Innocent in theory,punished in practice: Assessing the punitiveness of Swedish and Danish pretrial practice

Abstract

How should we understand punitive penal practices in supposedly humane Nordic welfare states? This article examines remand imprisonment in Denmark and Sweden, where pretrial detention regimes challenge prevailing theories of penal exceptionalism. Drawing on a wide range of empirical sources, we analyze the extent to which these practices are punitive despite being pretrial measures. Our findings reveal that Swedish and Danish pretrial practices are structured to inflict and amplify penal harms—particularly through high levels of isolation—and affect substantial shares of the prison population in both countries. Although not formally intended as punishment, remand is experienced and functions as such in practice: a punitiveness operating beneath the surface, obscured by the legal ethos of justice and the presumption of innocence. We argue that these practices reflect not marginal or divergent penal values, but core punitive logics that underpin and define the Swedish and Danish penal systems.

Keywords

Prisons punishment punitiveness welfare states pretrial detention

Introduction

The call for this special issue invited authors to engage with “pockets of punitiveness” “to capture the myriad practices of confinement in the Nordic countries that are not exceptionally humane but are embedded within an exceptional punishment system” (Laursen and Taxhjelm, forthcoming). We answer this call by zooming in on remand imprisonment. Focusing on this penal practice is a natural choice in the present context: it is a form of incarceration directed at legally presumed innocent individuals that, in the Nordic countries, is often enforced under conditions that effectively amount to solitary confinement. Indeed, Nordic pretrial regimes are among the most—if not the most—frequently cited inconsistencies in claims of penal exceptionalism (Crewe et al., 2023; Smith and Ugelvik, 2017; Ugelvik and Dullum, 2012) and constitutes one of the region's most criticized penal practices (Rua and Smith, 2019).

This article examines remand imprisonment in Denmark and Sweden—the two Nordic countries recognized as having the most restrictive remand regimes (Smith, 2017; Lönnqvist, 2024). In line with this special issue's aims, it seeks to shed light on the nature and scope of punitive practices within Nordic penal systems, centering on the following research question: To what degree, and in what ways, are the Swedish and Danish remand practices punitive despite being pretrial measures? To address this question and its implications for our understanding of the Swedish and Danish penal systems, we examine both quantitative and qualitative aspects of their pretrial practices—the design of remand regimes and conditions of detention, the extent to which remand and associated infringements are employed, the experiences of those subjected to them, and the role of pretrial detention within the context of sentencing and imprisonment.

The article demonstrates how Swedish and Danish pretrial practices are structured in ways that inflict and intensify penal harms on individuals subjected to them. In both countries, remand is often experienced as more punitive than prison sentences, due to the high levels of isolation many individuals face while detained. It also functions as de facto punishment in cases of conviction, since time spent on remand is deducted from sentences—in some cases at a rate exceeding day-for-day to reflect the harsher conditions of pretrial detention. These features show how remand imprisonment, while formally not intended as punishment, becomes so in practice: a concealed and counterintuitive punitiveness that operates beneath the surface and diverges from its formal function and legal ethos; aligning with a “pocket of punitiveness”. However, our analysis also demonstrates that remand is a pervasive, routinely applied practice in Sweden and Denmark—affecting nearly 30% of the Swedish prison population and 40% of the Danish. This suggests that these repressive practices constitute integral and defining elements of their broader penal frameworks, challenging the notion that they are “embedded in an exceptional punishment system” (Laursen and Taxhjelm, forthcoming). Rather than representing marginal or divergent penal values, the remand regimes reveal core punitive logics that underpin and define the Swedish and Danish penal systems themselves.

The article is structured as follows. We begin by situating remand imprisonment within debates on penal exceptionalism and the Nordic model, followed by a discussion of our conceptual approach to punishment and punitiveness. The subsequent sections examine key dimensions of Swedish and Danish pretrial practices, including the conditions and historical roots of their remand regimes, the frequency and scale of their use, individuals’ lived experiences of remand, and their role within the broader penal and sentencing context. We conclude by discussing our findings in relation to the Swedish and Danish penal systems and the notion of “pockets of punitiveness.”

The Nordic model, penal exceptionalism, and remand imprisonment

The Nordic countries are often regarded as exemplars of a distinctive penal model in comparative penology. This model is characterized by a combination of quantitative carceral restraint—marked by low rates of imprisonment and short prison sentences—and qualitative attributes, such as “humane” prison conditions (Pratt, 2008). One of its key features is the principle of normalization, which asserts that prisoners retain all rights except those necessarily restricted by imprisonment, and that conditions of confinement should resemble those in society to the highest degree possible (Engbo, 2017). While these imperatives align with basic human rights principles and international prison rules, the principle of normalization “is often highlighted as a Scandinavian ideal,” with the Nordic countries seen as role models in its implementation (Smith and Ugelvik, 2017: 16). These features—along with open prisons, relatively extensive out-of-cell time, opportunities to maintain contact and social ties with individuals outside of prison, and rehabilitation-oriented regimes—have been argued to place the Nordic countries at the moderate end of the punitive spectrum (Lappi-Seppälä, 2012; Pratt and Eriksson, 2013). Moreover, this “exceptional” approach to punishment is often attributed to the Nordic countries’ strong welfare structures, high levels of trust, equality, and social cohesion, as well as a belief in the state's responsibility to care for all citizens (Pratt, 2008; Pratt and Eriksson, 2013; Smith and Ugelvik, 2017).

The original claims of exceptionalism were based on observations of sentenced prisoners’ conditions, a point also noted by Pratt (2008: 123f). As a result, the conditions for remand prisoners—individuals suspected rather than convicted of crime, deprived of their liberty for procedural and preventive reasons—have not received similar attention in the literature on penal exceptionalism. This oversight is particularly significant given that Nordic pretrial practices sharply contrast with the image of “humane” prison regimes, with many individuals confined to their cells for 22–24 h a day—conditions that, in practice, amount to solitary confinement (Smith, 2012, 2017). This disparity has been discussed by critics of the exceptionalism thesis (Barker, 2013; Mathiesen, 2012) and was recently empirically documented in a comparative study, where Crewe et al. (2023: 440) observed that “there is little doubt that the typical experience of imprisonment is more humane and less damaging in Norway than in England & Wales” yet also concluded that “remand conditions in Norway appear considerably more harmful than sentenced conditions.” Notably, Norwegian remand conditions were not found to be superior to those in England & Wales (Crewe et al., 2023).

The restrictive remand conditions in the Nordic countries are closely linked to and accompanied by the use of restrictions to mitigate the risk of collusion—that is, the risk that suspected individuals obstruct investigations. These restrictions limit remand prisoners’ rights to be in contact with other detainees and individuals outside the remand prison, either through prohibition or surveillance of visits and correspondence (Rua and Smith, 2019). However, even in the absence of such restrictions, remand prisoners in the Nordic countries typically have fewer rights than convicted prisoners—deviating from the principle of normalization and contrasting with practice in other jurisdictions, such as England & Wales (Smith and Jakobsen, 2017: 194f). These conditions have faced severe criticism since the 1990s, most notably from the Council of Europe's anti-torture committee (CPT) and the UN's Committee against Torture, which have persistently called on Nordic states to increase opportunities for association and interaction with those outside remand prisons and to ensure that remand prisoners are granted 8 h of out-of-cell activity daily (Lappi-Seppälä & Koskenniemi, 2018; CPT 2021, 2024a).

The Nordic pretrial practices have been described as “perhaps the least ‘exceptionalist’ of all Scandinavian prison policies” (Smith and Ugelvik, 2017: 25), to “not fit well with [the exceptionalism thesis'] emphasis on humane Scandinavian prison conditions” (Mathiesen, 2012: 21), and to “weaken the relative humaneness at the center of Nordic penal regimes” (Barker, 2013: 20). They have also served as key examples in alternative accounts of the Nordic penal model; reflecting the welfare state's “anti-liberal,” interventionist tendencies (Smith, 2012, 2017) and its “Janus-faced” characteristics, illustrating the consequences of weak individual safeguards against state intervention coupled with an ethnocultural conception of belonging (Barker, 2013). While these contributions have been valuable in theorizing the prima facie repressive features of Nordic pretrial practice vis-à-vis the welfare state, they have not fully explored the punitiveness of these practices. This article seeks to address that gap and explore its implications for our understanding of the Nordic penal model as it manifests itself in Sweden and Denmark.

Punishment and punitiveness

Smith (2017: 152) argues that “when assessing Scandinavian penal practice, we clearly have to incorporate remand and other pretrial practices into our analysis as a reminder of what these states are capable of and as an important part of the penal, welfare and criminal justice cultures they have created.” Building on this insight, this section outlines the key elements for assessing the punitiveness of pretrial practice.

Punishment has been defined in different ways by different authors over the years. Generally, most agree that it involves a formalized sanction imposed for a breach of certain rules and norms. An “orthodox definition,” as laid out by Hayes (2018), ascribes five characteristics to criminal punishment:

It is (a) unpleasant, (b) imposed for conduct that has breached legal rules, (c) targeted against the individual responsible for that conduct, (d) imposed intentionally by State agents other than the subject, who are (e) acting under the authority of the breached law. (Hayes, 2018: 236)

Punitiveness, by contrast, remains a less clearly defined concept despite its widespread scholarly use (Adriaenssen and Aertsen, 2015; Pfeffer, 2024). It typically denotes the degree of harshness in penal systems and notions of excess, including disproportionate or unnecessarily severe punishments, as well as “the pursuit of punishment over and above that which is necessary or appropriate” (Matthews, 2005: 179; see also Frost, 2008; Pfeffer, 2024). Punitiveness thereby captures unwarranted frequency and scale—the extent to which punishment is applied—and the structure and intensity of this “pain delivery” (Matthews, 2005).

The standard definitions of punishment and punitiveness typically emphasize state intent and the deliberate infliction of pain, thereby obscuring broader, more diffuse operations of repressive penal power. To capture a more nuanced understanding of punitiveness, Barker and Smith (2021: 1544) define it as encompassing “criminal justice measures designed in ways that clearly inflict and increase penal harms on offenders.” This shifts the focus from state intent to the design and content of penal measures—whether they are structured to inflict harm, the intensity of that harm, and the extent to which they are imposed. Equally important, one has to consider how penal measures are experienced by individuals. As Sexton (2015: 115, emphases in original) observes in the context of sanctions, “[p]unishment is not just something that is done—it is something that is done to people and experienced by people” (see also Reiter et al., 2018). To this end, Sexton (2015) conceptualizes punishment as a sociolegal phenomenon and addresses the classic “gap problem”—how punishment on the books can diverge from punishment in action. This gap between intention and outcome can emerge not only in sentencing but also in penal measures that, while not formally intended as punitive, become so in practice. Analyzing their design and implementation, alongside individuals’ lived experiences, enables a deeper, more nuanced assessment of punitiveness—one that transcends their “ideal, articulated, or abstract form” (Sexton, 2015: 131).

When moving beyond state-centric definitions of punishment and punitiveness, remand imprisonment readily emerges as a subject for examination. Though lacking formal punitive intent, it carries an inherent potential to inflict harms through the imprisonment it entails. However, detaining individuals for a certain period of time is not punitive by default; whether it becomes so depends on how it is implemented and practiced, including the regimes imposed on presumed-innocent individuals. From our conceptualization outlined above, assessing the degree and ways in which pretrial practice is punitive therefore requires a comprehensive examination of its design, content, and effects, as well as its frequency and scale. Assessing the punitiveness of remand also necessitates examining its relationship to sentencing, to analyze its place within the broader carceral framework and its role in the system of formal punishment.

Methodology

Assessing the punitiveness of pretrial practices requires a comprehensive approach that draws on both quantitative and qualitative sources. This, in turn, demands engagement with a wide range of material—including statistical data, policy documents, legal frameworks, materials from national and international bodies, as well as prisoner accounts and prior research.

We begin by providing an overview of the current Danish and Swedish remand regimes, outlining their design and structure and tracing the historical developments that shaped them. Next, we analyze the frequency and scale to which remand and restrictions are used today, based on available statistics from public authorities and organizations. We then turn to individuals’ experiences of the remand regimes; primarily reliying on the comprehensive work of Smith and Jakobsen (2017) in the Danish context, and Swedish reports from the National Council of Crime Prevention (Brå, 2015, 2017) and the Children's Ombudsman (Barnombudsmannen, 2013). Although these studies were not conducted for this article¹ and vary in scope and methodology—encompassing interviews and/or surveys—they share a common objective: shedding light on the lived experiences of individuals imprisoned on remand. As such, they provide a rigorous foundation for examining how the Swedish and Danish remand regimes are experienced. We draw on these studies’ main findings and bring them to life through firsthand accounts of respondents, which we have translated. Finally, to explore the role of remand in the Swedish and Danish penal contexts, we examine the relationship between remand and sentencing through an analysis of relevant legal sources, policy documents, and indicators of detention outcomes.

This diverse range of sources collectively forms a robust body of material that has not previously been synthesized or analyzed in the manner undertaken here. Importantly, this approach not only allows for a holistic assessment of the punitiveness of Swedish and Danish pretrial practices but also supports an empirically grounded exploration of their broader implications for understanding the penal systems in these two Nordic countries.

Design and content: the Swedish and Danish remand regimes and their historical roots

Within the Nordic context, Sweden and Denmark stand out for having the most restrictive remand conditions. Since the 1990s, these two countries have faced particularly severe criticism of their impoverished remand regimes, lack of meaningful activities and the severely limited opportunities for human interaction afforded to remand prisoners (CPT, 2021, 2024b). Most recently, the CPT (2024a) described the Danish remand regime as “draconian,” noting that many remand prisoners spent “between 21 and 23 h per day inside their cells […] for months and sometimes even years,” concluding that “the conditions could on occasion be considered as amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment” (CPT, 2024b: 7, para. 101). The CPT's latest report to Sweden similarly described the remand regime as “very impoverished,” with individuals enduring long periods of little to no contact with family and “extremely limited opportunities to interact with other human beings” (CPT, 2021: para. 32). The high prevalence of isolation in Swedish remand prisons, experienced by the vast majority of detainees, was also the focus of a 2020 thematic report by the Parliamentary Ombudsmen (Riksdagens ombudsmän, 2020).

The limited human interaction afforded to remand prisoners is closely linked to the practice of imposing restrictions, which substantially increase the risk of being isolated. However, many remand prisoners in Sweden and Denmark are de facto isolated even without such restrictions. A key contributing factor is the limited rights of remand prisoners in relation to access to meaningful activities and opportunities for social interaction. For instance, in Denmark, remand prisoners have no right to telephone communication, with calls only permitted under special circumstances (Smith and Jakobsen, 2017). Moreover, while sentenced prisoners are obliged to participate daily in activities such as work, education, or rehabilitation programs, this requirement does not apply to individuals on remand. Although this exemption is understandable given their legal status, the result is more problematic, as they are not provided equivalent opportunities for activities. In addition, Swedish and Danish remand prisons have long struggled with insufficient resources and staff shortages, and, in recent years, challenges stemming from high occupancy rates (CPT, 2024b; Kriminalvården, 2024b). Another critical issue is the structural design of Swedish and Danish remand prisons, with many comprising outdated facilities built on the principle of confining individuals alone in their cells, resulting in a lack of adequate communal spaces (Smith and Jakobsen, 2017; Riksdagens Ombudsmän, 2020). This differs from the situation in Norway, where remand prisoners are housed in the same wings as sentenced, resulting in conditions that more closely mirror those of convicted individuals (Kriminalomsorgen, 2024; Smith, 2017). Notably—and in contrast to the harsh criticism directed at Sweden and Denmark—the CPT (2019: para. 85) recently commended Norway for its diversified regime and for enrolling 80–90% of remand prisoners in daily programmes of meaningful activities.

While international criticism targeting pretrial solitary confinement dates back to the early 1990s, the isolation in Swedish and Danish remand prisons has much deeper historical roots—extending to the nineteenth century, when the Scandinavian countries introduced a prison system largely based on the Pennsylvania model (Smith, 2003). The penal philosophy of this model was grounded in the principle that prisoners should be kept in solitary confinement while serving their sentence to encourage reflection and moral reform. As a result, the Scandinavian countries established an institutional and architectural structure of carceral isolation (Smith, 2020; Nilsson, 1999). This structure also extended to remand prisoners, with the adoption of isolation regimes for remand prisoners modeled after the Pennsylvania system in 1846 in Denmark (Smith, 2003) and 1864 in Sweden (Nilsson, 1999).

The Pennsylvania model was short-lived in many countries, lasting only a few years in most American states, as the damaging impact of solitary confinement quickly became evident and undermined its rehabilitative promise (Smith, 2006). Although similar observations and criticism had surfaced in Scandinavia, the system persisted far longer than in many other jurisdictions—remaining in place until the 1930s in Denmark and as late as 1946 in Sweden (Nilsson, 1999). However, while these reforms abolished solitary confinement as punishment, the isolation remained for individuals on remand.

In Sweden, efforts to establish the first comprehensive act regulating the rights and treatment of remand prisoners began in the 1950s. Despite the prevalent isolation in remand prisons—and acknowledgment that these conditions often rendered pretrial detention more strenenous than serving a sentence (SOU, 1944: 279)—it was not treated as an issue requiring political reform. As a result, the 1958 Act on Detention included no provisions to protect individuals from isolation or mitigate its harmful effects (Lönnqvist, 2024). Similarly, despite long-standing debate and criticism of remand conditions dating back to the nineteenth century, the early postwar decades saw no significant reforms in Danish remand institutions (Kessing, 2024).

Beginning in the 1960s, the Nordic countries entered a period of intensive reform and “penal liberalization,” aimed primarily at reducing the negative effects of imprisonment (Lappi-Seppälä, 2012: 86). These reforms—which aligned with the growing international focus on strengthening prisoners’ rights (Engbo, 2017)—fundamentally reshaped Nordic prison policies and practices, laying the foundation for what is now associated with the Nordic penal model (Smith, 2020; Fransen and Smith, 2022). Within this broader humanitarian penal discourse and context, the isolation in remand prisons emerged as a political issue in Sweden (Lönnqvist, 2024), and national debates surrounding it in Denmark intensified (Smith and Jakobsen, 2017). However, while rights and regimes for sentenced prisoners saw extensive reforms, changes for remand prisoners were far more limited. In Sweden, the 1976 revision of the Act on Detention—intended, among other things, to alleviate isolation—ultimately introduced rights that could easily be restricted by prosecutors to prevent risk of collusion (Lönnqvist, 2024). Similarly, in Denmark, efforts to improve conditions for remand prisoners resulted only in the introduction of limited regulations in 1978 and 1984—featuring safeguards that could, in practice, be readily infringed by law-enforcement agencies (Smith and Jakobsen, 2017: 38f).

The treatment of remand prisoners in Sweden and Denmark underwent no further reforms until the 1990s, when renewed attention to prison conditions was triggered by the establishment of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and the creation of the CPT in 1989. Following the introduction of this monitoring mechanism, the Swedish and Danish remand regimes went from being a national political issue to an international human rights concern. To the surprise of Nordic policymakers—who seemed to take their excellence for granted—the CPT forcefully criticized the Scandinavian remand regimes; a criticism subsequently echoed by the UN's Committee Against Torture (Rua and Smith, 2019: 45ff). While the criticism was responded to somewhat differently—with its validity challenged politically in Sweden (Lönnqvist, 2024)—it has nonetheless instigated reforms and resulted in introduction of stronger individual safeguards in both Sweden and Denmark (Lappi-Seppälä and Koskenniemi, 2018). Despite these efforts—which, in fact, have led to the near abolition of court-imposed solitary confinement in Denmark (Rigsadvokaten, 2023a)—the conditions of isolation have nevertheless persisted, with meaningful progress remaining elusive. In response to the CPT's recurring recommendation for 8 h of out-of-cell activity per day, the Swedish Government dismissed it as not “a realistic aim in the Swedish context” (CPT, 2016: 28). Similarly, in Denmark, the CPT (2024a: para. 7) expressed concerns of “the slow progress (or even absence of progress) in the implementation of some of its long-standing recommendations,” including many problems associated with “the restrictive regimes for remand prisoners.”

In summary, the design and content of Swedish and Danish pretrial practices reveal a system structured around highly restrictive conditions and austere regimes—features that systematically inflict and intensify penal harms on individuals who retain the right to be presumed innocent. Despite decades of debate, criticism and legal reforms, these harmful conditions have proven remarkably resilient and continue to reflect the institutional legacy of isolation established through the nineteenth century-prison reforms. The following section examines the use of these entrenched practices in Sweden and Denmark today.

Frequency and scale: the use of remand and restrictions

As part of the Nordic cluster, Sweden and Denmark are often associated with maintaining some of the smallest prison populations among modern democracies. A closer examination of their prison populations shows that a relatively large proportion is held on remand (Figure 1). Between 2018 and 2023, remand prisoners constituted close to 30% of Sweden's prison population and 40% of Denmark's—figures that have consistently exceeded the European median during the same period. Moreover, Sweden and Denmark stand out among the Nordic countries for having a higher proportion of remand prisoners than Norway and Finland.

Figure 1.

Percentage of remand prisoners within the total prison populations of Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland, and the European median (2018–2023).

In terms of average remand prisoner rates across the Nordic countries—which reflect the number of individuals held on remand and the length of their detention—Denmark has consistently reported the highest, maintaining around 25 remand prisoners per 100,000 population since 2010 (Lönnqvist, 2023). This stands in sharp contrast to the Finnish rate of around 10 remand prisoners per 100,000, and the Norwegian, which has declined significantly since 2015: from 20 to 10. Sweden's remand rate remained below Norway's until 2018, but has since risen steeply, standing at 25 remand prisoners per 100,000 by 2023 (Kriminalvården, 2024a). Preliminary data for 2024 suggest that Sweden has now surpassed Denmark, reaching 30 remand prisoners per 100,000 population (Kriminalvården, 2025).

The higher remand rates in Sweden and Denmark, compared to Norway and Finland, can partly be attributed to a more frequent reliance on pretrial detention (Figure 2). Prior to 2020, Sweden and Denmark exhibited similar levels, with around 100 individuals per 100,000 population subjected to remand annually. In contrast, Finland maintained a significantly lower level of around 40 individuals per 100,000 during the same period. While Norway's use of remand was comparable to that of Sweden and Denmark in the 1980s (Lönnqvist, 2023), it has since declined substantially: dropping from 80 to fewer than 50 individuals per 100,000 population from 2013 onward.

Figure 2.

Number of remand prisoners (flow) in the Nordic countries.

While the number of remand prisoners in Denmark has decreased over the years, the duration of detention has increased significantly—from 3.3 to 5.6 months between 2018 and 2023 (Anklagemyndigheden, 2025). In 2023, 56% of remand cases were classified as “long-term” (lasting three months or more), with an average duration of 8.5 months (Rigsadvokaten 2023b). In Sweden, the average duration stood at three months in 2023—a relatively low figure, partly because a substantial share of detentions (33%) lasted less than one month (Kriminalvården, 2024a). However, Sweden has sustained criticism for excessively lengthy detention periods (SOU, 2016; CPT, 2021). As in Denmark, the average duration has also increased in recent years, with the proportion of detentions exceeding three months nearly doubling between 2017 and 2023 (from 20% to 38%, see Kriminalvården, 2024a).

Denmark and Sweden stand out in the Nordic context not only for their extensive use of remand but also for their routine use of restrictions. While reforms in Denmark have addressed the long-standing issue of court-imposed solitary confinement—that is, restrictions limiting contact with other detainees—restrictions on correspondence and visits, known as “B&B” (brev- og besøgskontrol), continue to be used indiscriminately (Figure 3). In 2023, nearly 70% of remand prisoners were subject to these measures, under which all letters are censored—typically causing lengthy delays—and all visits are conducted under physical supervision.

Figure 3.

Percentage of remand prisoners subject to letter and visit control in Denmark and restrictions on letters, visits, phone calls, and contact with other detainees in Sweden.

Restrictions are used even more extensively in Sweden, affecting over 70% in recent years (Figure 3). Unlike in Denmark, restrictions in Sweden also extend to contact with other detainees, effectively prohibiting all interaction with others except with prison staff, defense attorneys and representatives from civil society (Kriminalvården, 2024a). Moreover, many individuals are subjected to these measures for prolonged periods: among those detained for six months, over one-third remained under restrictions, and nearly one out of four detained for a year (Kriminalvården, 2024a).

To sum up, statistical data show that remand prisoners make up a substantial share of the prison populations in Sweden and Denmark, high by both Nordic and European standards. These countries are front-runners in the use of remand imprisonment in the Nordic region, accompanied by an equally extensive application of restrictions, resulting in high levels of isolation for many remand prisoners. We now turn to the practical implications of these regimes and to how individuals subjected to them describe their experiences.

Lived effects: remand imprisonment experienced as punishment

I feel lonely, I want to talk to someone / Own thoughts and reflections, not knowing who will be there for you when you get out of here / The idleness that gives you anxiety / Not being able to hear the voice of your loved ones / Not having any contact with the family. Responses to the question about the worst part of being on remand, Sweden (Brå, 2015: 12, 13)

Remand imprisonment in any jurisdiction is characterized by several factors that render it a particularly stressful form of incarceration, including the disruption caused by the detention and the uncertainty it entails (Freeman and Seymour, 2010; Pelvin, 2017). Unsurprisingly, these challenges are also evident in studies examining individuals’ experiences of remand in Sweden and Denmark. As Smith and Jakobsen (2017: 69) observe, many remand prisoners struggle to cope with the uncertainty and lack of clarity surrounding their situation. In their study, one individual emphasized the “psychological pressure” of this uncertainty, describing it as one of the most challenging aspects of detention: “You have no clarity about your situation. You don’t know how it will all end” (Smith and Jakobsen, 2017: 187). Similar sentiments were prominent in the study by the Swedish National Council of Crime Prevention, as illustrated by one of the individuals interviewed: “You are constantly stressed and have a constant worry because you don’t really know what's happening” (Brå, 2017: 90).

