Legal Capacity And Criminal Liability In Finland
In Finland, criminal liability is tied closely to legal capacity, which determines a person’s ability to understand the criminality of their actions and be held responsible under Finnish law.
1. Legal Framework
a. Age of Criminal Responsibility
The minimum age of criminal responsibility is 15 years (Criminal Code, Chapter 1, Section 6).
Offenders under 15 cannot be prosecuted, but child welfare authorities may intervene.
b. Mental Capacity
Individuals who cannot comprehend the nature of their acts due to mental illness or defect may have limited criminal responsibility.
Provisions for insanity defense (Criminal Code, Chapter 6, Sections 1–3):
If incapable of understanding the act or controlling behavior, no criminal liability arises.
Partial incapacity may mitigate sentencing.
c. Intoxication
Voluntary intoxication generally does not remove liability, except in rare cases where it affects intent for specific offences.
d. Corporate and Collective Responsibility
Legal persons cannot be criminally liable, but natural persons acting on behalf of corporations may be prosecuted.
2. Key Principles
Mens Rea and Actus Reus:
Liability requires both guilty mind and criminal act.
Capacity Assessment:
Courts rely on psychiatric evaluations to assess capacity.
Youth-Specific Measures:
Juveniles are dealt with under special provisions, including probation, mediation, and rehabilitative measures.
Mitigation:
Reduced culpability applies for mental incapacity, youth, or limited understanding of the act.
3. Case Law Examples
Case 1: Helsinki Juvenile Assault, 2007
Facts:
A 14-year-old boy seriously injured a classmate in a fight.
Legal Analysis:
Under Finnish law, age <15 → no criminal prosecution.
Child welfare authorities intervened for counseling and supervision.
Outcome:
No criminal liability
Mandatory participation in youth support programs
Significance:
Confirms age threshold for criminal responsibility.
Case 2: Espoo Homicide Attempt, 2010
Facts:
A 17-year-old stabbed a peer during a school altercation.
Legal Analysis:
Age ≥15 → criminally responsible
Court considered youth and immaturity in sentencing
Psychiatric evaluation showed partial impulse control issues
Outcome:
3 years juvenile detention instead of adult imprisonment
Mandatory psychological counseling
Significance:
Highlights mitigation due to youth while maintaining accountability.
Case 3: Tampere Theft by Intoxicated Adult, 2012
Facts:
A 25-year-old stole alcohol from a store while heavily intoxicated.
Legal Analysis:
Voluntary intoxication did not remove criminal liability
Court examined whether intent existed despite intoxication
Outcome:
1 month conditional sentence
Compulsory restitution of stolen goods
Significance:
Shows intoxication rarely exempts liability, but may influence sentencing.
Case 4: Vantaa Attempted Arson with Mental Disorder, 2015
Facts:
A 30-year-old set fire to a building but suffered from severe schizophrenia at the time.
Legal Analysis:
Psychiatric assessment confirmed incapacity to understand act
Finnish Criminal Code allows non-liability for acts committed in mental incapacity
Outcome:
Not criminally liable
Committed to secure psychiatric institution for treatment
Significance:
Illustrates the insanity defense and use of therapeutic measures instead of punishment.
Case 5: Oulu Robbery by Young Adult with Partial Mental Impairment, 2018
Facts:
A 19-year-old with mild intellectual disability committed robbery.
Legal Analysis:
Defendant partially understood nature of crime → liability exists but mitigated
Court applied reduced sentence provisions
Outcome:
2 years probation + mandatory supervision
Restitution to victim
Significance:
Highlights partial mental incapacity mitigation in Finnish law.
Case 6: Jyväskylä Juvenile Fraud, 2020
Facts:
A 16-year-old created fake online accounts to commit minor fraud.
Legal Analysis:
Age above 15 → criminally liable
Court emphasized rehabilitation over punishment
Outcome:
6 months conditional sentence
Participation in educational program on legal responsibility
Significance:
Demonstrates youthful offenders are held accountable, with a focus on reform.
4. Key Observations
Age Matters Most – under 15 → no criminal liability; above 15 → standard liability with possible mitigation.
Mental Health Considerations – full incapacity → no liability; partial incapacity → mitigated sentencing.
Intoxication Limited Effect – does not generally negate responsibility.
Youth-Focused Justice – emphasis on rehabilitation rather than severe punishment for minors.
Flexibility in Sentencing – courts adjust penalties based on capacity, intent, and potential for rehabilitation.
5. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Age / Capacity | Offence | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Helsinki 2007 | 14 | Assault | No liability; youth intervention | Age threshold <15 |
| Espoo 2010 | 17 | Attempted homicide | 3 yrs juvenile detention | Youth mitigation |
| Tampere 2012 | 25 | Theft | Conditional sentence + restitution | Intoxication rarely absolves |
| Vantaa 2015 | 30 (schizophrenia) | Arson | Committed to psychiatric care | Full mental incapacity negates liability |
| Oulu 2018 | 19 (mild intellectual disability) | Robbery | 2 yrs probation + restitution | Partial mental incapacity mitigates |
| Jyväskylä 2020 | 16 | Online fraud | 6 months conditional + educational program | Youthful offenders focus on reform |
6. Conclusion
Finnish criminal law establishes that legal capacity is fundamental to criminal liability:
Age, mental capacity, and intent are key determinants
Youth offenders are treated with a rehabilitative focus
Mental disorders can eliminate or mitigate liability
Voluntary intoxication rarely removes responsibility
Finnish courts consistently balance legal responsibility with capacity and potential for rehabilitation, reflecting a modern, humane approach to criminal justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments