success of the prison,
but what can be seen is the effort put into Halden to begin creating a more humane way of acting
upon justice.

26
Millhaven Institution Case Study
Canadian Views on Justice and Punishment
Canadian Corrections as they are recognized today largely appears to trace back to the
creation of the Kinston Penitentiary in 1835, which despite it’s intentions after the passing of the
British North America Act in 1867 to meet the needs of offenders, quickly deteriorated into
disparaging conditions as the costs to run the facility steadily increased and attitudes of
‘vengeance and dissuasion’ were harboured among prison officers (Ricciardelli et al., 2014, p.
100). Despite an environment of violence forming in Canadian prisons, the turning point for
prison reform in Canada did not come until 1938, with the release of the Archambault Report,
which created new overall goals for the justice system as crime prevention, offender
rehabilitation, and deterrence, principles that are still applied in the present (Erdahl, 2001, p. 38).
These principles also reflect the general perspectives held in Canada as to what the goals of the
justice system should be so that communities can be as safe as possible.
Canada generally does not uphold the belief that increased use of prisons is a viable
solution to crime. Rather, Canada has more strongly sided with views of penal pessimism, with a
lack of any strong faith in the ability of incarceration to meet the country’s principles for the
justice system, and rather finding that prisons are not very effective at rehabilitation or
deterrence, causing a shift towards the desire to use other forms of justice (Cesaroni, 2021, p.
46). This attitude of penal pessimism is especially seen in Canada’s Youth Criminal Justice Act,
which was created to restrict the use of incarceration for youth unless deemed necessary
(Cesaroni, 2021, p. 195). This desire to move away from excessive use of incarceration is then
reflected throughout the gradual changes that have been created in the Canadian Criminal Justice
system.

27
Restorative Justice Programs
While Canada has been slow to create much productive prison reform, especially in
maximum-security federal prisons, the country has been starting to consider some other forms of
justice that can potentially be implemented before incarceration is even considered. This has
been seen in the creation of a limited number of restorative justice programs across the country,
including the use of sentencing circles which were first used in 1992 (Tomporowski, 2014). The
slight shift in perspective towards restorative forms of justice was also given legislative footing
in 1996, when the Criminal Code was amended to include community-based sentencing options
for adult offenders who met certain requirements (Tomporowski, 2014). These types of justice
focus on healing for both the offender and the victim, rather than the punitive approach of
incarceration for the sake of getting justice and punishing the offender without regard for the
consequences of the process on the victim. Although restorative justice measures are by no
means the main method of justice in Canada today, the consideration of them within the system
reflects Canadian’s distaste for excessive incarceration and the desire for more holistic forms of
justice.
Millhaven Institution
Background
Millhaven Institution is a maximum-security prison, that can house up to 496 prisoners,
located on the same property as the medium security Bath Institution east of Bath, Ontario,
which was initially opened in 1971 (Correctional Service Canada, 2017). It is one of 43 federal
correctional facilities in Canada run by Correctional Service Canada (Cesaroni, 2021, p. 26). A
large part of the reason that Millhaven was created was to help alleviate the pressure on the
prison system in Ontario, and a group of prisoners and guards from Kingston Penitentiary were

28
scheduled to be transferred to Millhaven immediately following the completion of its
construction (Fogarty, 2021, p. 30). Like Kingston Penitentiary, Millhaven is a maximumsecurity prison, designated to hold offenders who require higher levels of supervision, present a
risk to society, or have a high chance of attempting to escape (Correctional Service Canada,
2019). Despite its intentions to be a better alternative to Kingston Penitentiary, Millhaven had a
particularly tumultuous beginning. On the heels of massive riots at the Kingston Penitentiary, a
group of inmates that had come from Kingston Penitentiary on April 19th, 1971, all claimed that
they had been assaulted by prison guards upon their arrival at Millhaven, being forced to strip
and being beaten by the guards (Fogarty, 2021, p. 136). Throughout the years following its
opening, Millhaven would continue to have stories about prison officers assaulting inmates as
well as general and sometimes violent unrest among the inmates there, garnering Millhaven a
brutal reputation both among criminals and the media (Hertrich, 2019 p. 87). All this unrest and
upheaval in Millhaven’s early days only served to prove the impossible task it had in housing the
most dangerous inmates in the country and the challenges it faced through calls of prison reform
from both inside and outside as well as Canada’s movement towards more humane justice.
The Inmates
As a maximum-security prison, Millhaven Institution has always been tasked with
housing the inmates who have been deemed the most dangerous. Although exact statistics of the
offences for the prisoners at Millhaven were not found, the men being held there can be
understood in the larger context of the Canadian prison system. The annual statistical report by
Public Safety Canada on corrections and conditional release can help to put the offenders at
Millhaven into this greater context. Of the total prison population in Canada during 2020-2021,
26.8 percent were serving life or indeterminate sentences, the majority of whom were serving

