In practice, though... At least it's automatically erased after (IIRC) five years, depending on severity.
At least in Sweden, the outcome of being sentenced (losing your job, making it very hard to find a new one) is factored into the sentence (that is, they decrease the prison sentence due to these factors as more punishment will be had after release).
One would also do well to keep in mind that the main effect of that fund is to block the state from spending money. Taxes are diverted to the fund from the budget where it could be spent on prisons or other things.
The United States is operating at a scale that may break the Norwegian system. I don’t know that it would, but let’s see the Norwegian system work at five times the size (25m) before even entertaining the idea that it would work at 65 times the size.
Can you cite a source that shows that this matters?
It's pretty obvious how the difference in methods between the two prison systems can easily explain the difference in outcome, without having to jump to the 'race/culture'-card.
Simply put, having prisoners cost money. You have to pay for housing them, and the opportunity costs of them not being able to contribute to the economy is probably many times bigger.
European systems recognize this fact, and try their best to get prisoners out of prison as fast as possible.
Prisoners in European systems can get counseling for mental problems, access to education, and the structure in the prisons allow the prisoners to adopt a 'normal' lifestyle. They are supposed to get up themselves in the morning, go to their education, or labor, and having time off in the evening to do their own thing.
Although American media often shows otherwise, most crimes can be explained by circumstance, rather than a particular 'evilness' of the perpetrator. Nobody wants to be a criminal. European systems help prisoners to live a life free of crime. American prisons make it harder.
Can you cite a source that shows this is true? Skip the weasel word “probably” and set the opportunity cost to be the contribution of someone with their education and (lack of) social skills and many times as something > 3 times.
There is no such thing as a “culture card”. If there is any “science” to the social science of sociology, there is a measure of ethnic and cultural cohesion to societies that may or may not explain behaviors. That’s like saying to an engineer, “Well, if you want to play the material hardness card...”
[1] https://nicic.gov/race-and-punishment-racial-perceptions-cri...
Race in this case shows up because the mind wants to find an explanation for the discrepancy in social and public trust. Norwegians trust their institutions much more than Americans do. We also know that public trust was higher until the US's "lost decade" in the '70s and figure it probably depends on some factors that have been recently changing.
We look for instinctive, emotional explanations because we're interested in "forcing functions": it's not interesting to say that low-quality government caused by low-trust society leads to low-trust society because that postulates a universal dynamical property of social trust that doesn't really distinguish between societies. The hysteria surrounding the presidency of Barack Obama and the reputational endurance of a tyrant who came into the political limelight spreading ludicrous conspiracy theories about the same, in light of his significance as the first non-white POTUS, is one of many common-knowledge observations lending credence to the idea that racial resentment and mistrust drives an unwillingness to cooperate in American society. And then, of course, it's not really that easy to find truly well-run multiracial societies. Singapore and Israel have both invested in top-down integration and racial justice initiatives but resentment and discrimination stick around -- yet those are probably the best examples. Trinidad might be another example, but may be coasting on easy money from oil extraction.
How much does it cost society when one percent of the population is incarcerated? But I digress; the US is not exactly a place which has been blessed in terms of access to natural resources so it’s an unfair comparison.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but that's the exact opposite of what I believe is true.
- The other Nordic countries are very similar socially even though they do not have this source of wealth.
- AFAICT[1] it's being spent on pensions, not infrastructure, education, or other social programs.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Nor...