Confinement and restrictive measures against young people in the Nordic countries – a comparative analysis of Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden

Q2 Social Sciences Nordic Journal of Criminology Pub Date : 2022-03-31 DOI:10.1080/2578983X.2022.2054536
Sofia Enell, Maria Andersson Vogel, Ann-Karina Henriksen, Tarja Pösö, Päivi Honkatukia, Bård Mellin-Olsen, I. Hydle
{"title":"Confinement and restrictive measures against young people in the Nordic countries – a comparative analysis of Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden","authors":"Sofia Enell, Maria Andersson Vogel, Ann-Karina Henriksen, Tarja Pösö, Päivi Honkatukia, Bård Mellin-Olsen, I. Hydle","doi":"10.1080/2578983X.2022.2054536","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article reviews and compares the use of confinement and other restrictive measures against young people under 18 in child welfare and/or the criminal justice systems in Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Norway. Young people are confined for a variety of reasons, including protection, care, treatment, and punishment. However, confinement of young people is a contested issue because it can be viewed as necessary but also potentially harmful. Comparison of legislation and practices reveals that while there are some similarities in the service provisions for young people, there are also significant disparities among the four countries regarding the organization, function, and frequency of the use of confinement and restrictive measures. While Denmark and Sweden use secure welfare institutions, Finland and Norway apply other restrictive measures. Despite the differences in approaches to confinement in the Nordic countries, the use of confinement is guided by the principle of the child’s best interest, and the child welfare system is the main frame for confinement and intervention. The article discusses these disparate practices from the perspective of children’s rights and identifies new avenues for research and practice.","PeriodicalId":36682,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Journal of Criminology","volume":"41 1","pages":"174 - 191"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordic Journal of Criminology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2578983X.2022.2054536","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article reviews and compares the use of confinement and other restrictive measures against young people under 18 in child welfare and/or the criminal justice systems in Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Norway. Young people are confined for a variety of reasons, including protection, care, treatment, and punishment. However, confinement of young people is a contested issue because it can be viewed as necessary but also potentially harmful. Comparison of legislation and practices reveals that while there are some similarities in the service provisions for young people, there are also significant disparities among the four countries regarding the organization, function, and frequency of the use of confinement and restrictive measures. While Denmark and Sweden use secure welfare institutions, Finland and Norway apply other restrictive measures. Despite the differences in approaches to confinement in the Nordic countries, the use of confinement is guided by the principle of the child’s best interest, and the child welfare system is the main frame for confinement and intervention. The article discusses these disparate practices from the perspective of children’s rights and identifies new avenues for research and practice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
北欧国家对年轻人的监禁和限制措施——丹麦、芬兰、挪威和瑞典的比较分析
本文回顾并比较了丹麦、瑞典、芬兰和挪威在儿童福利和/或刑事司法系统中对18岁以下青少年使用禁闭和其他限制性措施的情况。由于各种各样的原因,包括保护、照顾、治疗和惩罚,年轻人被关起来。然而,监禁年轻人是一个有争议的问题,因为它可以被视为必要的,但也可能有害。立法和实践的比较表明,虽然在为年轻人提供的服务方面有一些相似之处,但四个国家在使用禁闭和限制措施的组织、功能和频率方面也存在重大差异。丹麦和瑞典采用安全福利制度,而芬兰和挪威则采用其他限制性措施。尽管北欧国家在坐月子的做法上存在差异,但坐月子的使用是以儿童最大利益原则为指导的,儿童福利制度是坐月子和干预的主要框架。本文从儿童权利的角度讨论了这些不同的做法,并确定了研究和实践的新途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Nordic Journal of Criminology
Nordic Journal of Criminology Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
期刊最新文献
Making sense of violent encounters: Exploring psychological, professional, and sociological (non-)understandings of security guard use of force Imprisoned in an analogue bubble in digital society: Re/integration work in Norwegian high security prisons Evaluating the impact of an informational postcard campaign on telephone scams targeting the elderly To Refer or Not to Refer? Police Discretion and Morality in the Danish Victim-Offender Mediation Programme Intentionality and responsibility in young people’s construction of alcohol intoxicated sexual assault and sexual consent
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1