29
their time in prison rather than on parole (Public Safety Canada, 2023). Most of these offenders
were convicted for first or second-degree murder or had indeterminate sentences due to being
designated as a dangerous offender (Public Safety Canada, 2023). Of the offenders held in
custody across Correctional Service Canada facilities, 14.6 percent were placed in maximum
security facilities (Public Safety Canada, 2023).
Among the prison population, issues including mental health concerns and the
overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples have become a major concern. One study found that
about 81 percent of all prisoners in Canadian prisons have met the diagnostic criteria for at least
one mental health condition at some point in their life, commonly including alcohol or substance
abuse disorders as well as anti-social personality disorder (Cesaroni, 2021, p. 121). This high rate
of mental health disorders within the prison system highlights the need for a focus on mental
health support both within and outside of prisons. Additionally, Indigenous peoples are
drastically overrepresented in Canadian prisons. In 2016, 25.2 percent of men in federal prisons
were Indigenous, despite Indigenous peoples only making up five percent of the total Canadian
population (Leitch, 2018). Indigenous offenders are also overrepresented in higher security levels
in prison, with 16.3 percent of Indigenous offenders being placed in maximum security prisons,
compared to 14.5 percent of non-Indigenous offenders receiving the same classification (Leitch,
2018). Although none of these statistics are pulled directly from Millhaven, they give a strong
representation of the inmates there and demonstrate some of the challenges that the maximumsecurity prison faces.
Architectural Design
Federal maximum-security prisons in Canada are designed to limit the movement of
prisoners as much as possible, keeping them under constant surveillance and allowing the prison

30
officers to carry and use firearms, all within an institution that has a well-defined and secure
perimeter using barmed-wire fencing and armed officers (Cesaroni, 2021, p. 27). Millhaven
Institution specifically is designed with living units that can be directly observed branching off of
a central control post, using a radial prison design (Correctional Service Canada, 2017). Radial
prison design was initially suggested by Jeremy Bentham in 1787 with his panopticon model,
that allowed for all prisoners to be watched from a central post, a model that became much less
efficient as the numbers of inmates in a facility grew (Gökmen, 2021). The modern application
of a radial prison uses long cell blocks attached to a central guard station and administrative
wing, allowing for a smaller number of guards to be needed to watch all the inmates housed in
the prison (Nadel, & Mears, 2020). This application of a prison design that is largely focused on
security reflects the punitive role that Millhaven has, and it’s focus on security over
rehabilitation.
Prison Officers
According to the Correctional Service Canada’s job profile, the role of correctional
officers in prisons is to maintain safety and security by watching for indicators that specific
inmates, officers, or the institution as a whole, may be at risk and taking appropriate measure
when required (Correctional Service Canada, 2013). To achieve this, correctional officers must
interact with the inmates on a daily basis. This daily interaction means that it is the prisoners and
staff who create the environment within the prison, and that the behaviour of the officers,
whether it be influenced by their own perspectives on justice or other factors such as their
working environment, can be interpreted by the inmates as a large variety of motives which can
shape the overall environment of the prison (Cesaroni, 2021, p. 84).

31
Both from the historical accounts of the first intake of prisoners at Millhaven as well as
the account of one man who served time at the institution in the late 1970s and 1980, the
relationship between guards and prisoners is hostile. Edward Hertrich recalls in his book, Wasted
Time, that there was for a significant period of time a group of prison officers who referred to
themselves as “the Millhaven Mafia”, and were known to often attack inmates and their property
as well as other officers who voiced any concern regarding the living conditions for the inmates,
and did not de-escalate their attacks until an inquiry regarding the situation at Millhaven had
been conducted (Hertrich, 2019, p. 87). Sadly, these officers seem to have only been acting in a
manner following that of the officers who committed the assaults previously described on the
first group of inmates that entered the prisons. The prison officers, at least in the 1970s and
1980s made it abundantly clear that their perception of their own position was to have control
over the inmates. Although such systemic abuses within the prison are not presently known to the
public, occasional news stories detailing events of violence by officers continue to surface in the
present.
Programming
The Canadian Justice System recognizes the extent to which inmates suffer from various
mental health concerns. Given this knowledge, Correctional Service Canada has created
strategies to ensure that inmates receive some mental health support while incarcerated,
including assessments during intake, mental health services in prisons, planning with offenders
who are approaching conditional release into the community, and mental health support while
under community supervision (Correctional Service Canada, 2012). Delivery of primary mental
heal services such as individual or group interventions to help deal with exiting mental health or
substance abuse concerns, and prevent the development of new ones (Cesaroni, 2021, p. 134).

32
All of these strategies were created with the intention of alleviating some of the mental health
issues within Canadian penitentiaries and ensuring that inmates rights to proper health care are
met.
Canadian prisons including Millhaven also must address the overrepresentation of
Indigenous people in their facilities and the specific intergenerational traumas that Indigenous
offenders face. To do this, Correctional Service Canada implements the Indigenous Integrated
Correctional Program Model in most men’s federal institutions, that uses a circle setting
facilitated by Indigenous Elders to help Indigenous inmates connect with their culture and
examine offenders’ specific social history and risk factors for committing crime, while also
learning behaviour management skills (Correctional Service Canada, 2021). These programs are
created with the intention of assisting the inmates in creating better management skills so that
they are less likely to reoffend after they are released from incarceration. They take one step
towards recognizing the extent of the harm done to Indigenous peoples in Canada and
reconciling the long term effects in individual inmates.
Results
The most used measure for the success of the Canadian prison system is recidivism.
However, rates of recidivism in Canada are not available at a national level, but rather only by
individual systems and jurisdictions (Government of Canada, 2020). Based on reports in
different years, recidivism by federal offenders has been declining, with 23 percent of a 20112012 cohort reoffending compared to 32 percent of a 2007-2008 cohort (Government of Canada,
2020). Recidivism was however noted to be higher among Indigenous offenders with 38 percent
of Indigenous offenders in the 2011-2012 cohort reoffending compared to only 21 percent of
non-Indigenous male offenders in the same cohort (Government of Canada, 2020). This

33
reinstates the severity of Indigenous issues within the justice system, demonstrating that
Indigenous people are also overrepresented in recidivism rates in addition to other areas of the
justice system.
These numbers can be helpful in understanding if the justice system is working to a
degree, although it cannot be used exclusively as the measure for success. Other measures, such
as offender’s reintegration into society after release can also help understand what elements of a
particular justice system are working. One study, for example, found that offenders who had
completed their sentence who applied to have their criminal records expunged were less likely to
reoffend and were faced with less challenges in getting employment and housing (Ruddell &
Winfree Jr., 2006). However, measures like this may not be as effective when considering
maximum security federal prisons. Federal maximum-security prisons mostly house offenders
serving life sentences or who have otherwise committed violent offences, which either make the
offender ineligible to apply to get their criminal record expunged, or extremely unlikely to be
approved (Ruddell & Winfree Jr., 2006). Generally, the effectiveness of maximum-security
prisons like Millhaven is difficult to measure for this same reason, as even after most of the
inmates there are released from incarceration, they are still serving their sentences for either
extended periods of time, or for the rest of their lives, under community corrections.
Critiques
The most prevalent critique of Millhaven Institution is the living conditions that the
inmates endure while living there. Edward Hertrich succinctly described the experience of being
incarcerated at Millhaven as, “to experience Millhaven Max was to experience a living hell”
(Hertrich, 2019, p. 88). Throughout his book, Hertrich describes his experiences at Millhaven,
many of which describe the tense relationships that have come to be expected between both

