Protective Orders And Victim Safety Measures
Legal Framework
Protective Orders in Finland
Governed by the Criminal Code and the Act on Restraining Orders (2011/606).
Courts can issue restraining orders or protection orders to prevent harassment, stalking, domestic violence, or threats.
Measures can include prohibiting contact, staying away from victim’s residence, workplace, or school.
Victim Safety Measures
Law enforcement can intervene immediately in emergency situations.
Victims may be provided temporary shelters, electronic monitoring of offenders, or police surveillance.
Protection may involve long-term monitoring, especially in cases of repeated domestic abuse.
Enforcement
Violation of protective orders is a criminal offence punishable under the Penal Code.
Finnish courts emphasize risk assessment and individual circumstances.
Case 1: Domestic Violence and Restraining Order
Facts:
A woman repeatedly experienced physical assaults from her partner in Helsinki.
She applied for a restraining order after multiple police reports.
Legal Issues:
Court considered risk of further violence and victim safety.
Restraining order prohibited the offender from contacting or approaching the victim.
Outcome:
Court issued a one-year restraining order, enforceable by police.
Offender was warned that violation would lead to immediate arrest.
Significance:
Demonstrates the protective role of restraining orders in domestic violence cases.
Case 2: Stalking and Threats
Facts:
A man harassed his ex-girlfriend via text messages, social media, and phone calls in Tampere.
Victim reported escalating threats and anxiety.
Legal Issues:
Court evaluated risk of psychological harm.
Finnish law recognizes stalking as a form of harassment under Penal Code Section 34.
Outcome:
Issued a two-year restraining order, banning any form of contact.
Police monitored compliance; offender convicted for violating the order after six months.
Significance:
Highlights that protective orders can prevent psychological and physical harm and that violations carry serious consequences.
Case 3: Child Safety in Domestic Disputes
Facts:
Parents were in a custody dispute; father had history of aggressive behavior.
Child welfare authorities requested protective measures for the child.
Legal Issues:
Court needed to balance parental rights with child safety.
Protective orders prohibited father from approaching child outside supervised visits.
Outcome:
Supervised visitation enforced through child welfare agencies.
Electronic monitoring used to ensure compliance.
Significance:
Illustrates that protective orders can extend to safeguarding minors and not just adult victims.
Case 4: Sexual Harassment at Workplace
Facts:
A female employee reported persistent sexual harassment by a male colleague in a Helsinki office.
Attempts to resolve internally failed.
Legal Issues:
Court evaluated risk to victim and possibility of further harassment.
Workplace harassment laws combined with restraining measures.
Outcome:
Issued a workplace restraining order preventing contact during work hours.
Offender suspended with legal warning; repeated violations risked imprisonment.
Significance:
Protective orders can also be applied in professional and institutional settings, not just private life.
Case 5: Threats by Former Partner with Weapon
Facts:
A woman reported that her ex-partner threatened her with a knife.
Police intervened after prior minor assaults.
Legal Issues:
Court assessed high risk of severe violence.
Protective measures included restraining order and police surveillance.
Outcome:
Offender arrested and charged with violating protective order after ignoring restrictions.
Sentenced to one year imprisonment, in addition to the restraining order.
Significance:
Shows combination of restraining orders and law enforcement monitoring to prevent serious harm.
Case 6: Harassment via Digital Means
Facts:
Victim received repeated unwanted sexual advances and threatening messages online.
Attempts to block offender were unsuccessful.
Legal Issues:
Cyber harassment recognized under Penal Code; court could issue digital communication restraining measures.
Outcome:
Court issued restraining order covering digital communication, including email, social media, and instant messaging.
Offender prosecuted for violation within three months.
Significance:
Finnish law adapts restraining orders to digital harassment, ensuring victim safety in virtual spaces.
Case 7: Protective Order with Electronic Monitoring
Facts:
Repeated domestic violence incidents; offender had prior convictions.
Victim feared for life; requested strict measures.
Legal Issues:
Court decided protective order combined with electronic monitoring of offender’s movements.
Outcome:
Offender fitted with GPS monitoring bracelet.
Breach of safety zone triggered immediate police response.
Significance:
Modern protective measures integrate technology to enhance victim safety.
Summary Observations
Effectiveness of Protective Orders
Restrict contact, prevent harassment, and ensure victim safety.
Include physical, digital, and institutional domains.
Integration with Law Enforcement
Police monitor compliance; violation carries criminal consequences.
Special Considerations
Children, workplace victims, and digital harassment victims are covered.
Courts may combine restraining orders with electronic monitoring for high-risk offenders.
Rehabilitation vs. Safety
Finnish system balances offender rehabilitation with immediate protection for the victim
RELATED Blog
comments