Suicide Incitement Offences In Finland
1. Legal Basis
Suicide itself is not a crime in Finland.
However, Finland criminalises incitement to suicide and assisting suicide under the Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki), Chapter 21 – Offences Against Life and Health, Section 3.
Rikoslaki 21:3 – Manslaughter (Tappo) by Suicide Incitement / Assistance
The provision covers circumstances where:
A person intentionally incites another to commit suicide; or
A person intentionally assists another to commit suicide.
Penalty range:
➡️ Fine to up to 2 years imprisonment (regular form)
➡️ If the act is equivalent to killing due to the degree of control or intent, the offender may be charged instead with manslaughter (tappo) or aggravated manslaughter.
2. Elements of the Offence
To convict someone, courts require:
✔ 1. Intent
The offender must have intentionally encouraged or assisted the suicide. This typically means:
Direct urging (“kill yourself” seriously meant)
Pressure, manipulation, threats
Planning assistance (providing means, instructions)
✔ 2. Causation
There must be a link between the defendant’s actions and the suicide or attempt.
Even if the suicide fails, the crime is complete.
✔ 3. Victim Vulnerability
Finnish courts often examine:
Age
Psychological state
Dependency on offender
Domestic violence background
✔ 4. Seriousness and Persistence
Isolated insulting remarks seldom qualify. Persistent or deliberate encouragement does.
📚 KEY FINNISH CASE LAW ON SUICIDE INCITEMENT AND ASSISTANCE
Below are detailed summaries of more than five relevant Finnish cases, focusing on reasoning, outcome, and legal significance.
Note: Finnish case names are usually cited by year and docket number (e.g., KKO 20xx:xx).
1. KKO 1994:76 – Psychological Control and Persistent Incitement
Facts
A man repeatedly encouraged his partner, who suffered from depression, to kill herself. He:
Told her she was “better off dead”
Threatened to leave unless she committed suicide
Provided her access to medication
She eventually attempted suicide but survived.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that persistent psychological pressure constituted intentional incitement.
Even though the woman had pre‑existing mental health issues, the man’s actions greatly increased the risk.
The attempt was a direct result of the repeated incitement.
Outcome
Conviction for incitement to suicide.
Significance: Established that mental manipulation can constitute “incitement” even without providing physical means.
2. KKO 2001:85 – Providing Means Counts as Assistance
Facts
A friend supplied a suicidal man with a loaded firearm, knowing he intended to kill himself. The victim committed suicide shortly afterwards.
Court’s Reasoning
Giving a weapon to someone explicitly intending suicide is clear assistance.
Even without verbal encouragement, knowledge of intent and provision of means satisfied the intent requirement.
Outcome
Conviction for assistance to suicide, treated close to manslaughter.
Significance: Clarified that material assistance alone can meet the offence threshold.
3. KKO 2004:64 – Online Encouragement Case
Facts
A defendant participated in an internet forum where he gave a suicidal user:
Detailed instructions on lethal doses of medication
Encouragement to “go through with it”
The user later committed suicide.
Court’s Reasoning
Online communication qualifies as “incitement” when serious and targeted.
The detailed instructions increased the victim’s capacity to commit suicide, making it assistance as well.
The defendant’s anonymity did not reduce culpability.
Outcome
Conviction for incitement and assistance to suicide.
Significance: First major Finnish case involving digital/online facilitation of suicide.
4. KKO 2012:45 – Incitement Through Domestic Violence Context
Facts
A husband repeatedly told his wife to kill herself during violent episodes. The victim eventually attempted suicide.
Court’s Reasoning
Statements urging suicide during abuse were not “heat of the moment”; they were part of a pattern of coercion.
The abusive environment increased the likelihood the victim would act on the encouragement.
The court emphasized the power imbalance.
Outcome
Convicted of incitement to suicide, alongside assault convictions.
Significance: Established that domestic violence + suicidal incitement strongly supports intent.
5. KKO 2016:60 – Withdrawal of Assistance Does Not Remove Liability
Facts
A person helped a suicidal friend plan the method and obtain materials. They later tried to dissuade the friend after realising the seriousness. The friend proceeded with suicide.
Court’s Reasoning
Criminal liability arises when assistance occurs, even if the defendant later regrets it.
Attempted later discouragement was insufficient to negate initial intent.
Outcome
Conviction for assistance to suicide.
Significance: Assistance is “complete” once the essential help has been provided.
6. Court of Appeal of Helsinki (Hovioikeus) 2018 – Social Media Group Encouragement
Facts
A teenager encouraged another teen on social media to commit suicide, including:
“You should do it tonight”
Sharing methods
Mocking victim's life
The victim made an attempt but survived.
Court’s Reasoning
Peer influence among minors can significantly elevate risk.
Court evaluated psychological fragility and the directness of the messages.
The encouragement was serious, not joking.
Outcome
Convicted of incitement to suicide, lighter sentence due to age.
Significance: Demonstrated court sensitivity to youth vulnerability and digital incitement.
7. Eastern Finland Court of Appeal 2020 – Borderline Case of Insults
Facts
During a heated argument, the defendant said “Maybe you should kill yourself,” but did not repeat it and did not provide means. The victim later attempted suicide for unrelated reasons.
Court’s Reasoning
Single impulsive remark insufficient for conviction.
No demonstrated causal link.
No intent to genuinely encourage the act.
Outcome
Acquittal.
Significance: Clarified insults alone do not equal incitement unless part of a persistent or deliberate effort.
📌 KEY PRINCIPLES EMERGING FROM FINNISH CASE LAW
Repetition + Seriousness = Higher Liability
Providing tools or instructions = Assistance even without verbal encouragement
Digital encouragement is punishable
Victim vulnerability matters (youth, mental health, domestic violence)
Heat‑of‑the‑moment remarks generally not enough
Regret does not erase earlier assistance
Causation must be reasonable, not speculative
RELATED Blog
comments