34
inmates as well as with correctional officers. These terse relationships are far from beneficial for
any intended rehabilitation of the inmates, but rather keep them constantly on edge.
Many of the issues coming out of Millhaven have also been well recorded by the media.
In 2020, shortly after the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, inmates were reported to have
started a hunger strike in protest to their living conditions when they realized that they had never
been receiving a fair amount of time outside of their cells in a day, often having only been given
two hours per day instead of the required four hours, as well as guards reportedly not following
Covid-19 masking and distancing protocol (Butler-Hassan & Local Journalism Initiative
Reporter, 2020). This instance of protest in much more recent years than some of the most
infamous events at Millhaven Institution serves to demonstrate that although the situation may
not be as intense as it was in the 1970s, the disregard for the wellbeing of the inmates by the staff
at Millhaven Institution is likely to still exist within the walls.
Discussion
When comparing any two justice systems it is important to first acknowledge that no two
systems can be directly compared to each other. Each country will have its own individual
cultural considerations and specific issues that it faces that will cause for differences in the ways
that they structure their justice systems and the results that they see. In the same way, no two
specific prisons used for a case study are able to be completely accurately compared to each
other. Rather, the two systems can only be compared next to each other understanding that they
each have their own specific obstacles to overcome and with giving as much context to their
differences as necessary to get a general understanding of the two systems.

35
This study found many key differences in the two prison systems that it analyzed. The
two specific prisons chosen to analyze were both maximum-security, relatively new institutions
that housed often the offenders who were considered to be some of the most dangerous within
their respective system. The first difference found when conducting searches on both prisons
were the stark differences in the attention given to them by researchers and the media. While
Halden in Norway was discussed in the context of its seemingly relaxed approach to prison and
largely placed within positive connotations, much of the response that Millhaven in Canada
received was regarding it’s violent past and was given particularly negative connotations. The
two prisons were discussed in drastically different contexts, and despite both countries reporting
similar recidivism rates for offenders in federal institutions, Norway’s rates were reported on
much more often than Canada’s.
Views on Crime and Punishment
One potential reason for this difference in perspective on the successfulness of the two
prisons could be the context in which each exists. Norway has put a heavy emphasis, especially
through the creation of Halden, on their model of rehabilitating offenders who are incarcerated.
Their focus is largely placed on creating a therapeutic environment within the prison so that the
inmates can learn and go about their daily lives in a way that will prepare them for when they are
eventually released from prison. Moreover, the inmates are viewed by the system to be future
neighbours to all other members of society, and the system’s focus on setting them up for success
on the outside reflects that. As a result, Norway has a generally positive view on the
effectiveness of Halden prison and its ability to prevent offenders from reoffending when they
are released back into society.

36
On the other hand, in Canada, prison is not painted in any sort of positive light.
Canadians hold a general skepticism towards a prison’s ability to effectively rehabilitate any
offender into someone that will be a productive member of society when they are released.
Instead of placing a belief in incarceration’s ability to create functional members of society,
Canadians have been seeing a shift in ideology towards other forms of justice used outside of
prisons. Canada’s lack of a firm belief in the effectiveness of incarceration as a crime prevention
method then, in combination with Millhaven’s history of violent occurrences and poor living
conditions lead into a significantly less positive outlook on the prison and its role in the justice
system.
Prison Officers
One major difference between the two prisons is the reputations that the prison officers
hold within the prison, both among the prisoners and to the public. At Halden the prisoners and
officers have a surprisingly friendly relationship. The guards are encouraged to spend time with
the prisoners and to be strong role models, allowing for them to create a type of relationship with
the inmates that can be easily perceived as friendship. This is all done in the hopes that by having
these friendly relationships modeled out for them while they are serving time, the inmates may
be better equipped to form positive relationships on the outside. Much in contrast to this, the
prison officers at Millhaven Institution have had a negative reputation since the day it opened.
The guards there are trained to take a position of control over the inmates, with their primary role
being security. While they are still able to form friendly relationships with the inmates, it has
become not uncommon for abuses by the officers to come to light. These two drastically different
attitudes from the prison officers in the institutions heavily contribute to the contrasting
environments within them.

37
Programs
Both prison systems claim to be implementing mental health programs to help offenders
reintegrate into society, although the exact effectiveness of either cannot be known. Both prisons
acknowledge the prevalence of mental health concerns within their wall and attempt to find ways
to address them. They also both help offenders create treatment plans and connections with
community mental health supports for once the inmates are released from incarceration.
Although it is unlikely that the two mental health systems within the prisons are identical, it is
impossible to say if either is particularly better or more effective than the other without
experiencing both. What can be seen from the mental health programs is the similarity in issues
faced by the prisons and one of their methods of addressing them.
One way that Millhaven is different is its implementation of programing created for
Indigenous offenders. The Indigenous Integrated Correctional Program Model allows for a focus
to be placed on the intergenerational trauma experienced by Indigenous offenders and offer a
space for them to reconnect with their culture. These programs however, like mental health
programming, cannot have their direct impact on recidivism of Indigenous offenders measured.
What is demonstrated is an effort being slowly started to address some of the aspects of
Indigenous overrepresentation in the justice system.
Where Halden stands out from Millhaven is its education and job training programs. The
prison places a much heavier emphasis on getting an education and learning job skills, and
although Millhaven also has some degree of the same ideas, it does not place nearly as strong of
an emphasis on their importance. These education and job training requirements fit into Halden’s
principle to create a more normal life for the inmates so that the adjustment to regular life outside
will be easier, a principle that is not considered at all in Canada.

38
What is the Punishment?
One of the greatest critiques of Halden Prison from those on the outside is that it does not
actually punish the inmates for their offences. However, Halden just like Millhaven uses the
removal of the offender from their regular life and freedom as a punishment. While the
sometimes brutal conditions inside of Millhaven make the fact that the inmates are being
punished abundantly clear, by design its main means of punishing the offenders is by removing
them from society. This same principle is used in both prisons, that by taking away their
freedom, the inmates are being sufficiently punished for their crimes.
Halden and Millhaven in the Context of Scandinavian Exceptionalism
Comparing the two prisons with each other demonstrates that the theory of Scandinavian
exceptionalism should not be negated to simply a myth. While it has been argued that the ideas
presented in Scandinavian exceptionalism paint the prison systems in Scandinavia as entirely
idealized, that is not an accurate representation of the comparisons being made between different
countries prison systems. To diligently compare any two systems, they must both be presented in
the context of both their strengths and weaknesses. If the comparison is thorough, it will find
flaws in both systems, but can also identify points where one may be more humane than the
other.
There is no denying that the Norwegian prison is far from perfectly humane. However, to
claim that the goal of any prison or prison system is to be perfectly humane would misrepresent
the balancing of goals that all prisons must accomplish. Halden, like all other prisons, is
ultimately an institution that was designed to punish criminals for their offences. Inmates at
Halden have had their freedom taken away from them. They are not able to regularly see or
speak to their friends or family on the outside, and they have been cut off from what their life

39
before their sentence had been. When a person’s freedom is taken away, there is no design or
program possible that will make their experience easy, or even likely to be perfectly humane.
Halden must balance an incredibly difficult dichotomy of goals, to both punish offenders for
their crimes, and rehabilitate them in anticipation for their release. To view Halden as the perfect
prison would be to deny the impossibility of perfectly executing this balance.
Where Scandinavian exceptionalism can find its merits in this study is the level of
humaneness in each prison. Millhaven is a prison that has a history of riots and abuse and reports
of the living conditions for inmates have been negative. Additionally, the relationship between
the inmates and the guards at Millhaven are often extremely tense. In comparison, at Halden the
living conditions, although different from life outside of prison, are much more livable. The
inmates’ relationships with the guards, while still influenced by the officer’s position of authority
and the need for maintaining security, are friendlier. This suggests that while both prisons must
meet the goals of punishment and rehabilitation, Halden has created more humane conditions to
achieve these goals in. Halden is not perfectly humane and Millhaven is not fully inhumane, but
when compared next to each other, Halden stands out as the less damaging of the two prisons.
What Can Each System Learn from Each Other?
Although the two prison systems cannot be compared to each other directly, there are
some models and attitudes applied at each that the other could look to for where to go next. The
Canadian system can look to Norway for better principles in training prison officers and
facilitating civil relationships between the inmates and officers. Norway’s two years of required
training for the officers could be helpful in creating a less tense environment within the walls of
Canadian institutions like Millhaven. Canada can also look to Norway’s normality principle for
ideas of how to structure life behind bars in a way that could help inmates reintegrate into society