The experiences of remand prisoners in Sweden and Denmark reveal that the anxiety and stress stemming from uncertainty and disruption are exacerbated by the restrictive conditions of confinement. This is vividly illustrated in the account of one individual held on remand in Sweden:

You’re arrested, and try to settle in that, and then you’re locked in a room by yourself. Twenty-three of the day's twenty-four hours. And the thoughts just go on and on. What has happened? What have I done? How come I’m sitting here? My god, what happened? What will people say? How will it go? Will I move on after this? It's indescribable, it was absolutely disgusting. (Brå, 2017: 89f)

A prominent theme consistently emerging in the studies is the profound reality of isolation during remand. Research has extensively documented the harms of being deprived of human contact (Smith, 2006; Rua and Smith, 2019), showing that these effects intensify the longer isolation lasts and under conditions of uncertainty (Shalev, 2015). These harms are reflected in the experiences of remand prisoners in Sweden and Denmark, with individuals reporting anxiety, sleep disturbances, panic attacks, and even physical effects such as vision impairment (Brå, 2015, 2017). As noted in the most recent Swedish study, some detainees reported “that they almost underwent a personality change after a period of isolation” (Brå, 2017: 88f); a sentiment also echoed by an individual in Denmark, who was isolated for seven weeks:

I remember that I often lay down in a fetal position. I remember often having the feeling that, in a little while, I would wake up and it would all have been a bad dream. I struggled to hold on to something. […] I wasn’t quite myself. I bloody well understand that isolation makes some people hang themselves in the cell, I might have done that if I had the courage. (Smith and Jakobsen, 2017: 42)

Notably, similar experiences have also been recounted by individuals that otherwise view themselves as resilient:

I have probably never felt as bad in my whole life as during my first period here. I almost got scared of myself. I have always seen panic attacks and those types of things as… not as a joke, but as stupid stuff. But then I got to experience it myself and then I almost got scared that I, if anyone, could experience those feelings. […] I barely knew if I was gonna vomit or have a heart attack. (Brå, 2017: 89)

The profound consequences of isolation are not only described by those who endure the detention firsthand but are also reported by prison staff (Brå, 2017; Rua and Smith, 2019) and loved ones. In the Danish study, a woman recounted how her husband broke down during the detention:

My husband was completely devastated by that detention. […] He was broken. Angry and sullen. He had withdrawn into himself. He is a big man, tall and broad and usually happy, but he sat and cried and was completely apathetic. I could hardly recognize him in the end. (Smith and Jakobsen, 2017: 71)

Another recurring theme in remand prisoners’ accounts is the lack of activities during detention, with daily life in Swedish and Danish remand prisons marked by deprivation of meaningful engagement, monotomy, and significant loss of autonomy (Brå, 2015, 2017; Smith and Jakobsen, 2017). In the study by Smith and Jakobsen (2017: 69), one detainee described these conditions as “demoralizing and counterproductive.” Another, a Danish woman, explained:

Everything is taken care of instead of you being able to do it yourself. You’re not supposed to do anything at all and you don’t have a say in anything. You have no responsibility—you have no agency. Your identity is stripped away. And that is stressful. Those who are in here for like two years, well it's just ridiculous. I would almost say that it would be impossible to handle if you already have difficulties of some kind. (Smith and Jakobsen, 2017: 70)

One of the few unconditional rights for remand prisoners in Sweden and Denmark is a daily hour of outdoor activity—a provision that offers some respite from the monotony and prolonged confinement of their cells. In Denmark, this typically takes place in groups, depending on the institution and whether the person is in court-ordered or disciplinary solitary confinement. In Sweden, many remand prisoners instead spend their yard time alone in cage-like areas measuring 15–25 m², located on the rooftops of remand prisons. These spaces, designed to prevent communication and smuggling, feature high ceilings, frosted windows, and enclosed roofs—a design the CPT (2009, 2021) has described as oppressive (see also Barker, 2013). Despite this, some individuals interviewed by the National Council for Crime Prevention described experiencing a sense of “freedom” during their walks, while others reported feeling worse in such surroundings (Brå, 2017: 94). A child interviewed by the Children's Ombudsman described a similar experience: “You feel worse on the walk than to sit in a cell. You feel like an animal” (Barnombudsmannen, 2013: 50).

Remand prisoners in Sweden and Denmark face severely limited opportunities for human interaction, particularly when subject to restrictions. The restrictions on contact with loved ones consistently emerge as one of the most challenging aspects of detention, as shared by two parents—a father and mother—in Denmark:

The worst part is the longing, and then you have SO little contact. You are not allowed to call and check how they are doing. (Smith and Jakobsen, 2017: 69)

The greatest sorrow of being in here is that I can't talk to my daughter on a daily basis. That I can't call her. I miss her and she misses me. (Smith and Jakobsen, 2017: 69)

The prohibition and surveillance of contact may be particularly challenging for children held on remand (Smith, 2014), as illustrated by the experience of a 16-year-old in Sweden:

I didn’t talk to mom in 2,5 months, I think. And then I got to see her with the cops. Then after that I got to see her with […] the prison staff. And then I didn’t get to hug her. I didn’t get to kiss her. I didn’t get to talk to her about anything […] It fucking sucks. You know, I’m 16, I still live at home. I’m in contact with mom every day. (Barnombudsmannen, 2013: 49)

The restrictions imposed on remand prisoners also produce a range of secondary effects—or symbiotic harms (Condry and Minson, 2021)—that extend to children and families. This issue emerged as a prominent theme in the Danish study, which featured interviews with family members of remand prisoners, including a girl whose father was detained for over a year:

I have often been sad about not being able to just pick up the phone and call him […] I could be lying in bed crying all day, and then I could only talk to him 3 days later, because that's when he called. (Smith and Jakobsen, 2017: 124)

The studies demonstrate how the Swedish and Danish remand conditions—the isolation, impoverished regimes, and far-reaching restrictions—inflict considerable and profound harm on those subjected to them. These conditions differ fundamentally from those of post-sentencing imprisonment; a distinction highlighted by an individual in Denmark who had experienced both:

The worst [thing] about being imprisoned on remand is definitely the social violence, the social isolation. You’re torn away from everything. You cannot be in contact with your family, visits are rare and under surveillance, the letters take one hundred years to arrive, you cannot call. You’re isolated from the life you had before. Of course, this is also the case when you’re in prison, but it's on a completely different scale when you’re on remand. It's more absolute. (Smith and Jakobsen, 2017: 101)

This counterintuitive notion was also reflected in an interview with a sentenced prisoner in a high-security Danish facility who, when asked “What is punishment?” replied “B&B,” referring to the restrictions on remand—a view shared by fellow high-security prisoners who described their “worst and toughest prison experience” as occurring before sentencing, with incarceration under maximum security conditions feeling far less like punishment (Smith, 2017: 130).

The experiences of individuals detained under the Swedish and Danish remand regimes reveal the profound impact of this form of confinement. Crucially, their accounts highlight not only the struggles caused by the deprivation of liberty, uncertainty, and stress inherent in pretrial detention but also how the Swedish and Danish remand regimes intensify these harms—by depriving individuals of human contact, meaningful activity, autonomy, and connections with family and loved ones. These conditions stand in stark contrast to those afforded to sentenced prisoners, the foundational principles of the Nordic model, and the legal ethos underpinning the remand institution: that you are innocent until proven guilty. Consequently, despite lacking formal punitive intent, the lived realities of individuals subjected to remand in Sweden and Denmark reveal it to be experienced as more punitive than the sentence it precedes—incarceration intended as punishment.

The relationship between remand and sentencing: remand imprisonment as de facto punishment

[…] the criminal justice system lets us rot in jail. We practically serve our entire sentence in here because of the wait time and the slow grind of the system. (Smith and Jakobsen, 2017: 69)

The previous sections have demonstrated how the Swedish and Danish pretrial practices are structured and experienced in ways that render them punitive despite not being intended as such. In this final section, we examine how their punitive nature extends further, by exploring the relationship between remand and sentencing in policy and practice.

Although imposed before conviction, pretrial detention remains closely linked to formal punishment. This connection is rooted in the principle that time spent in pretrial detention is deducted from the final sentence,² meaning that remand ultimately becomes de facto punishment upon conviction. While sentence deductions typically correspond directly to the days spent in remand, the conditions under which the detention is served can lead to additional reductions in Sweden and Denmark. In Denmark, a special equity provision was introduced in 2000 (Strafferetsplejeudvalget, 1998), which grants individuals subjected to court-ordered solitary confinement an extra day deducted from their sentence for every three days spent under such conditions (Straffeloven § 86 Stk. 1). Given the punitive realities of Danish remand conditions even in the absence of such restrictions, recent political discussions have considered expanding this type of additional compensation to cover all forms of pretrial detention (Berlingske, 2024). Although additional deductions are not codified in Swedish law, they became possible following a 2015 Supreme Court precedent. The case involved several individuals subjected to restrictions for nearly a year which, in practice, meant that they had been isolated for this extensive time. Recognizing the harms of enduring such a regime, the Supreme Court reduced their sentenced by an additional two months, equating to roughly one extra day of deduction for every six days spent under restrictions (NJA, 2015).

Beyond serving as legal recognition of the punitive dimensions of remand—with the additional deductions in Sweden and Denmark acknowledging it to be potentially even more punitive than a prison sentence—sentence deductions also shape the content of punishment; how sentences are administered in practice. This is particularly evident in cases where individuals are released upon sentencing, because they have already served their time in pretrial detention—a situation more common where detention periods are lengthy and sentences relatively short (Lönnqvist, 2023). While neither Denmark nor Sweden publishes annual statistics on detention outcomes or the proportion of sentences served on remand, it is reasonable to infer that the use of remand has a greater influence on how offenders are de facto punished in these countries compared to Anglo-Saxon countries, where sentences are considerably longer.

That remand plays a prominent role within the broader carceral context in Sweden and Denmark is further supported by the fact that many pretrial detainees do not receive custodial sanctions, if they are sentenced at all. In Denmark, data indicate that around 10% of remand prisoners are ultimately not sentenced, and that between 2011 and 2013, roughly 20% did not receive an unconditional prison sentence (Smith and Jakobsen, 2017: 64f). Remarkably, of those acquitted in 2023, the average length of detention was nearly seven months (Anklagemyndigheden, 2025). These indications of disproportionate remand use become even more concerning when viewed in light of the long-term social effects of detention, as evidenced by Wakefield and Andersen's (2020) analysis of Danish register data. Their study found that remand—regardless of whether it results in conviction—has lasting negative effects, including weakened ties to the labor market and “unique social costs,” “driven directly by the detainment experience and separation from work and family” (Wakefield and Andersen, 2020: 359, 360).

Data from Sweden also indicate that many individuals do not receive a prison sentence after pretrial detention. A study covering all detentions of individuals aged 15–20 between 2019 and 2020 showed that 44% received an unconditional prison sentence (Lindell et al., 2025). Notably, nearly half (46%) did not receive any sanction administered by the Prison and Probation Service, indicating that the majority³ of these individuals either only received a fine or were released without conviction. Further evidence that detention leads to outcomes other than prison sentences—and that yet again highlights the prominent role of remand within the context of imprisonment—is that pretrial detention is imposed more frequently than prison sentences in Sweden (Lönnqvist, 2023).

In cases of acquittal, Sweden and Denmark have monetary compensation schemes to address the harm caused by detention.⁴ These mechanisms serve to compensate individuals for the wrongs committed against them and the harms they have suffered—a practice that clearly reflects and acknowledges the punitive dimensions of detention.⁵ Notably, in Sweden, these compensations increased fourfold between 2004 and 2023 (e.g., Justitiekanslern, 2023). A similar trend was observed in Denmark between 2004 and 2013, during which monetary compensations tripled (Smith and Jakobsen, 2017: 64).

The features examined above reveal the deep entanglement of remand and punishment—how it is not only experienced as punishment but that it in cases of conviction functions as de facto punishment. For many individuals, months—if not the entirety—of their sentences are served under the harsh conditions of the Swedish and Danish remand regimes, if they are sentenced at all. The special equity principles further reflect a legal recognition of its punitive reality—one that is even more punitive than “the harshest custodial punishment” (Anderson et al., 2024: 794). Independently of the outcome, individuals subject to this type of imprisonment face long-lasting social consequences. These factors highlight how remand extends far beyond its procedural function, embodying a profound punitive character that plays a central role in shaping the Swedish and Danish penal systems—both within their broader carceral frameworks and in the administration of punishment.

Discussion and concluding remarks: pretrial punitiveness in the welfare state

This article has comprehensively examined the Swedish and Danish pretrial practices, demonstrating how they are structured in ways that inflict and amplify penal harms on legally innocent individuals. We have traced the historical roots of these practices’ repressive design, their persistence, and their deep entanglement with punishment—both as it is experienced and as it functions in cases of conviction. We have also shown that remand is extensively used in Sweden and Denmark and that it plays a central role in their broader carceral frameworks—where many individuals effectively serve parts of their sentences under conditions of isolation, indirectly shaping the administration of punishment itself. Taken together, the dimensions examined—the design, content, lived experiences, effects, and application—reveal the profound and multifaceted punitiveness of Swedish and Danish pretrial practice.

This punitiveness—veiled by the legal ethos of justice and the presumption of innocence—is aptly captured by the concept of pockets of punitiveness introduced in this special issue (Laursen and Taxhjelm, forthcoming). Although remand is not formally intended as punishment, it is experienced and functions as such in practice. Counterintuitively, the remand regimes in Sweden and Denmark are significantly harsher than those imposed on sentenced prisoners, contradicting claims of “humane” prison conditions and the Nordic model's emphasis on normalization and rehabilitation. These punitive conditions are not only endured by remand prisoners but also tacitly acknowledged by the very systems that impose them; reflected in additional sentence deductions meant to compensate for the harms of isolation. Despite criticism, legal reforms and strengthened safeguards—such as the near elimination of court-imposed solitary confinement in Denmark—the punitive conditions persist. This enduring gap between policy and practice reveals the elusiveness of genuine reform: while the regimes may appear improved, their punitive realities remain. In this light, the metaphor of a punitive pocket captures both the hidden punitiveness of remand and the resistance to meaningful change.

