Sentencing Policy In Finland
I. Overview of Sentencing Policy in Finland
Finland’s sentencing system is designed to balance retribution, prevention, rehabilitation, and proportionality. Key principles include:
1. Principles of Sentencing
Proportionality: Punishment must fit the crime (Rikoslaki / Criminal Code, Ch. 6).
Individualization: Consideration of offender’s age, mental health, and prior record.
Purpose of Sentencing:
General prevention: Deterring the public.
Special prevention: Preventing recidivism.
Rehabilitation: Especially for minor or young offenders.
Alternative sanctions:
Fines
Conditional imprisonment (conditional sentences, probation)
Community service
Electronic monitoring
2. Key Sentencing Features
Conditional vs. unconditional imprisonment: Conditional sentences are common for first-time or minor offenders.
Aggregate sentencing: Multiple offences can be combined into a single sentence.
Mitigating and aggravating factors: Age, intent, motive, previous convictions, and consequences of the crime.
Youth offenders: Special rules under Juvenile Act; focus on rehabilitation.
II. Case Law on Sentencing Policy
Here are seven significant KKO cases illustrating sentencing principles:
1. KKO 1992:45 — Conditional Imprisonment vs. Fines
Facts:
Defendant committed theft and minor property damage.
Prior record was minimal.
Holding:
KKO held that conditional imprisonment was appropriate, rather than immediate imprisonment.
Fine alone was insufficient due to severity.
Significance:
Shows balance between deterrence and rehabilitation.
Conditional sentences are common for first-time or minor offenders.
2. KKO 1999:27 — Aggregate Sentencing
Facts:
Defendant convicted of multiple offences: burglary, assault, and drug possession.
Holding:
KKO emphasized that aggregate sentencing should reflect total culpability, but not exceed proportionality for the most serious crime.
Sentences for multiple crimes can be partially combined.
Significance:
Establishes principle of combined sentencing and proportionality.
3. KKO 2003:112 — Mitigating Circumstances in Assault
Facts:
Defendant committed assault during a minor argument; acted impulsively.
Holding:
KKO ruled that provocation and impulsivity can be mitigating factors.
Sentence reduced from unconditional imprisonment to conditional sentence.
Significance:
Reinforces individualization principle: sentencing considers offender’s mental state and circumstances.
4. KKO 2008:45 — Aggravating Factors in Homicide
Facts:
Defendant killed another person during a robbery.
Holding:
KKO held that robbery motive, premeditation, and vulnerability of victim were aggravating factors.
Unconditional imprisonment imposed (long-term).
Significance:
Demonstrates aggravating factors influence sentence length.
Homicide committed during other serious crimes often triggers harsher penalties.
5. KKO 2011:37 — Sentencing Young Offenders
Facts:
17-year-old committed theft with minor injury.
Holding:
KKO emphasized rehabilitation focus for young offenders.
Conditional sentence with probation, combined with guidance measures, was upheld.
Significance:
Youth sentencing emphasizes education and rehabilitation over retribution.
6. KKO 2015:29 — Drug Trafficking and Proportionality
Facts:
Defendant sold moderate quantities of narcotics.
Prior criminal record was minimal.
Holding:
KKO ruled that proportionality principle justified conditional imprisonment, not unconditional.
Focused on special prevention and rehabilitation rather than punitive approach.
Significance:
Reinforces flexibility in sentencing: serious crime does not always equal unconditional imprisonment.
7. KKO 2018:22 — Repeat Offenders and Special Prevention
Facts:
Defendant repeatedly committed theft despite previous conditional sentences.
Holding:
KKO held that special prevention justifies unconditional imprisonment after repeated offences.
Prior attempts at rehabilitation were considered insufficient.
Significance:
Establishes that recidivism increases sentence severity.
III. Summary of Sentencing Principles Illustrated by Case Law
| Principle | Case Example | Key Takeaways |
|---|---|---|
| Conditional vs. unconditional | KKO 1992:45, KKO 2015:29 | Conditional sentences for minor or first-time offenders; flexibility emphasized |
| Aggregate sentencing | KKO 1999:27 | Multiple offences can be combined, respecting proportionality |
| Mitigating circumstances | KKO 2003:112 | Provocation, impulsivity, and personal circumstances reduce sentence |
| Aggravating factors | KKO 2008:45 | Premeditation, vulnerability, and motive increase sentence |
| Youth offender focus | KKO 2011:37 | Emphasis on rehabilitation and guidance |
| Proportionality & rehabilitation | KKO 2015:29 | Sentence tailored to offence severity and offender characteristics |
| Recidivism / special prevention | KKO 2018:22 | Repeat offenders face stricter punishment to prevent future crimes |
RELATED Blog
comments