40
better. By creating more regular routines and a reflection of ordinary life inside prison, the
people who are released from there back into their communities may start with a better sense of
how regular life goes on outside of an institution.
Norway can also learn from the changes Canada has been starting in its justice system,
specifically the alternatives it has been beginning to create. While Norway has focused its efforts
on the rehabilitation of offenders already behind bars, Canada has been slowly implementing
more restorative justice models that are aimed at preventing specific offender from ending up in
prison in the first place. Canada’s general penal pessimism can also be viewed as a motivation to
find other means of getting justice aside from relying on incarceration.
Conclusion
Although prisons in Scandinavian countries, such as Halden Prison in Norway, are in no
way perfect, they take a more humane approach to punishment and rehabilitation than other
Western countries such as Canada have. In these prisons, the punishment for the offenders is
primarily the removal of their freedom and their separation from their life outside of the
institution. The living conditions are as humane as one could reasonably except from and
institution whose goal is to punish.
Across the world, as countries move towards creating more humane methods of
punishment and justice, they can look to Halden for ideas of how to design a prison for
maximum-security classified offenders that still has potential for rehabilitating them. While this
does not mean that every country can, or even should, replicate the systems in Scandinavian
countries, it does demonstrate how Scandinavian countries have set themselves apart from the

41
rest. Looking to them for ideas on how to be more humane in justice systems could be extremely
beneficial, especially for prison designers.

42
References
Abdel-Salam, S., & Kilmer, A. (2022). ‘A prison is a prison’: Perspectives from incarcerated
men on the therapeutic and punitive aspects of Halden Prison in Norway. The British
Journal of Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azac054
Barker, V. (2012). Nordic exceptionalism revisited: Explaining the paradox of a Janus-faced
penal regime. Theoretical Criminology, 17(1), 5-25.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480612468935
Barry, M., & Leonardsen, D. (2012). Inequality and punitivism in late modern societies:
Scandinavian exceptionalism revisited. European Journal of Probation, 4(2), 46-61.
https://doi.org/10.1177/206622031200400204 .
Butler-Hassan, S., & Local Journalism Initiative Reporter. (2020, October 14). Inmates at
Millhaven Institution end hunger strike over living conditions. The Canadian Press.
http://libproxy.mtroyal.ca/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.libproxy.mtroyal.ca/wirefeeds/inmates-at-millhaven-institution-end-hunger/docview/2451421757/se-2
Cesaroni, C. (2021). Canadian prisons: Understanding the Canadian correctional system.
Oxford University Press.
Correctional Service Canada. (2012, February). Correctional Service Canada mental health
strategy. https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/health/002006-2000-eng.shtml
Correctional Service Canada. (2013, June). Job profile – correctional officer. https://www.cscscc.gc.ca/careers/003001-1101-eng.shtml

43
Correctional Service Canada. (2017, September). Institutional profiles: Ontario region:
Millhaven Institution. https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/institutions/001002-3009-en.shtml
Correctional Service Canada. (2019, August). Security Classifications. https://www.cscscc.gc.ca/security/001003-1000-eng.shtml
Correctional Service Canada. (2021, December). Correctional programs for Indigenous
offenders. https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/002/002-0004-en.shtml
Crewe, B., Levins, A., Larmour, S., Laursen, J., Mjåland, K., & Schliehe, A. (2022). Nordic
penal exceptionalism: A comparative, empirical analysis. The British Journal of
Criminology, 63(2), 424-443. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azac013
Erdahl, A. (2001). History of corrections in Canada. In J. Winterdyk (Ed.), Corrections in
Canada: Social reactions to crime. (pp. 27-48). Prentice Hall.
Fogarty, C. (2021). Murder on the inside: The true story of the deadly riot at Kingston
Penitentiary. Biblioasis.
Gökmen, S. (2021). Homeomorphic architecture: Radial prisons and contracted graphs.
Environment and Planning. B, Urban Analytics and City Science, 48(5), 1213-1227.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808320922239
Government of Canada. (2020, August). Recidivism in the criminal justice system.
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/jf-pf/2020/aug01.html
Helsing Almaas, I. (2016). Made in Norway: New Norwegian Architecture. (Langvad S. N.,
Trans). Walter de Gruyter GmbH. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783035607680
Hertrich, E. (2019). Wasted Time. Dundum Press.

