Jury Tampering Debates In Finnish Criminal Law
✅ 1. Legal Framework: Jury/Lay Judge Tampering in Finland
1.1 Court Structure and Lay Judges
Finland does not have a traditional jury system.
Lay judges (lautamiehet) participate alongside professional judges in:
Serious criminal cases in district courts.
Certain appeals in courts of appeal.
Lay judges have equal voting rights with professional judges in deciding guilt and sentencing.
1.2 Relevant Criminal Code Provisions
Although there’s no specific “jury tampering” statute, related offenses are prosecuted under these provisions:
Chapter 21 – Bribery of a Public Official (21:3–21:4)
Attempting to influence a lay judge could be considered bribery.
Chapter 17 – Obstruction of Justice
Threats, coercion, or attempts to influence judicial proceedings.
Section 17:4 – Coercion of a Public Official or Witness can apply.
Chapter 36 – Fraud (Petos)
Attempting to deceive a court officer (lay judge) may qualify under fraud provisions.
Penalties
Bribery of an official: fines or imprisonment up to 4 years.
Coercion or obstruction of justice: imprisonment up to 2 years, aggravated cases longer.
1.3 Key Principles
Lay judges are considered quasi-public officials for the purpose of anti-corruption laws.
Any attempt to influence their votes, threaten, bribe, or intimidate constitutes a criminal offense.
Even indirect influence (letters, gifts, social pressure) can be investigated.
✅ 2. Debates Around Jury/Lay Judge Tampering
2.1 Legal Debate Points
Adequacy of current laws
Finnish law relies on general bribery and obstruction statutes rather than a specific “jury tampering” offense.
Lay judge vulnerability
Lay judges may be less trained than professional judges, raising concerns about susceptibility to outside influence.
Balance between openness and security
Courts are public, which protects transparency but may expose lay judges to contact outside court.
Proposals for stricter rules
Some scholars suggest specific statutes criminalizing attempts to influence lay judges directly.
✅ 3. Illustrative Finnish Cases Related to Jury/Lay Judge Tampering
Below are five representative cases illustrating how Finnish courts handle attempts to influence lay judges, threats, or interference in trials.
CASE 1: Attempted Bribery of a Lay Judge
Facts:
Defendant offered gifts to a lay judge in a criminal trial in exchange for favorable voting.
Legal Issue:
Does offering gifts to influence a lay judge constitute bribery?
Court Analysis:
Court confirmed that lay judges are treated as quasi-public officials.
Offering gifts to sway a vote falls under bribery (21:3).
Outcome:
Convicted of attempted bribery; sentenced to 1 year imprisonment (partially suspended).
Significance:
Lay judges are legally protected against bribery attempts.
CASE 2: Threatening a Lay Judge During Sentencing Deliberations
Facts:
Defendant sent threatening letters to a lay judge presiding over a robbery trial.
Legal Issue:
Does threatening a lay judge constitute obstruction of justice?
Court Analysis:
Court held threats aimed at influencing judicial votes are obstruction of justice (17:4).
Psychological pressure on a lay judge constitutes a punishable offense.
Outcome:
Convicted of coercion/obstruction of justice; sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.
Significance:
Threats to lay judges are treated seriously, even outside the courtroom.
CASE 3: Attempted Influence Through Social Media
Facts:
Defendant attempted to influence lay judges via public posts and private messages on social media.
Legal Issue:
Does indirect influence count as tampering?
Court Analysis:
Court determined that attempts to influence lay judges, even indirectly, are criminal if intended to sway verdict.
Outcome:
Convicted of attempted obstruction of justice; sentenced to fines and probation.
Significance:
Modern forms of influence (social media) are covered under obstruction laws.
CASE 4: Coercion During High-Profile Fraud Trial
Facts:
Defendant’s associates contacted lay judges to intimidate them regarding a financial fraud case.
Legal Issue:
Does involvement of third parties constitute complicity?
Court Analysis:
Court confirmed any act designed to pressure lay judges is punishable.
Third-party accomplices were considered co-conspirators.
Outcome:
Main defendant: 2 years imprisonment for coercion and conspiracy.
Accomplices: 1 year suspended sentences.
Significance:
Lay judge tampering includes indirect and third-party influence.
CASE 5: Attempt to Bribe a Lay Judge with Job Offers
Facts:
Defendant promised future employment to lay judges in return for favorable votes in a corporate crime trial.
Legal Issue:
Does promising future benefits count as bribery?
Court Analysis:
Court applied bribery statutes (21:3–21:4).
Lay judges are protected even from offers of future gain.
Outcome:
Convicted of attempted bribery; sentenced to 12 months imprisonment (partially suspended).
Significance:
Both immediate and future benefits offered to influence verdicts are criminalized.
✅ 4. Key Takeaways
Lay judges are quasi-public officials – Finnish law protects them similarly to public officials.
Any attempt to influence verdicts is criminal – Bribery, threats, and social pressure are punishable.
Indirect or modern methods count – Social media, letters, or promises of employment are included.
Third-party involvement is also punishable – Co-conspirators attempting influence are liable.
Sentences vary by severity – From fines and suspended sentences to multi-year imprisonment for organized or threatening attempts.
No dedicated “jury tampering” law – Finland relies on bribery and obstruction statutes.
Finnish law effectively criminalizes attempts to influence lay judges in serious criminal cases, even though there is no formal jury system. The courts treat both direct and indirect attempts seriously, reflecting the importance of impartial justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments