A New Look at Victim and Offender: An abolitionist approach

Author(s): Thomas Mathiesen and Ole Kristian Hjemdal

Source: Justice, Power and Resistance Foundation Volume (September 2016) pp. 137-150

Published by EG Press Limited on behalf of the European Group for the Study of Deviancy and Social
Control electronically 21 March 2017

URL: http://www.egpress.org/papers/new-look-victim-and-offender-abolitionist-approach

This work is copyright. It is made available for use for educational purposes and for individuals
personal and non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher EG Press Limited regarding any
further potential use of this work

Website: www.egpress@org Email: egpressproduction@outlook.com

EG Press Limited is the publisher of the European Group for the Study of Deviance and Social
Control. The principal focus of EG Press’s output is the dissemination of European Group related
material. This includes publishing the European Group’s Journal Justice, Power and Resistance.
 A NEW LOOK AT VICTIM AND OFFENDER 137

A New Look at Victim and Offender:

An abolitionist approach1

Thomas Mathiesen and Ole Kristian Hjemdal2

Abstract
Since the 1980s prison populations have increased dramatically in most Western
countries. Criminology has proposed several approaches to reverse this
development, but with only meagre success. Treatment programmes based on
individual explanations of crime conducted inside prisons have not been able to
overcome the negative effects of the prison-life; programmes conducted outside
prisons have often been supplements and add-ons rather than alternatives; and
strategies of incapacitation based on an understanding of social and societal risk
factors have often shown themselves to be both repressive and ineffective. Mere
criticism of the prison system, as ineffective and repressive, along with proposals
to reduce the number of prisons and decriminalise drug use are important, but
not enough to tear down the prison walls and significantly reduce prison
populations.

To effectively reduce the number of prisoners and prisons, an abolitionist

approach which more fundamentally transcends the existing boundaries of
current criminal policy is necessary. This abolitionist approach may be seen not
only as a stance, an attitude of saying ‘no’, but also as an important academic
exercise, where you can express and develop your idea of abolition of the penal
system, and as a more practical and activist strategy directed at key points in
our prison and penal policies and culture. This is the line we advocate for a new
criminology.
At the core of this criminology is a new look at the relationship between
victim and offender. The point of departure is the understanding that it serves

1
This is a revised and updated version of 'A New look at Victim and offender - An Abolitionist
Approach', by the two of us, in M. Bosworth and C. Hoyle (Eds.) What is Criminology? (pp 223-
234) Oxford University Press. The basic idea on the relationship between victim and offender,
in the latter part of this paper, was first presented by sociologist Ole Kristian Hjemdal. The
idea was further developed in the Norwegian edition of Thomas Mathiesen’s book Prison on
Trial (1990). The idea was not presented in the English edition, and was developed for the
first time in English in What is Criminology? The remainder of the paper contains joint
perspectives
2
Thomas Mathiesen is Professor Emeritus of the Sociology of Law at the University of Oslo.
Ole Kristian Hjemdal is senior researcher at the Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic
Stress Studies.

FOUNDATION VOLUME
138 MATHIESEN AND HJEMDAL

neither the victim nor the offender much to have the offender reported to the
police and possibly imprisoned. What we propose is to make the victim rather
than the offender the object of criminal policy and that the efforts of society
should shift from adjusting the right punishment to the crime committed by the
offender to adjusting the correct help to the needs of the victim. This
concentration on help to the victims could conceivably take three general forms:
firstly, symbolic rehabilitation and comfort, secondly, material compensation
and restoration and thirdly, social support, and if possible, reconciliation. More
details will be outlined below concerning these points. The crux of the matter is
that a concentration on the victim brings in something which is ‘real’ - it is even
to some limited extent relied on in practice today. Yet it is still ‘utopian’ in that
it will not be an option on a large or major scale in actual practice instead of
prisons for a very long time. In this sense it constitutes ‘a non-penal real utopia’
in relation to present-day prison affairs, and a way to think of prison abolition.

Old News

It is old news in criminology that prison figures are soaring in many countries.
The World Prison Population List of 2015 (Walmsley, 2016), states that probably
more than 11 million people are now held in penal institutions throughout the
world, either as pre-trial detainees/ remand prisoners or having been convicted
and sentenced. Since about the year 2000 the world prison population total has
grown by almost 20 per cent, which is slightly above the estimated 18 per cent
increase in the world’s general population over the same period. There are
considerable differences between the continents, and variation within
continents. The total prison population in Oceania has increased by almost 60
per cent and that in the Americas by over 40 per cent; in Europe, by contrast,
the total prison population has decreased by 21 per cent. The European figure
reflects large falls in prison populations in Russia and in central and Eastern
Europe. In the Americas, the prison population has increased by 14 per cent in
the USA, by over 80 per cent in Central American countries and by 145 per cent
in South American countries (ibid).
There are nuances, the Netherlands and Sweden in fact have some empty
prisons now, and Norway is renting a whole Dutch prison for inmates from
Norway to alleviate the waiting list for those waiting to serve sentences. But
despite the nuances, and a slight decrease after 2008 (Allen, 2015), the total
increases since 2000 are marked. And the trends go further back, at least until
the 1980s. What should we do about it?

JUSTICE, POWER & RESISTANCE

 A NEW LOOK AT VICTIM AND OFFENDER 139

Various Approaches

Criminology provides various approaches. One of them may be called boundary

acceptance. The boundaries of the prison are kept intact. The conditions which
are part and parcel of the penal and prison system are accepted as boundaries
to be taken for granted. Attempts are made to find and underscore the kinds of
criminology that governments are listening to and responding to in penal policy,
without the boundaries being crossed or violated. Criticism may occur, but only
within these boundaries, literally these walls.
One variety of boundary acceptance is based on individual explanations of
deviance and crime. The hope is that genetics, biology, psychology, various
pedagogical approaches like cognitive skills programmes, anger management
programmes, cognitive behavioural therapies and the like are called in, which
may improve things on the individual level. Strategies of individual
incapacitation, in which risk assessments based on a variety of techniques have
a prominent place, have likewise gained prominence. A wide range of studies in
the ‘What Works’ (Martinson, 1974) tradition, a treatment-orientation which
has supplanted the ‘Nothing Works’ thinking from the 1960s and 1970s, have
re-kindled hope (Lipsey, 1995). Alternatives such as community sentences,
conflict resolution boards and electronic surveillance in the home are being tried
in some countries.
The trouble with the various trends and studies based on an individual
understanding of crime is that their effectiveness in terms of recidivism is to a
very considerable extent scant (Mathiesen, 2007). Under rigorous controls,
various carefully designed measures based for example on psychological and
pedagogical preconditions may work to some extent, but such rigorous controls
and carefully designed measures are rarely present in our prisons. Our closed
prisons are to a large extent boisterous and unruly places where drugs are taken
in large quantities.
Furthermore, alternatives such as community sentences and conflict
resolution boards tend to become add-ons to the prison system rather than true
alternatives to it. In the eleventh hour parliaments will vote in such a manner
that the measures will be opened not primarily as alternatives to unconditional
sentences, but rather as alternatives to conditional sentences or even more
lenient control efforts. This is a story which goes far back into the history of
‘alternatives’. As Stanley Cohen (1985) has pointed out so eloquently, the total
control system seems to swell rather than shrink, at least in many places. To be

FOUNDATION VOLUME
140 MATHIESEN AND HJEMDAL

sure, important exceptions exist (McMahon, 1992), but this is a general trend.
It might be added that reliance on the fiscal crisis, arguing that it is too expensive
to build or maintain prisons (which has recently become a line of thinking in the
US state of California), appears likely to be only a short term method which will
melt away when the economy changes. It is not based on an intrinsic wish to
decrease prison figures.
A second variety of boundary acceptance is based on social or societal
explanations of crime and delinquency. Reference is made to collective morality
(which presumably is waning), class conflict and status discords, demography,
ethnicity (often combined with class), geography and culture and so on – as well
as their practical applications in terms of strategies of collective incapacitation
– where whole groups or categories are targeted. As in the case of boundary
acceptance of the individual variety, the intentions may partly be humanistic
and critical of important societal dimensions (class and ethnicity are cases in
point), but it is difficult to see the practical results, and measures are often
strongly repressive and quite ineffective. In Norway, two related examples come
to mind: A so-called ‘VIC project’, in which ‘Very Important Criminals’ are closely
monitored and taken off the streets when apprehended; and a ‘broken windows
project’ imported from New York, which is another variety of the same. In New
York as well as in Norway the ‘broken windows’ approach is one of many
examples of repressive measures which do not yield desired results.
Demographic factors and other factors are at work. The crime rate has gone
down in cities and towns also where a ‘broken windows’ approach is not
applied.3
A third and final variety of boundary acceptance, where the prison as such is
not attacked, but rather accepted, should also be mentioned. We are thinking
here of various critical approaches to the existing prison system, which keep the
boundaries up and the prison as a solution intact. Arguments like; the prison
does not work as a preventive measure, the costs of control are greater than
the gains, crime is a cultural construction which remains uninfluenced by prison,
the number of prisons should be reduced, there should be more open prisons
and fewer closed ones, certain behaviour patterns which currently are
criminalized (the use of softer drugs) should be decriminalized, and the like are
fair enough as criticisms, but do not tear down the walls. Generally speaking,
criticisms and proposals like these are well meaning, they may be mustered by

3 A Norwegian version of the criticism of the ‘broken windows’ strategy is discussed in

Elisabeth Myhre Lie: ‘Lov og orden i New York’ (‘Law and Order in New York’), Aftenposten 23
September 2009. Lie works at the Norwegian Police University College in Oslo.

JUSTICE, POWER & RESISTANCE

 A NEW LOOK AT VICTIM AND OFFENDER 141

enthusiasts with good intentions. We cannot shrug them off like many of us did
in the 1970s. Reforms may be important to prisoners, and they may also have
some positive long-term functions. But, by keeping boundaries up, the
authorities may easily ward them off as methods to significantly reduce prison
populations.

Abolitionism

If the goal is to reduce the number of prisoners and prisons effectively, a much
bolder attack on the prison which can transcend system boundaries is in order.
It must follow a line of thinking which is as broad as possible, essentially
demanding a sea of change in Western criminal policy, which in its current form
is at a dead end. This is the crux of an abolitionist approach to criminal and
penal policy.
An abolitionist, whether a scientist, a teacher or a person practising his/her
trade, is not a person who is preoccupied with what we would call system
justification. He/she is not a person who is preoccupied with refining the
existing. His/her wish is to get rid of the existing, like some people, close to two
thousand years ago, got rid of (the remnants of) the Roman Empire, or like
others, more recently, in many countries got rid of slavery and the death
penalty. To be sure, many forces operated in the direction of these major
historical examples of abolitions. Also, in quite a few places slavery and the
death penalty are not abolished. In addition, you do find examples of their
return under new names. Nevertheless, in many places they may be seen as
major, more or less full scale abolitions.
More concretely, and having worked with the issues involved in abolitionism
in the realm of penal and prison policy for roughly 40 years, we have over time
delineated several different lines of abolitionist thinking. Here we will briefly
mention three of them.
Firstly, abolitionism may be seen as a stance. It is the attitude of saying ‘no’.
This does not mean that the ‘no’ will be answered affirmatively in practice. A
‘no’ to prisons will not occur in our time. But as a stance it is viable and
important. This does not mean that we have not been preoccupied with
concrete abolitions. In the Norwegian context, we have been strongly engaged
in getting forced labour for alcoholic vagrants abolished (it was in fact abolished
in 1970), likewise the borstal, or youth prison, abolished (they were in fact
abolished in 1975). We have done this through our work in the Norwegian
prison movement (KROM – the Norwegian Association for Penal Reform,

FOUNDATION VOLUME
142 MATHIESEN AND HJEMDAL

established in 1968 and still going strong). But we have (also in the context of
KROM) been preoccupied with fostering and developing an abolitionist stance
(in Norwegian holdning, and in German the much better word Stellung); a
constant and deeply critical attitude to prisons and penal systems as inhumane
solutions.
Many forces, at the work place as well as in the private sphere, operate in
the direction of softening the abolitionist stance, and you therefore have to be
on constant alert to maintain and develop it.4
Secondly, abolitionism may be seen as an important academic exercise.
While maintaining and advocating an abolitionist stance to penal and prison
matters in the external world, the abolitionists who are engaged academically
have the academic site as a concrete work place. In the academic world, in
contrast to life outside which is full of compromises, pressures, pitfalls and loud
noise, it is possible to think in a clear and principled way. The main point with
abolitionism as an academic exercise is that the context provides an opportunity
to think and loudly express new ideas, think and loudly express what may be
imagined although it is not yet anywhere near practical policy. It was possible
for example for Louk Hulsman to ponder deep questions such as what will it take
to have not only prisons, but also penal policy as a whole, abolished? Is it
possible to develop a new language supplanting the criminal justice language,
and to have criminal law supplanted by civil law? Is it possible to create a civil
rather than penal frame of reference in society?
The pressures within the academy to follow the mainstream and remain
within a criminal law and penal frame of reference are very strong indeed.
Producing research grants, getting tenure as well as a whole range of other
social pressures are at work in favour of the mainstream. But in the Western
world the academy is one of the few places where basic views outside the
mainstream may be upheld and loudly voiced.5

4 For a further understanding of this line of abolitionism, see Thomas Mathiesen: ‘The
Abolitionist Stance’, paper presented at the International Conference on Penal Abolition
(ICOPA XII), 23 July 2008, printed in Journal of Prisoners on Prisons, Vol. 17 No. 2 2008, pp 58-
63. See also his The Politics of Abolition Revisited, Routledge, 2015 pp 31-36
5 The present brief statement about abolitionism as an academic exercise is inspired by, but

partly different from, Louk Hulsman’s conception of ‘academic abolition’. Hulsman takes
academic abolition to mean i.a. the development or reconstruction of a different language
with which to talk about ‘problematic situations’; see his ‘Themes and Concepts in an
Abolitionist Approach to Criminal Justice’, Dordrecht 22 September 1997,
http://www.loukhulsman.org/Publication/

JUSTICE, POWER & RESISTANCE

 A NEW LOOK AT VICTIM AND OFFENDER 143

Abolition as a stance and academic abolitionism are two forms of

abolitionism at a time where the actual abolition of prisons lies in the future,
out of our reach. Both are viable and important. But there is also another
possibility, a third form of abolitionism, which is as viable and important as the
others. It brings in a third dimension, where a retreat to the safe haven of the
academy or a mere dimension of a staunch no is combined with ‘expeditions’
and actions favouring basic change in the outside world, notably at key points in
our prison and penal policies and culture. This third form of abolitionism crosses
boundaries with stamina and resolve, brings in deep and prolonged interaction
with those who are subject to the so-called criminal justice system – the
prisoners, and is up to a point practical. But it consciously leaves aside many of
the practical technicalities and compromises which all too quickly make system
boundaries arise once again.6 It is an art.7
This is the line we advocate for a new criminology, as a non-penal real utopia,
to counterbalance the very strong tendency in the discipline towards boundary
acceptance of one or more of the kinds indicated earlier in this article. 'Real
utopia' refers to a situation where an idea is presented which may in principle
be carried out in practice, but which is utopian in the sense that it for various
reasons will not become a major reaction for a very long time. A transfer from
punishment of the offender to various escalations of aid to the offender is such
a ‘real utopia’. It is an idea which may be carried out in principle (and which is
carried out to some extent in practice), but which for various reasons will not
become a major option for a very long time.

An example is in order.

Victim and Offender

The relationship between victim and offender strikes at the core of criminal
policy. Though victimless crime certainly abounds, the relationship is key. Turn
the key, and another criminal policy may emerge.
The victim has received increasing attention over the past couple of decades.
The plight of the victim, or of his or her relatives, is often compared with the
situation of the offender. In public debate it is frequently said that while the

6 New debates and conflicts over abolition may occur when academics and prisoners become

engaged in a common social movement. However, it is our experience, after 40 years of work
in KROM (see above) that many such conflicts may be solved in a long term perspective.
7 See for example Nils Christie: A Suitable amount of Crime, London: Routledge 2004.

FOUNDATION VOLUME
144 MATHIESEN AND HJEMDAL

offender receives large doses of help and support, the victim receives next to
nothing. This, it is maintained, is out of balance and an unjust arrangement.
Presumably, the tables should be turned: The victim should receive much more
support of various kinds and the offender less, so that the relationship between
victim and offender is brought into balance.
We propose a different way of looking at the relationship between victim
and offender. We have in mind victims of offenders who today serve time in
prison, or of offenders who would have served time in prison if they had been
caught. Our analysis is meant as a sketch, an idea which needs further
development, and is in line with an abolitionist way of thinking.
Our point of departure is that it serves the victim little to have the offender
reported to the police and possibly imprisoned. Firstly, the victim largely
receives little or nothing from it. An exception would be the minimum pleasure
of naked revenge on the part of the victim. Though such a sentiment is
understandable, we do not accept it as a legitimate function of imprisonment.
Secondly, revenge is an ‘open’ feeling: as a sentiment, it is never fully satisfied
and legal punishment of the perpetrators does not reduce the victims’ feelings
of revenge (Orth, 2014); stiffer sentences usually lead to further demands for
revenge, and so on in an unending circle. Thirdly, our present system is of rather
marginal importance to most victims. Few victims (in Norway, 15-20 per cent)
report cases of violence to the police, and when property crimes are reported
the main reason is to release the insurance rather than having the offender
sentenced. The main reason for not reporting violence is that victims do not
think it will be of any help (which by the way is quite correct as the chances of
being exposed to further violent episodes is not influenced by reporting to the
police (Hjemdal, 2002)). Also in cases where crimes against the person are in
fact reported, sentencing does not usually follow. For example, over 80 per cent
of all reported rapes charges are dropped for various reasons. To use the victim
as an argument for a more repressive policy misses the target completely, not
only because it does not help the victim to have the offender imprisoned, but
also because the large majority of victims are out of reach of present-day
criminal policy.
On the side of the prisoner, and again contrary to popular opinion, it serves
the offender little to be imprisoned. The pains of imprisonment are sharp, often
as knives, and prisons are not service institutions but disciplinary control
systems. Those who are imprisoned systematically constitute one of the most
poverty-stricken strata in society, and remain so after serving a prison sentence.
Imprisonment, then, is a solution for neither victim nor offender.

JUSTICE, POWER & RESISTANCE

 A NEW LOOK AT VICTIM AND OFFENDER 145

‘Victimology’ has, through the past couple of decades, become an important

research area. Nevertheless, criminal policy does not cease to focus on the
offender. The offender is the object of criminal policy. He or she is to blame, and
he or she is to be punished.
We take the position that a radical change should take place in the very focus
of criminal policy. The position may be seen as a concrete implementation of an
abolitionist approach, as non-penal real utopia (Scott, 2013). Our proposal is to
move the focus of attention in criminal policy completely away from the
offender, and over to the victim.
Traditionally, the offender and the victim are seen in relation to each other.
They are two sides of the same coin. What we propose, is to untie the
relationship between the two. We propose to use Ockham’s razor8 on the tie,
and make the victim rather than the offender the object of criminal policy.
This idea is fundamentally different from the more traditional notion of
restorative justice. At the core of restorative justice is the understanding of
crime as a conflict relationship between a victim and an offender. In restorative
justice the role of the criminal justice system is to prepare the parties for solving
the conflict between themselves. The main objective of restorative justice is to
repair the damage and restore the relationship between the parties. Our notion
presupposes a much stronger role on the part of the State, in which – to repeat
– the State moves the very focus away from the offender and over to the victim
9. But conflict resolution may come in as one of the many ways of providing a

