Outsourcing Justice: Europe’s bold and Colonial like solution to prison overcrowding

September 3, 2025

Written by Parneet Sachdev

Across Europe, justice systems are reaching a breaking point. Overcrowded prisons, longer sentences, and political unwillingness to invest in systemic reform have created a dilemma with few easy answers. In response, several countries are now taking the unprecedented step of outsourcing incarceration— paying other nations to house their prisoners.

A CONTINENT BEHIND BARS

Europe’s prison population is growing. According to the latest Council of Europe’s Annual Penal Statistics (SPACE I), as of early 2024, the average occupancy level across European Union prisons was approximately 95%, with nearly half of the EU countries operating over capacity. France reported 123% occupancy, Belgium 115%, and Italy 119%, while nations such as Cyprus and Romania face even more dire numbers—Cyprus has exceeded 200% occupancy in some facilities. Even outside the EU, the story is similar. Iceland, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom; countries with historically lower crime rates are grappling with the cumulative effects of lengthier sentences, declining early-release programs, and political pressure to appear “tough on crime.” In England and Wales alone, the prison population is projected to exceed 100,000 by 2026, a 20% rise from pre-pandemic levels. The resulting strain is visible: inmates are often crammed into outdated facilities, rehabilitation programs are cut short, and staff burnout is rising. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly condemned countries for inhumane d e t e n t i o n c o n d i t i o n s . Overcrowding is not just a logistical inconvenience; it erodes dignity, health, and the possibility of genuine rehabilitation.

THE KOSOVO DEAL

In 2023, Denmark signed a €200 million agreement with Kosovo to rent 300 prison cells in the Gjilan correctional facility for ten years. The move, framed as an administrative solution to capacity pressures, was ground-breaking. Denmark promised to retrofit the prison to meet Danish standards and train Kosovar prison staff. But this solution also allows Denmark to remove foreign nationals serving sentences and deport them directly after their term ends. O t h e r c o u n t r i e s a r e watching closely. Belgium is reportedly in talks with Kosovo. Estonia, where nearly half of prison beds are unused, has floated similar opportunities. Sweden, facing a surge in gang-related violence, is also considering foreign partnerships. A quiet marketplace for prison cells is emerging in Europe, an unspoken agreement between nations with overcrowded prisons and those with available space, weaker economies, and fewer political constraints.

 WHY NOW? THE POLITICAL CALCULUS

At the heart of this trend maybe more than just numbers. There are different political winds in action. In many European countries, far-right parties are gaining ground, and mainstream governments have responded by adopting tougher rhetoric on crime and immigration. Foreign nationals represent a significant share of Western Europe’s prison population; up to 30% in some regions and are politically easier to move. By framing prison outsourcing as a way to manage “illegal migration” and “foreign criminality,” governments can appease nationalist sentiments without confronting deeper structural problems. This, critics argue, is a sleight of hand.

Catherine Heard of the Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research (ICPR) notes that decades of increasingly punitive sentencing; not an influx of foreign offenders have driven overcrowding. “It is far easier to score political points by proposing deportation to Kosovo than by reforming sentencing policy,” she says (The Economist). Indeed, many European nations have steadily toughened their sentencing regimes since the 1990s, ex p a n d i n g m a n d at o r y minimums, reducing parole eligibility etc. This hardline approach has coincided with a sharp increase in remand populations, where individuals are held in custody for months or even years before trial. In some countries like France and Italy, pre-trial detainees constitute over 30% of the total prison population, adding further strain. Critics argue that if governments genuinely s o u g h t t o r e d u c e overcrowding, they would prioritize alternatives to incarceration; such as restorative justice, community supervision, or investment in mental health services, rather than exporting inmates abroad. Moreover, by focusing on foreign prisoners as scapegoats, policymakers divert public attention from chronic underinvestment in rehabilitation programs, poor prison conditions, and shortages of trained corrections staff. The narrative of foreign inmates “filling up our prisons” is politically expedient but factually misleading. The problem lies not in who is imprisoned, but in how and why so many people are being imprisoned at all.

 HUMAN RIGHTS AT A DISTANCE

The United Nations’ Mandela Rules and the Council of Europe’s prison standards b o t h e m p h a s i z e t h e importance of maintaining family contact and access to legal counsel. These are not luxuries, they are essential components of rehabilitation. Yet shipping prisoners across borders threatens to sever inmates from their support networks. For example, families of Danish inmates sent to Kosovo would need to travel over 2,100 kilometers to visit their loved ones. Then there are the questions of cultural and linguistic isolation. Kosovo’s prison staff, though trained, may struggle to manage Danish speaking inmates with different legal expectations. Disparities in medical care, dietary needs, and religious observance could create tensions between local and foreign inmates. The specter of “two-tier justice”— where prisoners receive different treatment based on nationality—is very real.

COST VS. REFORM: WHAT IS THE REAL PRICE?

Supporters of the outsourcing model argue that it is a pragmatic solution. Constructing a new prison can cost hundreds of millions of euros and take years. In contrast, renting existing facilities in lower-income countries is faster and cheaper. But is this truly cost-effective? In the UK, for example, reformers argue that investing in alternatives, s u c h a s c o m m u n i t y sentencing, drug treatment programs, and early-release s c h e m e s wo u l d re d u ce incarceration rates and recidivism more effectively. A report from the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies estimated that reducing the UK’s prison population to European averages could save over £2.5 billion annually. A Scandinavian model, with shorter sentences and a focus on rehabilitation, could save even more.

Scotland has already taken modest steps. In 2025, it passed legislation allowing early release after 40% of a sentence is served for inmates with sentences under four years. Other nations have paused shortterm prison admissions during capacity spikes. But such measures remain rare and politically unpopular in a tough-on-crime climate.

THE BIGGER PICTURE: EUROPE’S JUSTICE CROSSROADS

Europe now finds itself at a historic crossroads. On one hand lies the tempting yet ethically fraught path of expanding prison capacity, outsourcing incarceration to distant territories, severing inmates from their support networks, and constructing a bureaucratic pipeline of transnational punishment. On the other lies the more challenging but fundamentally necessary task of addressing the root causes of overcrowding: overcriminalization, outdated sentencing laws, pretrial detention, and underfunded rehabilitation. The scale of the problem is undeniable. From January 2023 to January 2024, overall occupancy across European prisons rose from 93.5 to 94.9 inmates per 100 places, with countries such as Slovenia (134 %), Cyprus (132 %), France (124 %), Italy (118 %), Romania (116 %), and Belgium (113 %) suffering severe overcrowding. Across the continent, incarceration surged, particularly in the Republic of Moldova (+52 %), North Macedonia (+26 %), and Cyprus (+25 %)(Portal).

Multiple factors feed this crisis. In England and Wales, average prison sentences have more than doubled, from 13.7 months in 2010 to 20.9 months in 2023; resulting in prison utilization nearly at capacity (97.5 %) and repeated near-collapses of the system (The Guardian).“Penal populism,” as examined in David Gauke’s independent review, drove the prison population from 44,000 in 1993 to nearly 86,000 by the end of 2024, completely overwhelming the system (Financial Times).At stake is more than just space; it is the integrity of justice systems that claim to uphold human dignity and the rule of law.

A justice system cannot outsource its moral responsibility. By sending prisoners away to distant lands, European governments may be solving one crisis while quietly creating another: a justice system increasingly alienated from the human lives it is meant to reform

Disclaimer: Views expressed are the author’s own.

Parneet Sachdev, IRS is the Chairman of Real Estate Regulatory Authority and a leading author. (email: [email protected])