Involuntary Manslaughter In Finnish Law
Legal Background
In Finnish criminal law:
Negligent homicide (kuolemantuottamus, Chapter 21, Section 8)
Causing someone’s death through negligence.
Punishable by a fine or imprisonment up to 2 years.
Gross negligent homicide (törkeä kuolemantuottamus, Section 9)
Negligence is “gross,” meaning extremely careless or reckless.
Punishable by 4 months to 6 years in prison.
Key elements for liability:
Death must be caused by the defendant’s breach of a duty of care.
Ordinary accidents without negligence do not constitute a crime.
Courts assess the foreseeability of harm, seriousness of negligence, and professional duty if applicable.
Case Summaries
1. Police Officer Acquitted of Negligent Homicide
Facts: A police officer’s girlfriend died after falling into water. He tried to rescue her. The issue was whether his actions (or omissions) constituted negligent homicide.
Court reasoning: The Supreme Court emphasized causation and whether the officer’s conduct was clearly negligent. The circumstances suggested that even with careful behavior, the death could have occurred.
Outcome: Acquitted of gross negligence. This illustrates that not all deaths involving human intervention lead to criminal liability, especially if negligence is not clearly proven.
2. Medical Negligence Leading to Patient Death
Facts: A hospital patient died after post-surgical complications. The surgeon and medical staff were investigated for negligent homicide.
Court reasoning: The court analyzed whether the standard of care was breached. Medical complications alone are not sufficient; the negligence must be demonstrably avoidable and serious.
Outcome: No criminal conviction; the case emphasized the high threshold for criminal negligence in medical practice.
3. Drug-Related Death (Antti Taskinen Case)
Facts: A person administered drugs to others, leading to fatal overdoses.
Court reasoning: Courts examined direct causation, intent, and negligence. Was the person reckless to a criminally liable degree? Some deaths were classified as murder, others as negligent homicide depending on evidence.
Outcome: Convictions varied: murder in cases of intent, negligent homicide where recklessness was evident but intent was not. This shows how Finnish courts distinguish murder vs. gross negligence.
4. Death Due to Fire Safety Negligence
Facts: A building manager failed to maintain fire alarms and safety equipment. A fire caused a tenant’s death.
Court reasoning: The court looked at the foreseeability of risk and breach of duty. Manager had professional responsibility to maintain safety; negligence was significant.
Outcome: Convicted of gross negligent homicide, sentenced to imprisonment. Demonstrates how professional duty increases the standard of care.
5. Traffic Death Due to Reckless Driving
Facts: A driver caused a fatal accident by ignoring traffic signals at high speed.
Court reasoning: Courts assessed whether the negligence was gross: high speed in violation of traffic rules, foreseeable risk of death, and disregard for safety.
Outcome: Convicted of gross negligent homicide. Key takeaway: ordinary negligence in driving may lead to a fine, gross negligence can lead to imprisonment.
6. Negligence in Construction Work
Facts: A construction supervisor failed to secure scaffolding, leading to a worker’s death.
Court reasoning: Failure to follow occupational safety rules created a foreseeable risk of death. Gross negligence was found because the breach was substantial and easily preventable.
Outcome: Convicted of gross negligent homicide and sentenced to prison. This reinforces that employers and supervisors have elevated duties of care.
7. Parental Negligence Causing Child Death
Facts: A parent left a young child unsupervised near water; the child drowned.
Court reasoning: Courts considered foreseeability and the parent’s duty to protect the child. Ordinary mistakes may be excusable, but blatant disregard constitutes gross negligence.
Outcome: Convicted of negligent homicide (less than gross), receiving a sentence under two years. Shows differentiation between ordinary vs. gross negligence.
Observations
Finnish courts make a careful distinction between ordinary accidents, negligent homicide, and gross negligent homicide.
Professional or supervisory duties raise the threshold: doctors, police, employers, and caregivers can face higher liability.
Causation must be proven: mere presence at the scene is not enough.
Gross negligence requires a serious, avoidable risk—foreseeable and substantial.
RELATED Blog
comments