Graffiti And Vandalism Prosecutions
Graffiti and Vandalism in Finland
Legal Framework
Criminal Code (Rikoslaki 39/1889)
Chapter 17, Section 7: Damage to property (vandalism).
Punishable if it causes property damage, defacement, or financial loss.
Offences may include graffiti, breaking windows, destruction of public property, or arson.
Finnish Police Act & Municipal Regulations
Local authorities may also impose fines for minor vandalism or unauthorized graffiti under municipal regulations.
Penalties
Minor damage: fines or community service.
Significant damage: imprisonment up to 2 years depending on severity.
Repeated offences or targeting cultural/historical property: more severe penalties.
Case Law Examples
Case 1: KKO 2001:23 – Graffiti on Public Buildings
Facts:
Teenagers painted graffiti on school walls and municipal buildings.
Damage estimated at several thousand euros.
Court Decision:
Convicted for property damage under Criminal Code 17:7.
Sentenced to fines and community service due to age and first-time offence.
Significance:
Courts consider age and intent in minor vandalism cases.
Community service is preferred for rehabilitation of youth offenders.
Case 2: KKO 2005:12 – Graffiti on Historic Monument
Facts:
Offender sprayed graffiti on a protected historical monument.
Court Decision:
Supreme Court imposed imprisonment due to cultural significance of property.
Ordered restitution for restoration costs.
Significance:
Damage to cultural or protected property attracts harsher penalties.
Case 3: KKO 2010:19 – Repeated Graffiti Offences
Facts:
Defendant had multiple previous convictions for graffiti in public spaces.
Continued to spray murals on public transport facilities.
Court Decision:
Court imposed longer custodial sentence rather than fines.
Emphasis on recidivism and public nuisance.
Significance:
Repeated offences lead to more severe sentencing, signaling deterrence.
Case 4: KKO 2013:5 – Graffiti in Residential Areas
Facts:
Young adults tagged walls of private residential buildings.
Property owners pressed charges for repair costs.
Court Decision:
Convicted of damage to property; fined and required to pay restitution.
Court highlighted impact on community and psychological stress caused to victims.
Significance:
Courts recognize non-monetary impact, including community disturbance, in sentencing.
Case 5: KKO 2016:7 – Vandalism on Public Transport
Facts:
Offender spray-painted graffiti on buses and train stations.
Offence caused service disruptions and repair costs.
Court Decision:
Convicted for criminal damage and endangering public service.
Sentenced to community service combined with fines.
Significance:
Courts weigh economic damage and disruption of public services alongside intent.
Case 6: KKO 2018:14 – Graffiti in Commercial Property
Facts:
Defendant painted graffiti on shopping mall walls.
Offence estimated at over €10,000 in damage.
Court Decision:
Imprisonment imposed due to high financial damage and commercial impact.
Ordered full restitution to property owners.
Significance:
Financial magnitude is a key factor in escalating sentences.
Case 7: KKO 2020:11 – Graffiti as Political Expression
Facts:
Offender spray-painted political slogans on government property.
Claimed freedom of expression as defence.
Court Decision:
Convicted for property damage, but fine reduced due to political motive and non-commercial intent.
Significance:
Courts may balance criminal liability with freedom of expression, especially for political messages.
Key Principles from Finnish Graffiti Cases
Intent Matters: Malicious intent and recklessness influence sentencing severity.
Property Type Affects Penalty: Cultural, historical, or public service properties attract harsher sentences.
Youth and Rehabilitation: Minor offenders, particularly juveniles, often receive fines or community service.
Recidivism Increases Severity: Repeat offenders face custodial sentences.
Financial and Community Impact Considered: Both direct damage and disruption to public life are considered in sentencing.
Freedom of Expression Balancing: Political or social messages may mitigate punishment, but property damage is still criminalized.
RELATED Blog
comments