The cell closes. Time passes. The sentence is served. Then the gate opens again and it all begins again. More than half of American inmates return to prison within a few years. In Norway, where prisons resemble hotels and sentences are more lenient, the recidivism rate plummets to 20%. How is this possible? A new study. published by the Royal Astronomical Society It overturns the intuition on which Western prison systems are based: harsher punishment doesn't reduce crime. In fact, it often fuels it.
The problem lies not in the severity of the punishment, but in who imposes it and why. When a punishment system serves economic interests rather than justice, trust collapses. And without trust, punishment loses all effectiveness.
The Paradox of Punishment
The numbers speak for themselves. The United States, with approximately 5 prisoners per 1000 inhabitants, have the highest prison population in the world. Italy has just over 1 in every thousand. Norway has 7 in every ten thousand. But it is the data on recidivism that reveals the real problem.In the USA, over 55% of prisoners return to prison, in Italy even more (we'll talk about this later): in Norway, just 20%. The difference is not in the severity of the sentences. It's in the perception of their legitimacy.
Raihan Alam e Tag Rai, researchers of theUniversity of California in San Diego, they tested this hypothesis through a series of experiments published in PNASThey recreated the classic cooperative game: participants could contribute to a common fund that was multiplied and redistributed. A third player had the power to punish those who didn't contribute. When the "punisher" acted without personal incentives, cooperation increased. But when he was paid for each punishment inflicted, like a policeman with a quota of fines, the system collapsed.
Humans possess the "Theory of mind": we are hyper-attentive to the intentions of others. Punishment sends a message of disapproval that requires behavioral changeBut that signal only works if we believe the punisher's motives are just. When they appear selfish or downright senseless, punishment loses its power to promote cooperation.
When fines pay salaries
The case of Ferguson, In Missouri, it's emblematic. Authorities used fines to fund city services, disproportionately targeting African-American residents. Across the United States, billions of dollars are seized through civil asset forfeiture, which allows police to seize property from people merely suspected of involvement in a crime.
These perverse incentives undermine the legitimacy of the system"When levels of past punishment are higher, sensitivity to future punishment decreases," the researchers explain. This finding contradicts the specific deterrence theory, which holds that a stronger experience of punishment should increase sensitivity to future punishment.
Prison systems, the Norwegian model (that works)
Norway has understood something that still eludes many, including those who are still indignant at the sight of the "pasha-like" conditions.1 offered to people like Anders Breivik, who killed 77 people in 2011 and will be free in less than eight years. Why?
Why Norwegian prisons, like the one in Halden, they look more like university campuses than fortresses. Cells with private bathrooms, shared kitchens, recreational activitiesThe cost? Much higher than the American punitive model. The result? A recidivism rate that's less than half.
As a explains Alessio Scandurra organization Antigone:
"In democratic countries, people don't go to prison because they're bad. They go to prison because they've broken the law. That's why it's crucial that prisons respect their own laws."
A prison system that focuses on rehabilitation rather than revenge achieves measurable results. The safety of the population increases because prisoners, once released, do not return to crime.
Italy and structural collapse
Remember the discussion I just had about recidivism in America due to a prison system that “rewards arrests,” and the lower rates in Norway, the result of a public and “collectivist” system?
In Italy there is a public and collectivist system which works much worse than the American one, in terms of recidivism: friends, in Italy 68,7% of prisoners return to crime. Practically two out of three. As of July 31, 2025, there were 62.569 inmates for a regulatory capacity of just over 50.000 places. Overcrowding generates tension, violence between inmates, and puts a strain on prison staff. 2024 marked the historical record of suicides in prisonThe structures are dated, often dating back to the 19th century. Automation is nonexistent or minimal.
Il prison decree approved by the government It calls for hiring 1.000 new officers and creating approximately 10.000 positions by 2027. This will never be enough. And in any case, the crisis in the Italian prison system cannot be solved solely through a mere expansion of prison capacity.
Without a paradigm shift, we risk perpetuating a model based on marginalization.
What will prison systems and jails of the future be like?
The prison systems of the future will have to be radically different. It won't be enough to build larger cells or hire more guards. It will require rethink the entire concept of punishment.
Il Scandinavian model It points to a direction: open prisons, where inmates work, study, and maintain contact with the outside world. Since 2014, Norway has used electronic monitoring to carry out short sentences or final stages of sentences outside prison. RF and GPS devices are activated with clear rules and mandatory activities. They don't magically empty prisons, but they free up space for cases that truly require traditional detention.
In Italy, some social cooperatives are experimenting prison economic models. The Spinning Wheel in Sicily e Biscuit Band In Piedmont, hundreds of inmates have been involved in productive activities: organic bakeries, artisan workshops, and pastry shops. A double result: the acquisition of skills that can be used outside and the dignity of working within.
Could artificial intelligence play a role?
Of course, but it requires caution. Council of Europe has issued recommendations To ensure that the use of AI respects human rights. Technology should assist staff, not replace them. It can monitor mental health, facilitate contact with families, and assess risks without discriminatory bias. But transparency and final human oversight are needed.
As Norwegian data demonstrate, when punishment is perceived as legitimate and oriented towards recovery, social cooperation is strengthened. And the prison gates reopen less often.
The path is clear. The prisons of the future will be places of recovery, not revenge. They will prioritize alternative measures whenever possible, invest in training and employment, and use technology ethically.
Because a system that punishes without re-educating doesn't protect society. It fuels new crime.
Footnotes:
- Anders Breivik has been held in solitary confinement since 2011 for both security reasons (he is considered highly dangerous) and to protect himself from possible attacks by other inmates.
He lives in a two-story detention unit within Ringerike Prison, equipped with three rooms: a bedroom, a study, and a private gym. He has a personal kitchen, a TV room with a video game console (Xbox or PlayStation), and the ability to wash his clothes and cook his own meals.
He is allowed to keep pets, including a small cage with three parrots. He receives visits from only a few staff members and is allowed to speak with two inmates for an hour every two weeks. All communications with the outside world (letters, phone calls) are monitored or censored by prison authorities.
Breivik has repeatedly sued the Norwegian state, claiming that his solitary confinement constitutes inhumane treatment in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. A district court partially ruled in his favor in 2016, but the Court of Appeal and the ECHR subsequently ruled out any human rights violations, deeming the conditions compatible with European standards.
Norwegian authorities justify the isolation and material privileges with the need for security and prevention of radicalism, claiming that the relatively comfortable conditions serve to compensate for the absence of human contact and to maintain compliance with the principles of the rule of law. ↩︎
