Open Prisons, Open Doors

5 reasons Canada (and other countries) should establish open prisons

1. Prisoners in an open prison have better self-control.
2. Open prisoners have lower recidivism rates.
3. Sentences could be shorter on average.
4. Open prisons are better for prisoners' mental health.
5. Open prisons are better for prisoners' continued education, and by extension, career prospects.

Prisons should be rehabilitative rather than simply punitive. We have Finland to thank for this idea. There, all prisoners start out in traditional prisons, but are then moved to "open prisons" with the intent of adjusting them to life on the outside again. Some move up sooner than others, depending on behavior. Open prisons do not have gates and are divided into dormitories rather than cells. The prisoners choose their own clothing (no uniforms), and do their own laundry. They also have their own bank accounts, do their own shopping, and plan and cook their own meals. While jobs are available at and around the prison, prisoners also have the option to work elsewhere.

Open prisoners are permitted to drive, use cell phones, buy and keep personal possessions, attend university in person, maintain friendships and romantic relationships with non-inmates, and even have overnight guests. For those without vehicles, each open prison has a weekly shuttle bus to the nearest supermarket. In short, they enjoy far more personal freedoms and independence than prisoners in any other country on Earth. They do wear tracking devices, but never any chains or shackles.

Open prisons are one of the many public benefits that have made Finland one of the world's safest, happiest, and least corrupt countries. Finnish prisons' "employees" are nonprofit social workers. All in all, their clear goal is to rehabilitate criminals rather than to punish and isolate them. A stellar example for countries the world over to follow!

Name

Last name

Your email*

Message

Submit

Reason 1: Self-control

This is in fact the main reason Finland has them. Kaisa Tammi-Moilanen, the director of Ojoinen Prison, said it best: "Prisoners in a closed prison don't need to learn any self-control, because everything they do is controlled. But to be a normal citizen, you need to have inner control of your life, so you know how to behave, you know what is good for you, and you know what is good for the society."

Her point is understandable. With more personal choice, even if it isn't complete freedom, there comes the need for trepidation. With doing your own shopping, laundry, and cooking, there comes the need to make decisions and plans. This, in turn, greatly reduces the rate of violence (and other crimes) in the Finnish prison system.

What's more, many prisoners are not ready to live on the outside again when their sentences end. It is well documented that vital life skills, such as household chores and applying for jobs, can be forgotten after years of disuse. The open prison system averts this problem.

Reason 2: Recidivism (or rather, the lack thereof)

Open prisons lead to lower recidivism rates, due to the focus on rehabilitation. Finland has a recidivism rate of 31%, one of the lowest in the world, thanks to its use of open prisons. Canada's rate is significantly higher, at 44%.

Reason 3: Shorter sentences

A Finnish "life sentence" is only 15 years, with parole eligibility after a maximum of 10, and usually less. I'm not saying Canada should necessarily cut sentences down by that much. But again, a rehabilitative prison system would mean shorter sentences for at least some criminals. And this, in turn, would lead to lower taxes.

Reason 4: Mental health

The Finnish prison system includes mental health services, which are hard to come by in most other countries' prison systems including that of Canada. This is important because many prisoners are mentally ill to begin with.

Reason 5: Education

While university courses (distance learning, of course) are offered to prisoners in many countries including Canada, Finnish prisoners have a high rate of continued education. This is likely due in part to the fact that, in open prisons, attending school in-person is an option. Many of said prisoners learn tech skills such as artificial intelligence, making them surprisingly employable.

Counter-arguments

1. Implementing open prisons would be expensive.
2. It sounds like it would be incompatible with universal insurance.

Counter-argument 1: The cost

Because the Finnish justice system is focused on rehabilitation, prison sentences are mostly reserved for major crimes such as murder and theft. Fines, probation, and extended community service are heavily favoured. As of December 2020, Finland only had a total of 2,900 prisoners including open prisoners.

Canada could follow this example; like shorter sentences, fewer sentences would mean lower costs. And more fines would mean more revenue, especially if fines were also increased for the rich (another cause of mine).

Counter-argument 2: Universal insurance

As you may know if you are familiar with this website, one of my other causes is universal insurance. That is, the right to be compensated for crimes such as theft. It may sound like open prisons would render universal insurance impossible.

But this is not necessarily true. At most, compensating victims would only entail confiscating prisoners' existing assets, with a meager "living allowance" exception. This would not prevent them from working, earning money, and acquiring new possessions.