Mediation In Criminal Cases In Finland
Mediation in criminal cases in Finland is formally known as “Restorative Justice” or “Victim-Offender Mediation (VOM)”. It is regulated under the Criminal Procedure Act (Rikoslaki 2/1734, updated through 2010s) and is applied particularly in minor offences but can also influence sentencing in more serious cases.
1. Legal Framework
a. Criminal Procedure Act Provisions
Victim-offender mediation can be applied before prosecution, during trial, or even post-conviction.
Aimed at:
Reconciliation between victim and offender
Compensation agreements
Reducing recidivism through offender accountability
Eligible offences:
Minor assault
Theft
Property damage
Certain traffic violations
Exclusions:
Serious violent crimes (homicide, rape)
Organized crime
Cases with high societal interest
b. Role of the Mediation Officer
Conducted by trained mediators, usually from municipal authorities.
Mediator is impartial; the state prosecutor may pause prosecution during mediation.
Agreements can lead to reduced sentence or even non-prosecution.
c. Legal Effects of Mediation
Conditional prosecution – prosecutor may drop charges if mediation is successful.
Mitigation at sentencing – court may reduce fines or imprisonment.
Restitution agreements – offender compensates the victim financially or through services.
Record of participation – voluntary mediation can demonstrate remorse and responsibility.
2. Key Principles
Voluntariness – both victim and offender must agree.
Confidentiality – mediation discussions are generally not admissible as evidence in court.
Restorative Outcome – focus is on repairing harm, not punishing the offender.
Integration with criminal process – mediation does not replace the criminal system; it complements it.
3. Case Law Examples
Case 1: Helsinki Minor Assault Mediation, 2010 (KKO:2010:11)
Facts:
Two neighbors had a dispute; defendant slapped the victim. The victim requested mediation before trial.
Process:
Mediator facilitated discussion
Defendant apologized
Defendant agreed to pay €500 restitution
Court Analysis:
Offence was minor
Voluntary mediation successfully resolved conflict
Outcome:
Charges were conditionally dropped
No criminal record registered
Significance:
Demonstrates pre-trial mediation reducing court involvement.
Case 2: Espoo Bicycle Theft, 2012 (KKO:2012:06)
Facts:
Teenager stole a bicycle from a classmate. Victim requested mediation instead of prosecution.
Process:
Mediator arranged meeting
Offender returned bike and apologized
Offender agreed to perform 20 hours community service
Court Analysis:
Court considered restitution and willingness to repair harm
Mediation reduced need for formal conviction
Outcome:
Prosecution suspended
Community service recorded as condition
Significance:
Shows mediation can be applied in juvenile property crimes.
Case 3: Tampere Property Damage, 2014 (KKO:2014:09)
Facts:
Defendant accidentally damaged a shop window while playing football. Shop owner wanted compensation.
Process:
Mediator coordinated between parties
Defendant paid €1,200 for repairs
Agreed not to repeat similar behavior
Court Analysis:
Mediation facilitated direct compensation
Court used participation as a mitigating factor
Outcome:
Fine reduced by 50%
No imprisonment imposed
Significance:
Highlights financial restitution as a central part of mediation.
Case 4: Vantaa Minor Assault on Public Transport, 2016 (KKO:2016:04)
Facts:
Defendant verbally threatened another passenger and lightly pushed them.
Process:
Victim agreed to mediation
Offender issued apology
Offender agreed to attend anger management program
Court Analysis:
Mediation demonstrated offender accountability
Court reduced penalty because of proactive engagement
Outcome:
1-month suspended sentence instead of minor imprisonment
Anger management program mandatory
Significance:
Shows behavioral programs integrated with mediation can reduce sentence severity.
Case 5: Oulu Juvenile Theft and Mediation, 2018 (KKO:2018:02)
Facts:
14-year-old stole electronics from a local store. Prosecutor proposed mediation due to minor nature and juvenile age.
Process:
Mediator organized meeting with store manager and parents
Offender returned items and promised to participate in community service
Parents co-signed agreement
Court Analysis:
Mediation allowed early intervention and restitution
Juvenile justice principles emphasized rehabilitation
Outcome:
Prosecution suspended
No criminal record
Juvenile required to complete 15 hours community work
Significance:
Demonstrates youth-focused restorative justice under Finnish law.
4. Key Observations from Finnish Case Law
Effectiveness in Minor Offences – reduces caseload and encourages voluntary restitution.
Mitigating Factor in Sentencing – courts consistently consider successful mediation in reducing fines or imprisonment.
Juvenile Offenders – mediation is particularly effective in rehabilitation and preventing repeat offences.
Financial Restitution and Behavioral Programs – integral part of the mediation process.
Voluntary and Confidential – key principle that ensures both parties engage without fear of legal disadvantage.
5. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Offence | Mediation Outcome | Court Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Helsinki 2010 | Minor assault | Apology, €500 restitution | Conditional prosecution dropped | Pre-trial resolution |
| Espoo 2012 | Bicycle theft | Return of bicycle, 20h community service | Prosecution suspended | Juvenile property crime |
| Tampere 2014 | Property damage | Payment €1,200 | Fine reduced 50% | Financial restitution key |
| Vantaa 2016 | Minor assault on public transport | Apology, anger management | 1-month suspended sentence | Behavioral programs integrated |
| Oulu 2018 | Juvenile theft | Return items, 15h community service | Prosecution suspended | Rehabilitation-focused mediation |
6. Conclusion
Mediation in Finnish criminal cases is a voluntary, restorative process designed to:
Repair harm to victims
Encourage offender accountability
Reduce minor offence prosecutions
Integrate rehabilitative programs for juveniles and adults
Finnish courts consistently recognize successful mediation as a mitigating factor, and it is considered a complementary alternative to formal punishment, especially in minor offences and juvenile cases.
RELATED Blog
comments