Stalking Prosecutions In Finland
Legal Framework:
Stalking in Finland is called vainoaminen and is criminalized under Chapter 25, Section 7a of the Finnish Criminal Code.
A person commits stalking if they repeatedly threaten, observe, contact, or otherwise unjustifiably harass another, causing fear or anxiety.
Maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment or a fine.
Stalking became a criminal offense in Finland in 2014.
Case 1: Jessikka Aro vs. Johan Bäckman (2018)
Facts:
Finnish journalist Jessikka Aro was repeatedly harassed online and publicly by Johan Bäckman.
The harassment included threatening messages, defamation, and repeated contact, creating fear and anxiety.
Court Proceedings:
Helsinki District Court convicted Bäckman of stalking in 2018.
The case went on appeal, and the Supreme Court upheld the stalking conviction.
Outcome:
Suspended prison sentence: 60 days.
Compensation to Aro: €9,000 for emotional distress, plus €9,200 for loss of income.
Significance:
Demonstrates how stalking provisions apply to online harassment.
Shows courts hold perpetrators accountable even without physical violence, focusing on fear and anxiety caused.
Case 2: District Court of Espoo (2015)
Facts:
Victim explicitly told the stalker not to contact her.
The stalker continued sending repeated messages, monitored her online activity, and followed her movements.
Court Proceedings:
Espoo District Court found that the repeated contact and surveillance constituted stalking under §7a.
Outcome:
Conviction for stalking.
Court emphasized the victim’s psychological impact, not just the stalker’s intent.
Significance:
Shows that stalking can include digital communication and observation, not just physical following.
Courts evaluate the unjustified nature of contact.
Case 3: Helsinki District Court (2018)
Facts:
Repeated unwanted contact via phone, emails, and social media messages.
The stalker monitored the victim’s social media activity and attempted to contact the victim through third parties.
Court Proceedings:
District Court ruled that the repeated harassment created anxiety and fear, fulfilling the statutory criteria for stalking.
Outcome:
Stalking conviction and fine.
Significance:
Reinforces that stalking in Finland covers persistent harassment across multiple channels, including online platforms.
Case 4: Tampere District Court (2016)
Facts:
Stalker repeatedly sent threatening text messages to a former partner.
Messages included veiled threats and pressure to meet despite the victim clearly expressing refusal.
Court Proceedings:
Court found repeated communication unjustified and intended to instill fear.
Emphasis on psychological harm over physical action.
Outcome:
Conviction for stalking.
Court noted that the repeated nature of harassment was crucial for the charge.
Significance:
Illustrates ex-partner stalking, one of the common contexts in Finland.
Shows courts rely on pattern and frequency of behavior.
Case 5: Espoo District Court Cyber-Stalking Case (2017)
Facts:
Stalker created fake online profiles to monitor the victim’s activity and post threatening messages.
Victim reported feeling constant fear and anxiety.
Court Proceedings:
District Court found that stalking occurred both online and offline, noting that repeated online harassment falls under Finnish criminal law.
Outcome:
Conviction with a suspended sentence.
Court emphasized the psychological impact of cyber-stalking.
Significance:
Confirms that digital harassment is treated the same as physical stalking under Finnish law.
Case 6: Vaasa District Court (2016)
Facts:
Stalker repeatedly contacted the victim via phone and messages, despite restraining orders.
Attempted to appear near the victim’s home and workplace.
Court Proceedings:
Court considered both direct harassment and violation of restraining orders.
Noted that stalking includes both physical proximity and persistent communication.
Outcome:
Conviction for stalking and minor additional charges for threatening behavior.
Partly custodial sentence.
Significance:
Highlights that violation of restraining orders strengthens stalking charges.
Shows the courts consider both repetition and escalation.
Key Legal Insights from These Cases
Repeated conduct is essential: Single incidents rarely lead to prosecution.
Psychological impact is central: Fear or anxiety caused to the victim is a critical element.
Digital harassment is criminal: Online stalking, social media threats, and fake profiles are included.
Ex-partner stalking is common: Finnish courts have addressed harassment in personal relationships repeatedly.
Courts balance intent and effect: Even if the stalker claims lack of harmful intent, the effect on the victim matters most.
Sentencing: Convictions usually result in suspended prison sentences or fines, with custodial sentences for more severe or repeated offenses.
These six examples provide a detailed overview of stalking prosecutions in Finland, demonstrating the application of the law to digital harassment, ex-partner cases, and repeated communication, with multiple courts confirming convictions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments