IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/crimin/v65y2025i3p541-558..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Feeling (Un)safe in Prison: A Comparative Analysis of England & Wales and Norway

Author

Listed:
  • Sophie Martens
  • Ben Crewe

Abstract

While there is abundant literature on prison violence, much less has been written about how safety is perceived and conceived in prison. Even less is known about how these feelings of safety and their respective predictors may vary between prison systems. This study illustrates what predicts feelings of safety and how prisoners define and experience safety in two jurisdictions, Norway and England & Wales. The research employs a mixed-methods approach, using data from surveys (N = 984) and interviews (N = 199) from a major comparative penological project. It finds that while prisoners in Norway generally reported feeling safer than prisoners in England & Wales, the quantitative predictors of safety did not vary by jurisdiction. From a qualitative perspective, however, it was observed that prisoners in England & Wales held a more limited definition of safety (bounded safety) in which they accepted a constant need for vigilance, whereas prisoners in Norway showed more trust in their environment. This finding suggests that feelings of safety in prison may be (at least partly) context-dependent, which raises important questions regarding the much-debated ‘safety paradox’ in prison, and forms a relevant insight for future comparative work.

Suggested Citation

  • Sophie Martens & Ben Crewe, 2025. "Feeling (Un)safe in Prison: A Comparative Analysis of England & Wales and Norway," The British Journal of Criminology, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, vol. 65(3), pages 541-558.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:crimin:v:65:y:2025:i:3:p:541-558.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/bjc/azae064
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:crimin:v:65:y:2025:i:3:p:541-558.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/bjc .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.