Our analysis, however, challenges the assumption that the punitive Swedish and Danish remand regimes are “embedded within an exceptional punishment system” and operate in contrast to an overall exceptional penal quality (Laursen and Taxhjelm, forthcoming). The extensive use of remand—affecting nearly 30% of the Swedish prison population, where detention is imposed more frequently than prison sentences each year, and 40% of prisoners in Denmark—clearly raises questions about the continued framing of these penal systems as generally exceptional. It also prompts the question of whether these practices are peripheral or contrasting elements. In this regard, the widespread use of remand suggests that Danish and Swedish remand practices are not merely pockets but part of the cloth itself, woven into the fabric of their carceral systems.

Our analysis also challenges the notion that “the Nordic countries inflict less damage on the people in their confinement in overall terms” (Laursen and Taxhjelm, forthcoming). Notably, comparative research has focused primarily on Norway, where remand conditions are considerably less restrictive than in Sweden and Denmark (Crewe et al., 2023). Crewe et al. (2023: 440) found that remand conditions in Norway appear “considerably more harmful than sentenced conditions” and “relatively similar” to those in England & Wales—which, by extension, suggests that the more restrictive Swedish and Danish regimes may in fact be more damaging than their Anglo counterparts. The divergence in remand regimes, taken together with current penal developments, also call into question whether the Nordic region can still be considered a coherent penal cluster. In Sweden, a radical carceral shift is currently underway: according to forecasts, the prison population is expected to rise by between 140% and 420%, depending on the outcomes of legislative reforms targeting harsher sentencing laws and tighter restrictions on early release (Kriminalvården, 2025). If the upper estimate is realized, Sweden would reach nearly 400 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants—about 41,000 prisoners in total—almost four times the European median (Aebi and Cocco, 2024). Current developments in Denmark signal a move in the same direction, with a penal reform presented in 2025 proposing significant sentence increases and the addition of over 2000 new prison cells by 2036 (Regeringen, 2025). If implemented, Denmark's prison population would shift from the traditional Nordic territory of 60–70 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants to 100. These expansionist trends raise doubts not only about the existence of a less damaging criminal justice approach in the Nordic countries, but also about whether it is still meaningful to speak of a unified Nordic penal ethos.

To conclude, our article underscores the need to move beyond penal exceptionalism as the dominant frame for understanding Nordic penality. To this end, the concept of pockets of punitiveness holds considerable analytical value: it draws attention to the concealed punitiveness of practices that appear nonpunitive or even benign, and encourages closer scrutiny of their lived effects. While this vantage point helps expose the punitive nature of pretrial practice in Sweden and Denmark, it also reveals that this punitiveness is not confined to a pocket, but reflects core punitive logics that underpin and define the penal systems of these two Nordic countries.

Footnotes

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Julie Laursen and Frederik Taxhjelm for their insightful feedback throughout the preparation of the manuscript, as well as the participants in the “Punitive pockets” workshop held in Copenhagen, September 2024.

ORCID iD

Emelí Lönnqvist

Authors’ contribution

The authors contributed equally to this work.

Ethical considerations

This study did not involve the collection of new sensitive empirical data. In accordance with relevant guidelines, ethical approval was therefore not required.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Adriaenssen

Aertsen

(2015) Punitive attitudes: Towards an operationalization to measure individual punitivity in a multidimensional way. European Journal of Criminology 12(1): 92–112.

Aebi

Cocco

(2024) SPACE I - 2023 – Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics: Prison Populations. Brussels: Council of Europe.

Anderson

Cochran

Montes

(2024) How punitive is pretrial? Measuring the relative pains of pretrial detention. Punishment & Society 26(5): 790–812.

Anklagemyndigheden (2025) Rigsadvokatens analyse af anvendelsen af varetægtsfængslinger. Copenhagen: Anklagemyndigheden.

Barker

(2013) Nordic exceptionalism revisited: Explaining the paradox of a Janus-faced penal regime. Theoretical Criminology 17(1): 5–25.

Barker

Smith

(2021) This is Denmark: Prison islands and the detention of immigrants. The British Journal of Criminology 61(6): 1540–1556.

Barnombudsmannen (2013) Från insidan. Barn och unga berättar om tillvaron i arrest och häkte. Stockholm: Barnombudsmannen.

Berlingske (2024) Regeringen overvejer rabat til varetægtsfængslede i reform. Available at: https://www.berlingske.dk/politik/regeringen-overvejer-rabat-til-varetaegtsfaengslede-i-reform (accessed 29 May 2025).

Brottsförebyggande rådet (Brå) (2015) Unga i häkte. De intagnas uppfattning om de insatser som vidtagits för att förbättra situationen för unga i häkte. Stockholm: Brottsförebyggande rådet.

10.

Brottsförebyggande rådet (Brå) (2017) Att minska isolering i häkte. Stockholm: Brottsförebyggande rådet.

11.

Condry

Minson

(2021) Conceptualizing the effects of imprisonment on families: Collateral consequences, secondary punishment, or symbiotic harms? Theoretical Criminology 25(4): 540–558.

12.

CPT (2009) Report to the Swedish Government on the visit to Sweden carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 9 to 18 June 2009. CPT/Inf (2009) 34.

13.

CPT (2016) Response of the Swedish Government to the report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its visit to Sweden from 18 to 28 May 2015. CPT/Inf (2016) 20.

14.

CPT (2019) Report to the Norwegian Government on the visit to Norway carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 28 May to 5 June 2018. CPT/Inf (2019) 1.

15.

CPT (2021) Report to the Swedish Government on the visit to Sweden carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 18 to 29 January 2021. CPT/Inf (2021) 20.

16.

CPT (2024a) Council of Europe anti-torture Committee (CPT) carries out a visit to Denmark. Available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/cpt/-/council-of-europe-anti-torture-committee-cpt-carries-out-a-visit-to-denmark (accessed 27 January 2025).

17.

CPT (2024b) Report to the Danish Government on the visit to Denmark carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 23 May to 3 June 2024 . CPT/Inf (2024) 38.

18.

Crewe

Ievins

Larmour

, et al. (2023) Nordic penal exceptionalism: A comparative, empirical analysis. British Journal of Criminology 63(2): 424–443.

19.

Engbo

(2017) Normalisation in Nordic prisons—from a prison governor’s perspective. In: Smith

Ugelvik

(eds) Scandinavian Penal History, Culture and Prison Practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 327–352.

20.

Fransen

Smith

(2022) Shaping Nordic punishment. Penal exceptionalism and the correctional revolution at Ringe Prison in the 1970s. In: Christensen

Lohne

Hörnqvist

(eds) Nordic Criminal Justice in a Global Context. London: Routledge, 39–58.

21.

Freeman

Seymour

(2010) ‘Just waiting’: The nature and effect of uncertainty on young people in remand custody in Ireland. Youth Justice 10(2): 126–142.

22.

Frost

(2008) The mismeasure of punishment: Alternative measures of punitiveness and their (substantial) consequences. Punishment & Society 10(3): 277–300.

23.

González

Hernández

(2019) The Price of Freedom: Compensation for Unjustified Detention across the European Union. Available at: https://www.ibanet.org/article/c92b648d-5c33-418c-a087-ff4001c95815 (accessed 29 May 2025).

24.

Hayes

(2018) Proximity, pain, and state punishment. Punishment & Society 20(2): 235–254.

25.

Justitiekanslern

(2023) Årsredovisning Justitiekanslern 2023. Stockholm: Justitiekanslern.

26.

Kessing

(2024) Varetægtsfængsling igennem 100 år – en praksis der ikke vil ændres? Ugeskrift for Retsvæsen U.2024B. 111: 1–9.

27.

Kriminalomsorgen (2024) Aktivitetstillbod. Available at: https://www.kriminalomsorgen.no/aktivitetstilbud.518707.no.html (accessed 29 May 2025)

28.

Kriminalvården (2024a) KOS 2023 Kriminalvård och statistik. Norrköping: Kriminalvården.

29.

Kriminalvården

(2024b) Kriminalvårdens årsredovisning 2023. Norrköping: Kriminalvården.

30.

Kriminalvården (2025) Kriminalvårdens kapacitetsrapport 2025–2034. Norrköping: Kriminalvården.

31.

Lappi-Seppälä

(2012) Penal policies in the Nordic countries 1960–2010. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention 13: 85–111.

32.

Lappi-Seppälä

Koskenniemi

(2018) National and regional instruments in securing the rule of law and human rights in the nordic prisons. Crime, Law and Social Change 70: 135–159.

33.

Laursen

Taxhjelm

(forthcoming) Exceptional forms of coercive confinement: Pockets of punitiveness in the Welfare State. Incarceration.

34.

Lindell

Dynevall

Lönnqvist

, et al. (2025) Mental health, out-of-cell activities, and misconduct among children and young adults on remand in Sweden before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Incarceration. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/26326663251351684.

35.

Lönnqvist

(2023) Prisoners of process: The development of remand prisoner rates in the nordic countries. Nordic Journal of Criminology 24(2): 1–19.

36.

Lönnqvist

(2024) The politics of pretrial detention: Mapping the development of Swedish remand policy. Punishment & Society 27(3): 578–599.

37.

Mathiesen

(2012) Scandinavian exceptionalism in penal matters—reality or wishful thinking? In: Ugelvik

Dullum

(eds) Penal Exceptionalism? Nordic Prison Policy and Practice. London: Routledge, 13–37.

38.

Matthews

(2005) The myth of punitiveness. Theoretical Criminology 9(2): 175–201.

39.

Nilsson

(1999) En välbyggd maskin, en mardröm för själen: det svenska fängelsesystemet under 1800-talet. Stockholm: Kriminologiska institutionen.

40.

NJA (2015) NJA 2015 s. 769.

41.

Pelvin

(2017) Doing Uncertain Time: Understanding the Experiences of Punishment in Pre-trial Custody. Toronto: University of Toronto.

42.

Pfeffer

(2024) Conceptualizing and measuring “punitiveness” in contemporary advanced democracies. Regulation & Governance 18: 573–589.

43.

Pratt

(2008) Scandinavian exceptionalism in an era of penal excess. British Journal of Criminology 48: 119–137.

44.

Pratt

Eriksson

(2013) Contrasts in Punishment: An Explanation of Anglophone Excess and Nordic Exceptionalism. London: Routledge.

45.

Regeringen (2025) Straf og forebyggelse i et trygt samfund. Hårdere straffe, mere retfærdighed, bedre forebyggelse. Copenhagen: Justitsministeriet.

46.

Reiter

Sexton

Sumner

(2018) Theoretical and empirical limits of scandinavian exceptionalism: Isolation and normalization in danish prisons. Punishment & Society 20(1): 92–112.

47.

Rigsadvokaten (2023a) Anvendelsen af varetægtsfængsling i isolation i 2022. Copenhagen: Rigsadvokaten.

48.

Rigsadvokaten (2023b) Anvendelsen af langvarige varetægtsfængslinger i 2022. Copenhagen: Rigsadvokaten.

49.

Riksdagens ombudsmän (2020) Tema isolering av intagna i häkte. Rapport från OPCAT-enheten 2020. Stockholm: Riksdagens ombudsmän.

50.

Rua

Smith

(eds) (2019) Isolasjon. Et fengsel i fengelset. Oslo: Cappelen Damm.

51.

Sexton

(2015) Penal subjectivities: Developing a theoretical framework for penal consciousness. Punishment & Society 17(1): 114–136.

52.

Shalev

(2015) Solitary confinement: The view from Europe. Canadian Journal of Human Rights 4(1): 143–165.

53.

Smith

(2003) Moralske hospitaler – Det moderne fængselsvæsens gennembrud internationalt og i Danmark ca. 1770–1870. Copenhagen: Forum.

54.

Smith

(2006) The effects of solitary confinement on prison inmates: A brief history and review of the literature. Crime and Justice 24(1): 441–528.

55.

Smith

(2012) A critical look at scandinavian exceptionalism: Welfare state theories, penal populism, and prison conditions in Denmark and scandinavia. In: Ugelvik

Dullum

(eds) Penal Exceptionalism? Nordic Prison Policy and Practice. London: Routledge, 28–57.

56.

Smith

(2014) When the Innocent are Punished. The Children of Imprisoned Parents. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

57.

Smith

(2017) Punishment without conviction? Scandinavian pre-trial practices and the power of the “benevolent” state. In: Smith

Ugelvik

(eds) Scandinavian Penal History, Culture and Prison Practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 129–155.

58.

Smith

(2020) Solitary confinement—effects and practices from the nineteenth century until today. In: Lobel

Smith

(eds) Solitary Confinement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 21–42.

59.

Smith

Jakobsen

(2017) Varetægtsfængsling – Danmarks hårdeste straf? Copenhagen: Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag.

60.

Smith

Ugelvik

(eds) (2017) Scandinavian Penal History, Culture and Prison Practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

61.

SOU (1944) SOU 1944:50 Strafflagberedningens betänkande angående verkställigheten av frihetsstraff m.m.

62.

SOU (2016) SOU 2016:52 Färre i häkte och minskad isolering.

63.

Strafferetsplejeudvalget (1998) Strafferetsplejeudvalgets betænkning nr.1358 om varetægtsfængsling i isolation.

64.

Ugelvik

Dullum

(eds) (2012) Penal Exceptionalism? Nordic Prison Policy and Practice. London: Routledge.

65.

Wakefield

Andersen

(2020) Pretrial detention and the costst of system overreach for employment and family life. Sociological Science 7: 242–266.