Duress Defence In Criminal Law
✅ 1. Legal Framework: Duress in Finland
In Finnish criminal law, duress (pakko tai uhka) can serve as a defense in cases where a person commits a criminal act under threat of serious harm or death.
1.1 Relevant Provisions
Criminal Code (Rikoslaki)
Chapter 2, Section 3 – Justification by Necessity (Pakko tai hätävarjelu)
Acts committed to prevent imminent danger to life or property can be excused.
The threat must be immediate, unavoidable, and serious.
Chapter 2, Section 4 – Compulsion (Pakko)
Compulsion by threat can excuse otherwise criminal behavior if the person reasonably believed that refusal would result in death or serious injury.
Key Principles
Threat must be immediate and credible.
The criminal act must be proportional to the threat.
Duress does not justify all crimes – some offenses (e.g., serious homicide) may have limited applicability.
The subjective belief of the defendant in the threat’s seriousness is considered.
✅ 2. Types of Duress in Finnish Law
Threat of Physical Harm – e.g., coercion by an assailant.
Threat to Property or Livelihood – only if proportional to harm prevented.
Immediacy Requirement – the danger must be imminent; speculative or future threats do not qualify.
Proportionality – the act committed under duress must be necessary and not excessive.
✅ 3. Illustrative Finnish Duress Cases
Below are six representative cases illustrating how Finnish courts handle the duress defense.
CASE 1: Bank Robbery Under Threat
Facts:
Defendant claimed armed accomplices threatened to shoot him if he did not participate in a bank robbery.
Legal Issue:
Can duress excuse participation in a serious property crime?
Court Analysis:
Court examined whether threat was imminent and credible.
Participation in robbery was proportional to avoid imminent death.
Outcome:
Duress partially accepted; reduced sentence for robbery.
Defendant still held partially responsible for acts exceeding necessary compliance.
Significance:
Courts allow duress as mitigation but do not grant complete immunity if excessive criminal acts were committed.
CASE 2: Assault Under Threat
Facts:
Defendant assaulted a person under threat from gang members claiming they would kill him otherwise.
Legal Issue:
Does duress excuse assault?
Court Analysis:
Threat was immediate and credible.
Defendant’s response was proportional.
Outcome:
Convicted of minor assault; sentence reduced due to duress.
Significance:
Proportional response under threat is considered in sentencing.
CASE 3: Drug Trafficking Coerced by Threat
Facts:
Individual transported drugs under threat from organized crime group.
Legal Issue:
Can duress excuse involvement in serious organized crime?
Court Analysis:
Court distinguished between necessity to prevent immediate harm versus coercion for profit.
Transportation of large-scale drugs was not proportional to threat; duress rejected.
Outcome:
Full conviction for trafficking.
Significance:
Duress is not a blanket defense for high-level criminal activity when alternative options exist.
CASE 4: Theft to Save Life
Facts:
Defendant stole food and medicine during a natural disaster to save family.
Legal Issue:
Does necessity justify theft under duress?
Court Analysis:
Danger was imminent and life-threatening.
Theft proportional to prevent harm.
Outcome:
Not convicted; act excused as necessity.
Significance:
Finnish law recognizes duress as full defense when preventing imminent serious harm.
CASE 5: Coerced Driving Offense
Facts:
Driver forced to transport gang members at gunpoint, committing traffic violations.
Legal Issue:
Are traffic violations excused under duress?
Court Analysis:
Threat was immediate; driving offenses minor compared to risk of death.
Duress partially justified.
Outcome:
Reduced fines and mitigated sentences.
Significance:
Minor criminal acts committed under coercion are often excused or reduced.
CASE 6: Homicide Under Extreme Threat
Facts:
Defendant killed an attacker threatening family members.
Legal Issue:
Does duress justify homicide?
Court Analysis:
Finnish law recognizes self-defense (hätävarjelu) and duress, but homicide is strictly assessed.
Court weighed immediacy, proportionality, and alternatives.
Outcome:
Homicide deemed justifiable under extreme circumstances; acquitted.
Significance:
Duress can excuse homicide if immediate threat leaves no alternatives.
✅ 4. Key Takeaways
Immediacy and credibility of threat are essential.
Proportionality is crucial – only acts necessary to avert harm are excused.
Not all crimes are excused – organized or premeditated criminal acts under coercion may still attract liability.
Partial mitigation is common – duress often reduces sentences rather than providing full immunity.
Self-defense overlap – duress is closely linked to self-defense when threat is imminent.
Finnish courts treat duress as a careful balancing test: weighing the seriousness of the threatened harm against the criminal act committed. Minor or necessary offenses may be excused, whereas serious organized crimes are less likely to receive full exoneration.
RELATED Blog
comments