Too much, too little, too late: Comparing narratives of sexual recidivism and preventative detention in Norway and North America

Ms Ingeborg Sanbukt1, A/Prof. Danielle Harris1

1Griffith University, Nathan, Australia, 2University of Oslo Hospital, Oslo, Norway

Biography:

Associate Professor Harris is a future fellow of the Australian Research Council (2025-2029) based at the Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University. Her research examines sexual offending and related public policy. Her research has been funded by the Guggenheim Foundation, the California Sex Offender Management Board, Westpac Bank, ANROWS, and NCACSA.

Abstract:

We conducted a comparative analysis of 30 men incarcerated for sexual recidivism: 16 from Norway and 14 from North America. These two jurisdictions represent the opposite ends of a global continuum of approaches to justice and punishment. We followed Rimer and Holt’s (2023) methodological approach to examine the way participants described their lived experience of custody, community release, and subsequent reoffending. Although all participants were convicted of crimes that carry the heaviest social stigma, the legislation and structural stigma to which they were subject were distinct. Many participants in both groups attributed their reoffending (at least in part) to systemic inadequacies of the criminal justice regime to which they were exposed. We discuss how these perceived inadequate responses of both countries appear in recidivism narratives in turn. First, we juxtapose the North American system (which was described as “too harsh”) with the comparatively relaxed Norwegian system (which was “too soft”). Second, we consider how treatment was offered (or mandated) in both jurisdictions and describe how there appears to be “no way out” of treatment for the North American men, and yet no way “into” treatment for the Norwegian men. Finally, we compare the men’s perspectives of being “set up to fail” with “too many hoops” in North America and “no safety net” in Norway. The relevance of their narratives for informing best practices is described and general policy implications within a framework of quaternary prevention are discussed.