The prisoner leaves court with a sentence: three years. He doesn't get in the van that will take him to prison. He goes home. On his ankle, a GPS device the size of a watch. On his wrist, a sensor that monitors movement and behavior. At home, a control unit that records everything. Welcome to "Selvfengsel"The prison of oneself. In Scandinavian countries, we could see it by 2030; in Italy, we'll probably never get there. In all of this, the question remains: is it really necessary to lock people up in prisons, behind bars?
Technology that replaces prisons
The system HomeGuard, that's what the English speakers called it (in Norwegian selvfengsel, literally “self-prison”), works on three levels. The first It is an ankle bracelet with integrated GPS that tracks the convict's every movement. The second one It is a series of biometric sensors that record what the person does and says. The third, what is causing controversy, is an electric shock device similar to a taser: If you violate the sentencing rules, you're temporarily incapacitated. Then the police arrive.
It's not a dystopia. It could actually be a reality, especially in countries like Norway (we have some). recently spoken) who for decades have been pursuing a prison model based on rehabilitation rather than punishment. A brief recap: Halden Prison, considered the most humane in the world, with cells equipped with TVs, refrigerators and windows without bars, has a recidivism rate of 20% two years after release.
The annual cost per prisoner in Norway is around 120.000 €In Italy, the cost is just €4.000 per prisoner per year. The difference? They invest in rehabilitation, we invest in custody. And the results speak for themselves.
The Italian problem: too much demand, no supply
In Italy, as of November 2023, 5.965 electronic bracelets were active, an increase from 2.808 in 2021. This seems like progress. The problem is that there are approximately 2.000 devices available, and at least 700 inmates are waiting for one. The result: those entitled to house arrest remain in prison. By May 2025, several Italian cities, including Milan, were reporting a chronic shortage of devices.
What does this mean? People convicted of minor crimes, who could serve their sentences at home under a supervised system, remain in prison. They contribute to overcrowding. They cost the state money. And when they are released, they will have lived in conditions that increase the likelihood of recidivism. A Swiss scientific study conducted between 1999 and 2002 on 631 convicted prisoners in six cantons demonstrated that electronic monitoring strengthens self-discipline and is more cost-effective than traditional prison regimes. The experiment was discontinued in only 4% of cases.
The math is simple. A day of detention with an electronic bracelet costs 54 Swiss francs, compared to 133 for semi-liberty and 203 for prison detention. Yet we continue to build cells.
Scandinavia, a laboratory for the future of penitentiary systems
Norway didn't invent anything. It simply understood before others that punishment is pointless if you then send people back out worse. In the 1980s, the Norwegian prison system was similar to ours: cells where drugs circulated, inmates with untreated psychiatric problems, protests, escapes. The recidivism rate was 70%. Identical to Italy today.
Then they changed strategy. Since 2008, a White Paper has been in force that provides for collaboration between five ministries: Justice, Education, Culture, Health, and Local Authorities. The concept is that life in prison should be no different from life outside, and punishment should not deprive the prisoner of dignity. Results have been achieved in less than twenty years.
La virtual reality for the rehabilitation of prisoners This is just one of the ongoing experiments. Artificial intelligence that monitors risky behaviors, sensors that detect critical emotional states, personalized therapies based on algorithms. Technology is entering prisons through every door.
The price of (controlled) freedom
But does it really work? The Norwegian model seems to demonstrate that it does, at least in terms of recidivism. On an ethical level, the questions are different. Is an electronic bracelet with an integrated taser less invasive than a cell? Is an algorithm that monitors you 24/7 more humane than a prison guard? The answer depends on what we consider worse: being physically locked up or being free but constantly monitored.
In Switzerland, the use of electronic bracelets increased by 25% between 2018 and 2023. Urban cantons are using them more, especially those that participated in the pilot project. The system facilitates social reintegration and prevents prison overcrowding. Italy could also follow this path, if only it invested in the necessary devices.
The proposition of the 2018 study by Dan Hunter and colleagues at King's College London was clear: the cost of technology is steadily decreasing, while the cost of prisons is increasing. Even if we provided inmates with new technology every year, the savings would be in the order of tens of thousands of dollars per person. And that's before even considering the social benefits: fewer recidivists, more rehabilitation, and families staying together.
A question of choices (and money)
The debate isn't whether abolishing prisons is right or wrong. It's whether we can afford to continue managing them as we do now. Prison cells are expensive, they don't work, and they lead to recidivism. Technology costs less, works better, and reduces recidivism. The math, once again, is brutally simple.
Of course, there remain violent criminals, those for whom physical detention is necessary to protect society. But they are a minority. Most inmates could serve their sentences at home, with an adequate system of supervision. The data says so, Scandinavian experiments demonstrate it, and economic mathematics confirms it.
Perhaps in thirty years, prisons will truly be a thing of the past. Or perhaps we'll continue to fill them, ignoring everything we know about what works and what doesn't. It just depends on what priorities we decide to set ourselves. And how many electronic bracelets we'll be willing to buy.