new social dignity on the part of the victim (and offender). We return to this
later.
Our notion means that the efforts of society should not consist of adjusting
the right punishment to the crime committed by the offender, but that the
efforts of society should rather consist of adjusting the correct help to the
victim. The measures taken by society should not be escalated, in the form of
pain or punishment, relative to the guilt and damage done by the offender, but
the measures taken by society should be escalated, in the form of help, relative
to the situation and damage done to the victim. In short: rather than operating
with a scale of punishment related to the offence, we should operate with a
scale of help related to the harm experienced by the victimised person.

8 Ockham’s razor can be popularly stated as ‘when you have two competing theories that
make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better’. The principle is attributed
to 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham.
9 In this sense it is different from the model of restitution proposed by Randy Barnett in 1977.

FOUNDATION VOLUME
146 MATHIESEN AND HJEMDAL

It is a foreign thought, and we should therefore acquaint ourselves with it.

Once again, the heart of the matter is to adjust the efforts of society as help to
the victim rather than punishment of the offender. The crux of the matter is to
escalate the measures of society as help relative to the situation and damage on
the part of the victim rather than escalating them as punishments relative to the
offender’s guilt and damage done.
The heart of the matter, then, is a brand new criminal policy, a criminal policy
which also would decrease anxiety in society, something which traditional
criminal policy does not do. As Box and Hale have suggested, law makers and
courts may be seen as ‘anxiety barometers’, as institutions which, through their
decisions, reflect the anxiety of society (Box et al, 1982; Box and Hale, 1985).
But they do nothing to the anxiety. The policy which we propose would do
something with the anxiety by the shifting of attention mentioned above.
Such concentration on help to the victim could conceivably take three
general forms:
Firstly, the symbolic form. Symbolic rehabilitation is important in a number
of cases. Institutionalized sympathy, rituals expressing sorrow, stronger forms
of rehabilitating honour through personal and public conversations and forms
of being together, adequate resources for treatment in a wide sense of the word
where this is wanted. And peace and quiet, no interference, where that is
wanted.
Secondly, the material form. Life insurance in the real sense of the word is
important. Here this means that all members of society automatically, from
birth on, are economically insured against crime, and that the insurance is
released in very simple ways, without complicated and degrading efforts on the
part of the victim. It is fantastic that our advanced social democratic state has
not already instituted this, but has left it to private initiative. A general life
insurance from birth onwards would among other things have wiped out the
class differences which exist today as far as insurance goes. The poverty of
imprisoned offenders usually makes it impossible for offenders to compensate
damages, at least when the damages are more than trivial. It would have to be
a state insurance. A low insurance tax for all citizens from birth onwards would
make it possible for the State to pay damages, at least in cases where the
damages are above a certain level.
Today’s state compensation to victims of violent crimes is only a beginning.
Over and above economic insurance and standard compensation, concrete
support for rehabilitation of material structures which have been damaged,
similar support for rehabilitation of the human situations which have been

JUSTICE, POWER & RESISTANCE

 A NEW LOOK AT VICTIM AND OFFENDER 147

damaged, would be important. You can say that it is not always easy to
rehabilitate, even when it is in the material sense. But within today’s system
nothing is rehabilitated or rebuilt, and much can after all be done in this respect.
Thirdly, the social form. This is the place where a new contact between victim
and offender could be relevant. It presupposes an active interest on the part of
both parties.
Today’s conflict resolution boards could be one model. Generally crime, at
least of the traditional kind, may be viewed as a communicative act, a side-
tracked attempt to say something. When we consider it important that what is
being said is in fact said in a manner which is acceptable, further communication
may be facilitated, and arrangements for that purpose should be established.
But at times, or often, such communication is not desired by one or both parties,
or impossible to arrange for other reasons. Obviously you cannot establish
communication of this kind as long as the offence remains undetected or not
cleared up. Nevertheless the social form is far from being exhausted as a way of
thinking. For those who have been exposed to street violence, the
establishment of networks of a protective and rehabilitative kind, especially in
the sense of reducing anxiety, would be important. For those who have been
subjected to violence in the private sphere, today’s crisis centres for battered
women and men could provide a model. As violence in the private sphere is
being uncovered, we understand how important the establishment and further
development of protective centres would be, and how important it would be to
give those who are employed there all the resources they need for running the
centres. For battered women and men and for those who have been exposed to
more subtle but threatening victimisation, it would be important (as
supplements to the protective centres) to develop roles for persons who could
be called in and act as go-betweens. Roles of this kind are almost totally lacking
in our society today.
These are just suggestions – a whole host of social measures as well as
symbolic and material methods may be envisaged. But what about the cost? We
have mentioned a life insurance against criminal damages for all citizens from
birth, which would imply a small insurance tax on everyone. The insurance
would be a non-profit matter, so the tax would be low. But it would require an
administrative bureaucracy (a danger would be that this bureaucracy could
grow large; this would have to be prevented), and the many other arrangements
which would be relevant and necessary would be costly. Who would pay, over
and above the insurance tax?

FOUNDATION VOLUME
148 MATHIESEN AND HJEMDAL

Keep clearly in mind our point of departure: the crux of the matter is to
escalate the measures of society as help relative to the situation and damage on
the part of the victim, rather than escalating them as punishments relative to
the offender’s guilt and damage done. In other words, the point is the
development of a new kind of justice. This would lead to a drastic reduction of
the prison population, which is part and parcel of the abolitionist approach. In
turn this would involve a similarly dramatic reduction of costs in the
construction and maintenance of prisons. We do not consider it as our task here
to present a detailed budget, just to present the idea. The money saved would
certainly cover the expenses of help to victims. Also of the utmost importance:
it would help cover a large part of the expenses which would have to be geared
towards help to the offender. To repeat, we know the offenders who are
imprisoned are regularly extremely poor. They lack education, housing, jobs, in
large numbers they are drug addicts, alcoholics and the like. Saved money would
have to be divided between the ranks of victims and the ranks of offender. There
would be money enough through saved prison expenses.
We hear the cry: What of protection of society? What of incapacitation of
the offender, collective and selective? What of the deterrence of the offender
and also of others who are not yet inside the walls? These are important
questions. Our answers to them are given in detail in Thomas Mathiesen’s book
Prison on Trial (2006).10 A large collection of data, a whole library of empirical
studies, suggests that the prison is a failure in terms of all the standard
justifications of imprisonment.
Perhaps there is a lower threshold or floor in terms of imprisonment which
we cannot go below without doing some harm to society. In Britain, the US and
many other countries we are very far indeed from that floor today. It is time to
change our priorities, carving out a basically new criminal policy in our societies.
We have just presented an idea to such a change. It would have to be carved
out in practice. This would be a long-drawn process, with pitfalls and struggles.
From the start it would involve a mode of thinking which is critical but also
constructive rather than just concentrating on the difficulties. Perhaps above all,
it would involve a basic change in the cultural climate of our society.

10 Also out in Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, German, Italian, Spanish, and Taiwan mandarin,

and has recently also been published in mainland mandarin.

