Beyond the Bars: Debating Nordic Exceptionalism through the Italian Comparison. An Experimental Study of Criminal Policy, Prison Architecture, and Rehabilitative Models: From Risk Assessment to Social Reintegration

This thesis explores "Nordic Exceptionalism" through a comparative analysis of criminal policy between Finland and Italy, including the Estonian digital transition. Framed within a comparison of welfare models, the research shows how Finland operationalizes substantive equality –mirroring the spirit of Art. 3, Italian Constitution) through universal prevention, while the Italian "corporatist" welfare state often fails to neutralize social risks, effectively delegating the management of marginality to the penal system. The primary objective of this comparison is to extract actionable insights for the Italian legal system, evaluating whether certain Nordic practices can be adapted to overcome domestic stagnation. However, this study avoids a hagiographic approach by critically evaluating "Non-exceptionalist" aspects of the Nordic model –such as tightening penal proportionality– while acknowledging Italian strengths: sophisticated legal safeguards and a vital third sector. Social cooperatives and volunteering act as essential buffers for state deficiencies, managing alternative measures and post-release reintegration. Furthermore, the study examines the unique Italian network of Prisoner’s Rights Guarantors (Garanti) contrasting their persuasive and reporting functions with the more binding, investigative powers granted to the Finnish Ombudsman. This ideological divide leads to a fundamental economic paradox: Italy’s lower per-inmate expenditure and disproportionate investment in security over rehabilitation generate staggering long-term social costs due to a recidivism rate exceeding 70%. In the Nordic context, the "citizen-centered" approach translates not only into massive rehabilitative investment but also into the widespread use of open prisons, a model largely alien to Italy , historically shaped by the struggle against organized crime. Consequently, Italy maintains a rigid "double-track" system, excluding regimes like Art. 41-bis from alternative measures (and prioritizes physical containment). However, this research examines the potential for applying the "open prison" model to common crimes, supported by field research at Käyrä prison (Finland), which demonstrates how space quality drives reintegration. Furthermore, the study highlights how the chronic lack of state investment in the Italian "right to education" has forced volunteering and civic engagement to fill a critical systemic gap. As educators are increasingly stifled by bureaucratic burdens, the Estonian digital transition is presented as a strategic solution to liberate human capital for treatment. The analysis culminates in the investigation of Risk Assessment Models for Recidivism, with the specific aim of understanding how the presence—or absence—of such tools dictates the efficacy of crime prevention. Through personal interviews and direct observation, this research documents the use of specialized, multi-disciplinary assessment tools in Finland and Estonia. This stands in sharp contrast to the Italian "clinical-gestionale" approach, where the absence of a structured legislative framework for risk models leads to a static reliance on external psychiatric expertise, rather than an integrated, evidence-based methodology that transforms recidivism reduction from a discretionary judicial hope into a measurable objective of public safety.