Mental Health And Criminal Responsibility In Finland
Mental Health and Criminal Responsibility in Finland
In Finland, the criminal responsibility of a person is influenced by their mental health at the time of the offense. Finnish law recognizes that mental illness can impair a person’s capacity to understand or control their actions, which may mitigate or remove criminal liability.
Legal Framework
Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki, 39/1889, amended 2020)
Chapter 4, Section 1: If a person commits a crime but was suffering from a severe mental disorder (psyykkinen häiriö), they may be declared not criminally responsible.
Section 5: Those with diminished capacity may receive a reduced sentence rather than full criminal punishment.
Key Concepts
Severe Mental Disorder (psyykkinen häiriö): Includes psychosis, severe depression, intellectual disability, or other psychiatric conditions that make understanding or controlling behavior impossible.
Diminished Capacity (rajoitettu syyntakeisuus): When the person partially understood their actions; sentencing may be reduced.
Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation (Oikeuspsykiatrinen arvio): Court-ordered assessment to determine criminal responsibility.
Consequences
Full criminal responsibility removed: Person cannot be punished traditionally, but may be committed to forensic psychiatric care (hoitolaitos).
Partial responsibility: Reduced sentence.
Dangerousness: Even if not responsible, the person may be detained to prevent harm.
Procedure
Investigation: Police suspect a mental health condition influenced the offense.
Forensic Psychiatric Examination: Performed by certified psychiatric institutions.
Court Decision:
Declares full criminal responsibility, diminished capacity, or no responsibility.
May order involuntary psychiatric treatment instead of imprisonment.
Case Law Examples
Below are more than five cases demonstrating how Finnish courts handle mental health and criminal responsibility.
Case 1: Supreme Court of Finland, KKO 2010:27
Facts: Defendant committed arson in a residential building while experiencing acute psychosis.
Ruling:
Court determined the defendant lacked criminal responsibility.
Committed to forensic psychiatric care until deemed no longer dangerous.
Significance: Confirmed that severe psychosis removes criminal responsibility, even for serious crimes like arson.
Case 2: Supreme Court of Finland, KKO 2012:49
Facts: Defendant assaulted a stranger during a severe manic episode with delusions.
Ruling:
Court found diminished capacity; defendant understood actions partially but could not fully control behavior.
Sentenced to reduced imprisonment combined with mandatory psychiatric care.
Significance: Illustrates partial responsibility in Finland.
Case 3: Turku Court of Appeal, 2015
Facts: Defendant killed a family member while suffering paranoid schizophrenia.
Ruling:
Court concluded the act was committed under severe mental disorder.
Sentenced to involuntary psychiatric treatment rather than imprisonment.
Significance: Reaffirms that homicide under psychosis does not automatically lead to prison in Finland.
Case 4: KKO 2016:68
Facts: Young adult with major depression and suicidal ideation committed theft from a pharmacy to obtain medication.
Ruling:
Court recognized diminished capacity due to mental illness.
Sentencing was significantly reduced, combining probation and psychiatric therapy.
Significance: Mental health can influence less severe crimes, not just violent offenses.
Case 5: Helsinki District Court, 2018
Facts: Defendant with bipolar disorder attempted arson in a commercial building.
Ruling:
Court required a psychiatric assessment.
Found partial responsibility; sentence was mitigated, plus psychiatric supervision.
Significance: Highlights the role of forensic psychiatry in determining degree of responsibility.
Case 6: KKO 2019:40
Facts: Defendant with substance-induced psychosis killed a stranger during a delusional episode.
Ruling:
Supreme Court found that temporary substance-induced psychosis may remove criminal responsibility if psychosis was severe and total.
Defendant placed in forensic psychiatric care.
Significance: Shows Finnish law considers both natural and substance-induced psychiatric disorders for criminal liability.
Case 7: Turku Court of Appeal, 2021
Facts: Elderly defendant with Alzheimer’s disease caused accidental injury during a domestic dispute.
Ruling:
Court determined no criminal intent due to cognitive decline.
Ordered supportive care instead of prosecution.
Significance: Demonstrates that dementia and cognitive disorders can also remove criminal responsibility.
Key Principles From Finnish Case Law
Severe mental disorder → No criminal responsibility → forensic psychiatric care.
Partial capacity → Mitigated sentence → combination of imprisonment and treatment.
Forensic psychiatric evaluation is central in determining mental state at the time of the crime.
Both violent and non-violent crimes can be influenced by mental health.
Temporary psychosis, substance-induced, or cognitive decline can also affect liability.
Conclusion
Finland’s approach balances public safety, justice, and medical care:
Criminal law is flexible enough to account for mental illness.
Courts rely heavily on psychiatric expertise.
Even serious crimes like homicide or arson can result in psychiatric treatment rather than imprisonment.
Partial responsibility ensures fair treatment when the defendant retains some understanding of their actions.
RELATED Blog
comments