JUSTICE, POWER & RESISTANCE

 A NEW LOOK AT VICTIM AND OFFENDER 149

Conclusions

Quite a few years ago, the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu coined the term
doxa to refer to that which is taken for granted, that which is not questioned
because it is common knowledge to everyone in the tribe (Bourdieu and Nice,
1977). Doxa has hegemony. If debates do occur doxa (and they often do in the
Western world), they are frequently orthodox: while frequently sensational in
terms of media coverage, the coverage often takes for granted and therefore
neglects the basic issues involved. Ethnomethodologists touched on such
hidden dimensions of societal communication long before Bourdieu, without
using his terminology. At times, however, debates become heterodox, touching
on deep issues. Struggles may then occur for example over critical issues in
criminal policy. Heterodox opinions are often relegated to marginal journals and
newspapers outside the mainstream. But sometimes they become threatening
to basic dimensions of a doxa. They become real battles. Such struggles may
make the world better, but also worse – there are historical examples of both.
It is our hope that our new look at the victim and offender makes (some) people
think outside of standardised patterns, outside of doxa, to make the world
better. It would also help open up for a new and exciting science of criminology,
which thinks outside the box, and which is not restricted by boundaries.

References
Allen, R. (2015) Global Prison Trends 2015 London: Penal Reform International
Barnett, R.E. (1977) ‘Restitution: A new paradigm of criminal justice’ in Ethics
Volume 87 pp 279-301
Bosworth, M. And Hoyle, C. (2011) What is Criminology? Oxford: OUP
Bourdieu, P. and Nice, R. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice Camridge:
Cambridge University Press
Box, S. and Hale, C. (1985) ‘Unemployment, Imprisonment and Overcrowding’
in Contemporary Crises Volume 9 pp 209-228
Box, S. and Hale, C. (1982) ‘Economic Crisis and the Rising Prisoner Population
in England and Wales’ in Crime and Social Justice Volume 17 pp 20-35
Cohen, S. (1985) Visions of Social Control: Crime, punishment and classification
Cambridge: Policy Press
Hjemdal, O. K. (2002) ‘Holder politiets arbeidmål? (‘Is the Work of the Police up
to Standard?’) in Skodvin, A. (ed) Poltitjenestemann og akademiker?

FOUNDATION VOLUME
150 MATHIESEN AND HJEMDAL

Forskning i praksis og politiarbeid (Police officer and Academic) Oslo: PHS

Forskning
Lipsey, M. W. (1995) ‘What do we learn from 400 research studies on the
effectiveness of treatment with juvenile delinquents?’ in McGuire, J. and
Pease, K. (eds) What Works: Reducing reoffending – guidelines from
research and practice New York: Wiley
Martinson, R. (1974) ‘What Works? Questions and answers about prison
reform’ in The Public Interest Volume 35 pp 22-54
Mathiesen, T. (2006) Prison on Trial Hook: Waterside Press
Mathiesen, T. (2007) ‘Fra “Nothing Works” til “What Works” – Hvor store er
forskjellen?’ (‘From “Nothing Works” to “What Works” – How great is the
Difference?’) in Hofer, H. V. and Nilsson, A. (eds) Brott i välfärden: om
brottslighet, utsatthet och kriminalpolitik: festskrift till Henrik Tham (Crime
in Welfare. About crime, vulnerability and penal policy: Homage volume in
honour of Henrik Tham) Stockholm: Kriminologiska Institutionen
McMahon, M. W. (1992) The Persistent Prison? : Rethinking decarceration and
penal reform Toronto: University of Toronto Press
Orth, U. (2004) ‘Does perpetrator punishment satisfy victims’ feelings of
revenge?’ in Aggressive Behaviour Volume 30 pp 62-70
Scott, D. (2013) ‘Visualising an Abolitionist Real Utopia: Principles, policy and
praxis’ in Malloch, M. and Munro, B. (eds) Crime, Critique and Utopia
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Walmsley, R. (2016) World Prison Populations Briefing (11th edition) London:
Institute for Criminal Policy Research,
http://www.prisonstudies.org/research-publications (consulted 13 May
2016)

JUSTICE, POWER & RESISTANCE