44
Høidal, A. (2018). Normality behind the walls. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 31(1), 58-66.
https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2018.31.1.58
Høidal, A., & Hanssen, N. (2023). The Norwegian prison system: Halden prison and beyond.
Routledge.
Johnsen, B., Granheim, P. K., & Helgensen, J. (2011). Exceptional prison conditions and the
quality of prison life: Prison size and prison culture in Norwegian closed prisons.
European Journal of Criminology, 8(6). https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370811413819
Kilmer, A., Abdel-Salam, S., & Silver, I. A. (2023). “The uniform’s in the way”: Navigating the
tension between security and therapeutic roles in a rehabilitation-focused prison in
Norway. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 50(4), 521-540.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221143536
Kristoffersen, R. (2022). Correctional Statistics of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and
Sweden 2016-2020. University College of Norwegian Correctional Service.
https://www.kriminalomsorgen.no/getfile.php/5006851.823.uabzjzakblnazb/Nordic+Stati
stics+2016_2020_final.pdf
Leitch, D. (2018). The constitutionality of classification: Indigenous overrepresentation and
security policy in Canadian federal penitentiaries. Dalhousie Law Journal, 41(2), 411442.
Matheisen, T. (2011). Scandinavian exceptionalism in penal matters: Reality or wishful thinking?
In T. Ugelvik & J. Dullum (Eds.), Penal Exceptionalism?: Nordic Prison Policy and
Practice (pp. 13-37). Taylor & Fracis Group

45
McConnel, D. (Producer & Director). (2018, December 14). Norway: The perfect prison?
(Season 3, episode 4) [TV series episode]. In E. Read & G. Solomon (Executive
Producers), Inside the world’s toughest prisons. Netflix.
Nadel, M. R., & Mears, D. P. (2018). Building with no end in sight: The theory and effects of
prison architecture. Policy, Practice and Research, (3), 188-205.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2018.1461036
Pratt, J. (2008a). Scandinavian exceptionalism in an era of penal excess: Part 1: The nature and
roots of Scandinavian exceptionalism. The British Journal of Criminology, 48(2), 119137. https://doi.org/10.1093/bJc/azm072
Pratt, J. (2008b). Scandinavian exceptionalism in an era of penal excess: Part II: Does
Scandinavian exceptionalism have a future? The British Journal of Criminology, 48(3),
275-292. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azm073
Public Safety Canada. (2023). Corrections and conditional release statistical overview: 2021
annual report. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ccrso-2021/index-en.aspx
Reiter, K., Sexton, L., & Summer, J. (2017). Theoretical and empirical limits of Scandinavian
exceptionalism: Isolation and normalization in Danish prisons. Punishment and Society,
20(1), 92-112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474517737273
Ricciardelli, R., Crichton, H., & Adams, L. (2014). Stuck: Conditions of Canadian confinement.
In Deflem, M. (Ed.), Punishment and incarceration: A global perspective (Vol. 19, pp.
95-120). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1521613620140000019004

46
Roth, B. B., Westrheim, K., Jones, L., & Manger, T. (2017). Academic self-efficacy, educational
motives and aspects of the prison sentence as predictors for participation in prison
education. Journal of Correctional Education, 68(3), 19-40.
Ruddell, R., Winfree, Jr., L. T. (2006). Setting aside criminal convictions in Canada: A
successful approach to offender reintegration. The Prison Journal, 86(4), 452-469.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885506293251
Söderlund, J., & Newman, P. (2017). Improving mental health in prisons through biophilic
design. The Prison Journal, 97(6), 750-772. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885517734516
The Ministries. (2018). Reduced Recidivism to Crime: National strategy for coordinated
reintegration after served sentences 2017-2021. Regjeringen.no.
https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/3f8ac79225654863ad3f9b0e082bf9f0/strategy_
reduced-recidivism-to-crime.pdf
Tomporowski, B. (2014). Restorative justice and community justice in Canada. Restorative
Justice: An International Journal, 2(2), 218-224.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5235/20504721.2.2.218
Tønseth, R. & Bergsland, R. (2019). Prison education in Norway – The importance for work and
life after release. Cogent Education, 6(1).
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1628408
Wolthers, L. (2017). Seeing through Scandinavian exceptionalism: Tina Enghoff’s photography.
Journal of European Studies, 47(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/0047244117733896