“It is not surprising that the first countries to abolish prisons were the Scandinavian countries…”
Walker/Getty Images
The US spent staggering amounts in the 2020s. $182 billion per year about locking up its citizens. No other country imprisoned the same number of people or spent the same amount on it. And the US was not alone: prisons in many countries around the world were overcrowded, inhumane and expensive. So why not just get rid of them? This became possible when technologies were developed to monitor and detain people at home, and when society realized these benefits.
HomeGuard, which replaced traditional prisons, had three elements. The first was an ankle bracelet that tracked the exact location of the prisoner. The second was a pendant with sensors that recorded what a person did and said. If the terms of the punishment were violated (for example, the prisoner left the designated confinement area or engaged in illegal behavior), the third element was triggered: the person was temporarily incapacitated by an energy device similar to a stun gun. The prisoners soon learned the rules.
It is not surprising that the first countries to abolish prisons were the Scandinavian countries, where imprisonment was seen as a way to protect the rest of society, rather than as a means of carrying out punishment. (“HomeGuard” is a translation of the Norwegian word home security.)
Halden Prison, a maximum security prison in Norway. opened in 2010 with unbarred windows, bathrooms in cells, TVs and high-quality furniture. Prisoners ate food and played games with unarmed prison staff rather than guards, and were encouraged to work for money. Puzzled outsiders compared the prison to a comfortable hotel. By contrast, prisoner abuse was widespread in U.S. prisons during the first quarter of the 21st century. Recidivism in Norway over two years was about 20 percent compared to 50 percent in the UK and 60 to 70 percent in the US. Holden was expensive, but the prisoners were rehabilitated into society more effectively, saving money in the long run.
“
The AI tracked prisoners' activities, from the websites they visited to the messages and calls they made.
“
Even in progressive Scandinavia, some members of the public believed that offenders should be punished. However, social scientists have found that if the public is shown that excessive, cruel and unjustified punishment is harmful to society and does not protect society, it can be persuaded that another method is better. This is exactly what HomeGuard set out to do.
First self-incarceration In 2030, a trial (“self-imprisonment”) began in Norway. Prisoners were fitted with secure ankle bracelets that transmitted a GPS location signal and wore seat belts that continuously captured the prisoner's face and ran it through facial recognition software. This prevented people from passing the sensor wiring harness to another person. Artificial intelligence monitored the actions of prisoners – for example, it tracked which websites they visited, what messages and calls they made.
Actions were taken if the terms of their sentence were violated. The conductive energy device is the equipment commonly used in a stun gun. Integrated into an inmate's ankle bracelet, it would deliver an electric shock if the AI monitoring system determined that a violation of sentencing guidelines had occurred. After this, law enforcement officials were warned.
The HomeGuard scheme was developed by offer in 2018 by Dan Hunter of King's College London and colleagues. They calculated that even if prisoners were equipped with new technology every year, self-imprisonment would cost tens of thousands of dollars less than a traditional prison over the course of their sentence. And the price has dropped further as the technology has gotten cheaper.
Initially, self-incarceration stood trial in Bergen. All prisoners not convicted of felonies (or crimes of equivalent gravity) were equipped for self-containment and sent home. The scheme was a huge financial success, helping to spread the social message: conventional prisons were expensive, inhumane, inefficient and archaic. It became obvious to the rest of the world watching the trial that conventional prisons were not adequately protecting the public due to high recidivism rates.
The technological conclusion was better in every way, and self-incarceration soon spread throughout the rest of Scandinavia. Tests then took place throughout Europe, as well as in India, Mexico, Brazil, Australia and even the USA. By 2050, 95 percent of prisons in these countries will close. The savings were invested in education and health care. Crime rates fell both because of improvements in society and because the stigma of constant surveillance was a powerful incentive to stay on the straight and narrow. Parents told their children, “Don't break the law or you'll go to jail,” and the threats were enough.
Rowan Hooper is editor of the New Scientist podcast and author of How to Spend a Trillion Dollars: 10 Global Problems We Can Actually Solve. Follow him on Bluesky @rowhoop.bsky.social. In Chronicles of the Future, he explores the imagined history of future inventions and developments.
Topics:
