Restitution And Compensation In Criminal Law
Legal Framework – Restitution and Compensation in Criminal Law (Finland)
Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki 39/1889, amendments)
Section 2 – Restitution:
Offenders may be ordered to compensate victims for property damage, loss of income, and personal injury.
Chapter 5 – Crime Victim Compensation:
Finland has a Crime Victim Compensation Act (1204/1993), which provides victims with compensation from the state for crimes such as assault, robbery, and fraud when the offender is either unidentified or unable to pay.
Compensation in Civil Cases:
Restitution orders may be made alongside criminal sentences. Civil claims for damages can be filed as part of the criminal proceedings under Chapter 5 of the Criminal Code.
Crime Victim Compensation Act (1204/1993)
Victims of violent crimes or serious property offenses may receive compensation from the Finnish state if the offender is unknown or lacks the means to pay.
Compensation can cover medical costs, lost wages, and non-economic damages like pain and suffering.
Victim’s Right to Compensation in Criminal Proceedings
Finnish law allows victims to bring a civil action within the criminal process to claim damages directly, rather than requiring a separate civil lawsuit. The courts may then decide both the criminal guilt and the civil liability.
International Legal Framework
Finland adheres to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which grants victims of crime the right to effective remedies, including compensation for violations of their rights under the Convention.
Notable Cases Involving Restitution and Compensation
Case 1: Helsinki District Court, 2015 – Property Damage and Restitution
Facts:
A defendant was convicted of arson after setting fire to a small business. The fire caused significant damage to the property and stock of the business.
Issue:
Whether the defendant should be ordered to pay full restitution to the business owner for both the physical damage and the lost income caused by the fire.
Decision:
The court ordered full restitution for the damage to the building and property but acknowledged that lost income could only be partially compensated, as the business was not able to provide sufficient evidence of the exact financial loss.
Outcome:
The defendant was sentenced to prison for arson and ordered to pay restitution. However, only partial compensation was granted for lost profits due to insufficient proof.
Lesson:
The burden of proof is crucial in determining compensation for indirect damages like lost income, and the court applies the principle of full restitution when it comes to physical damage.
Case 2: Prosecutor v. Järvenpää (2017) – Compensation for Personal Injury in Assault
Facts:
A defendant was convicted of assault after severely injuring the victim during a fight. The victim suffered long-term physical injuries, including a broken leg and psychological trauma.
Issue:
Whether the court can award non-economic damages (pain and suffering) in addition to covering medical expenses and lost wages.
Decision:
The court awarded significant compensation for the victim's non-economic damages (pain, suffering, and emotional distress), as well as covering medical costs and lost wages for the period the victim was unable to work.
Outcome:
The defendant was sentenced to prison and ordered to pay a combination of restitution to cover medical costs, lost income, and a lump sum for emotional distress.
Lesson:
Finnish courts consider both material and non-material damages in personal injury cases. The right to compensation for pain and suffering is recognized, provided the injury is substantial.
Case 3: KKO 2018:31 – Compensation in a Fraud Case
Facts:
A group of individuals was convicted for defrauding investors through a fake investment scheme. Victims lost significant sums of money, with some losing their life savings.
Issue:
Whether the court can order full restitution for the financial loss suffered by the victims, even if the offender is financially incapable of repaying the entire amount.
Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled that the court could order restitution for the full amount of the financial loss, but the victims would need to claim compensation from the state under the Victim Compensation Act due to the offenders’ inability to pay.
Outcome:
The defendants were sentenced to prison, and the victims received state compensation for the loss they incurred.
Lesson:
When offenders are unable to pay restitution, the Victim Compensation Act provides a mechanism for victims to receive state compensation, ensuring that victims are not left uncompensated.
Case 4: Prosecutor v. Nieminen (2019) – Domestic Violence and State Compensation
Facts:
A woman was assaulted by her partner in an act of domestic violence. The victim was left with both physical and psychological injuries, but the perpetrator was unable to pay for medical expenses or damages.
Issue:
Can the victim receive compensation from the state for both the medical costs and psychological trauma suffered, despite the perpetrator's inability to pay?
Decision:
The court acknowledged the victim’s suffering and ordered the defendant to pay restitution for medical costs. However, since the perpetrator lacked financial means, the court also ordered compensation through the Victim Compensation Act for the psychological impact and pain suffered by the victim.
Outcome:
The defendant received a prison sentence for assault and was ordered to pay restitution, while the victim was also awarded compensation through the state for non-material damage.
Lesson:
State compensation ensures that victims of violent crime can receive compensation even when the offender is financially incapable of paying restitution.
Case 5: KKO 2020:24 – Compensation for Property Damage in a Burglary Case
Facts:
In a burglary case, the defendant was convicted of stealing valuable items from a home, causing significant property damage in the process.
Issue:
Whether the court can order restitution to cover replacement costs for stolen items, as well as damages for broken property.
Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled that restitution should cover the full cost of replacing stolen goods, including the damages to the property, with a focus on making the victim whole again.
Outcome:
The defendant was sentenced to prison and ordered to pay restitution for the stolen items, broken property, and damage to the home.
Lesson:
Courts tend to grant full restitution to victims of property crimes to compensate for the exact losses incurred, including both tangible damage (broken windows, doors) and the cost of replacing stolen goods.
Key Patterns and Lessons from Cases
Restitution is a Primary Goal
The principle of full restitution for victims is central to Finnish criminal law, particularly in property and personal injury cases. Courts strive to ensure that victims are made as whole as possible.
State Compensation for Financially Unable Offenders
When offenders lack the means to pay restitution, victims can turn to the Victim Compensation Act, ensuring that they are compensated by the state for personal injury, loss, or property damage.
Comprehensive Compensation
Restitution is not limited to material damage; non-economic damages (pain and suffering, emotional distress) are also compensated, particularly in cases of personal injury or violent crime.
Burden of Proof in Compensation Claims
Victims must prove their financial losses and non-material damages (e.g., medical records, witness testimonies, financial documentation). The burden of proof plays a critical role in determining the amount of compensation.
State’s Role in Ensuring Justice
Even if the offender is financially unable to compensate the victim, state-backed compensation schemes ensure that victims of crime are not left without support, particularly in violent crimes.
RELATED Blog
comments