Fengslene vest for loven … og alle andre himmelretninger
Read the excerpts
Three approved excerpts from the unpublished book. Redactions and withheld material remain protected.
I want you to be able to read the decisions for yourself.
In my book, I place case documents, complaints and replies side by side. The recommendation to transfer me from Bergen Prison to Bjørgvin. The return to high security. Changes to planned leave and time with my child. Refusals of parole. Restrictions on the conditions of my sentence. Complaints passed on, and decisions left standing.
Alongside them are the analyses I developed with help from ChatGPT Pro. I asked for a thorough, impartial review: What was the legal basis? What was documented? Were my objections addressed? Was the restriction necessary, and were less intrusive alternatives considered? I also asked for my arguments to be tested against points that might support the authorities' position.
These were not questions I asked to have answered quickly. Some reviews took, as I experienced it, close to an hour. That time was part of the working process. It is not proof that the conclusion was correct.
An AI analysis is neither a judgment nor a lawyer's assessment. When the model uses terms such as “high risk” or “possible procedural error”, it identifies something that needs investigation. It is not a measured probability of a breach of the law. The legislation, sources and facts must be open to checking, including when the analysis supports me.
That is why I want to show the context: the document, the relevant legal source, my objection, the analysis and the authority's reply. A reader should be able to disagree with me and still have the means to examine why I object.
What do I believe needs investigating?
My suspicion is that a practice can be allowed to continue because it creates more work for the system than solutions for the people within it. When new restrictions lead to new complaints, new assessments and further restrictions, we must be able to ask who examines the results.
I believe my experiences give reason to look for recurring errors and harmful incentives. That is my criticism and my hypothesis. An institution having a budget, or an employee receiving a salary, does not prove that anyone deliberately creates crime or enriches themselves unlawfully. That allegation requires a very different standard of evidence.
What I want to put forward are concrete questions that can be checked. Has a legal provision been quoted correctly? Have important conditions been left out? Has a factual circumstance been altered or presented without the context that explains it? On what date did a letter concerning a deadline reach the prison, and on what date did the prisoner receive it?
I have experienced important documents being left waiting before they reached me. That can make an already difficult situation harder to navigate. Whether a delay resulted from a failed procedure, staffing, an error or a deliberate act must be investigated through receipt dates, delivery records and explanations. The conclusion should not be built into the calculation at the start.
When low security feels like the opposite
I have spoken with people who told me that imprisonment had left marks that followed them afterwards. Hearing someone you know from inside say that finding peace is still difficult stays with you. Their private lives are not mine to describe in detail.
I thought of diamonds. Of what takes shape under pressure nobody should have had to endure. I wanted us to stand together, bring our experiences into the open and make the blog's tools known.
When someone describes lower security as so difficult that higher security seems like a relief, we ought to pause over that. A place that was supposed to be more open and freer feels like the opposite. What is it about daily life that makes someone feel that way?
I have sat with others and looked at our papers. A stack each. Our own accounts of what had happened. I thought I recognised wording, reasoning and context that was missing.
It is easy to see a pattern when you are in the middle of it yourself. That is why it must be open to examination. What do the decisions actually say? How do the cases differ? What information do we lack? The similarity I thought I saw is a reason to investigate further, not a finished conclusion.
I have omitted health information and distinctive details about other people's work and cases from this presentation. That makes the account less identifying; it does not guarantee anonymity. I have not created a composite person or added events.
From one stack of papers to an investigation
One error may be an isolated mistake. Several similar errors raise a question: Is something recurring in the procedures, resources or interpretation of the law?
I want to develop a way to investigate that, in which volunteers can receive help understanding their own documents and contribute to a collective examination. Findings that support the criticism and findings that count against it must both have a place. A technical tool should show what it has actually found, what information is missing and what requires legal assessment.
The new research tool is under development. It has not opened for the collection of real case documents or money. Once its foundations, privacy arrangements and lines of responsibility have been settled, participation will have its own clear explanation.
The plan is for preliminary analysis and fundraising for legal assistance to run in parallel, before a lawyer assesses whether the combined material supports a case. The account would be controlled by the lawyer; holding and reporting the funds is a separate task from later assessing the case itself.
The book has not been published
The manuscript is with Kagge Forlag for consideration. There is no publishing agreement I can point to here. Chapters 9, 10 and 11 on the blog offer a preview.
I hope Kagge will make room for this story. The question I put to a publisher is simple: How do we ensure that a difficult story is thoroughly examined and told, including when it challenges powerful institutions?
Why I want the book to succeed
I want the story to lead to questions, answers and change. I also want to build something for my daughter.
My plan is for 75 per cent of my net income from the book to go towards savings for a home for her, and 25 per cent towards paying down my own debt. The choice of savings account must fit the rules and her circumstances. Norway's BSU home savings scheme has deposit limits, and eligibility for its tax benefit depends, among other things, on taxable income; the Norwegian Tax Administration explains the rules.
Any money raised for legal assistance must have its own purpose and separate management. It is not part of this allocation.
Sources and how to read the material
The Correctional Service's handling of each case must be assessed against the rules in force when the decision was made. Section 7 of the Execution of Sentences Act provides that the Public Administration Act applies subject to special rules. A historical case therefore cannot be assessed by copying today's general rule without checking the date, scope and exceptions.
This book presentation describes the author's approach and experiences. Documents and analyses must be checked individually before they are made available as evidence.