Bear with me for a second. I am going to agree and disagree with you a bit.
Have an upvote for excellent Netiquette.
You're funny. Clearly you aren't interested in having a good faith debate about facts, but just to troll.
I wonder who you work for? Russia maybe? Judging by your post history, you have some agenda here. Think I'll watch and see.
You know there are other factors that influence the recidivism rate for both countries, but you’re ashamed to admit it because you know it detracts from your point.
You are ascribing a position to me that I don't have.
- Confounding factors exist in all studies. They don't invalidate the results, but you have to control for them. All well designed studies do this. Why on earth would I think that they don't exist?
- You just won't clarify what factors you want to talk about. Be specific and let's see what research there is on it. Pointing to undefined factors and saying '..but other stuff!' isn't an argument in favor of your point, which was that "The main goal of prisons is to protect society from criminals by removing them and deterring others from committing crimes through fear of punishment."
Nor have you provided any evidence for your point while I have provided links to several studies. Pony up some evidence for your argument or be prepared to learn and grow. Or remain stubbornly wedded to your incorrect opinion. Makes no difference to me.
Your question is vague and unanswerable as you haven't clarified what "these differences" are, so their impact on recidivism can't be determined.
What I do know is that rehabilitation has been shown to reduce recidivism more than sanctions/supervision. Here's a meta-analysis for you. It looks like at least some of this data is from the US.
"Supervision and sanctions, at best, show modest mean reductions in recidivism and, in some instances, have the opposite effect and increase re-offense rates. The mean recidivism effects found in studies of rehabilitation treatment, by comparison, are consistently positive and relatively large."
What evidence do you have that deterrence and supervision are more effective at reducing crime than rehabilitation?
I'm addressing your main point, which was:
The main goal of prisons is to protect society from criminals by removing them and deterring others from committing crimes through fear of punishment.
My point is that deterrence has been proven to be a poor tool to reduce crime. Rehabilitation has been proven to be a relatively more successful tool to reduce recidivism.
The Norwegian approach to prisoners is one piece of evidence in support of this. Here's some more (non-Norwegian) evidence:
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/fear-punishment-deterrence
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7363&context=jclc
Of course there are other differences between the US and Norway, but that doesn't change the validity of what I'm saying. If you want to argue that deterrence works, back it up with some evidence.
I've provided evidence to back up my position. What have you provided except your opinion?
Norway has demonstrated that rehabilitating prisoners leads to less crime than just punishing them. Who would be against that?
Weak response. Play the ball, not the person.
"The United States suffers from among the highest crime and recidivism rates in the world. This is in part due to its focus on retribution as the purpose of punishment and its high sentencing structure. Norway, on the other hand, has some of the lowest crime and recidivism rates and boasts Halden prison, which has been hailed as the world’s most humane prison. In Halden and other prisons, the Norwegian penal system applies the principle of normality. Under the principle of normality, Norway seeks the reintegration of its offenders into society. Its prisoners suffer fewer of the negative, unintended side effects of prison that isolate the prisoner from society, reinforce bad habits, and make reintegration upon release nearly impossible. This Comment proposes that the United States could reduce its high crime and recidivism rates with a penological approach that bridges that of the two countries—a rehabilitative retributivism. The United States can keep its focus on retribution while at the same time making sure that its punishment does not swell to include those negative side effects. By reducing its sentencing structures and incorporating the principle of normality into its retributive goal, the United States could better ensure that prisoners return to society as productive members, and it could experience lower crime and recidivism rates as a result."
https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1177&context=eilr
Norway enters the chat.