Organised Crime & Crime Prevention - what works? - Scandinavian ...

NSfK’s 40. forskerseminar, Espoo, Finland 1998
i.e., that they reported to have used drugs at least on a weekly basis for the six months
preceding imprisonment and had, in addition, used drugs by injection some time. It has also
been brought to light that a very large proportion of Icelandic prisoners seem to have taken
part in an alcohol and drug use treatment programme at the time they commence the service
of a sentence. According to the Annual Report of the PPA for 1993, 45% of the sample
members of Sigurdsson’s and Gudjonsson’s study said they had completed at least one such
programme, and of these approximately one half said that they had undergone such treatment
at least twice.
When making this comparison, it is necessary to bear in mind that the studies of Sigurdsson
and Gudjonsson included all individuals admitted to prison for the service of a prison term
during a particular period, and their conclusions, therefore, relate to the course taken by the
average prisoner. The present study, on the other hand, investigates the course taken by only
those prisoners who were allowed participation in an alcohol or drug abuse treatment
programme. It may be assumed that the members if this group have, on the whole, greater
alcohol and drug use problems, and they may have a longer criminal record than the average
prisoner.
As regards recidivism, the results of the present study indicate that a prisoner’s completion or
non-completion of a treatment programme does not matter much. Nevertheless it must be
noted that the sample is rather small and it is questionable whether any firm conclusions can
be drawn. The study may be regarded as the beginning of an investigation of the treatment
and rehabilitation possibilities available for Icelandic prisoners, and it will be interesting to
see what return rates are shown by prisoners completing their sentences by a treatment
programme in a few years. The reader should also be reminded that the study is limited to the
information available at the PPA. No information was available on earlier treatment
programmes afforded the prisoners in question, nor their performance during any such
treatment, and it would be incautious to draw any conclusions on the treatment results
obtained for the members of the study sample.
In spite of the high return rate of the prisoners afforded treatment there are at least two
weighty arguments in favour of continuing to offer prisoners the opportunity of concluding
their sentences by taking part in a treatment programme. Firstly, treatment for the abuse of
alcohol or illicit drugs must remain a valid option for prisoners contending with such
problems, if only from the viewpoint of health care alone. In this respect, the reaction is the
same as in cases of other health problems, i.e.; attempts are made to make general health care
available for prisoners while they serve their terms. Secondly, a treatment programme outside
prison is a positive option, both for a prisoner and for society at large. A constructive
treatment environment is likely to have better influences a prisoner’s well being and health
than his incarceration in prison.
References
Ársskýrsla Fangelsismálastofnunar fyrir árið 1993. (Annual Report of the Prison and
Probation Administration for 1993) Fangelsismálastofnun ríkisins (The Prison and
Probation Administration). Reykjavík 1994.
Ársskýrsla Fangelsismálastofnunar fyrir árið 1996. (Annual Report of the Prison and
Probation Administration for 1996) Fangelsismálastofnun ríkisins (The Prison and
Probation Administration). Reykjavík 1997.
Baldwin, S.: Alcohol Education and Young Offenders. Medium and Short Term Effectiveness
of Education Programs. Springer-Verlag, New York 1991.
137