Aggravating And Mitigating Circumstances Under Finnish Law
I. Legal Background: Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances in Finland
In Finnish criminal law, courts determine sentences by considering:
Aggravating circumstances (raskentavat seikat) – factors that increase culpability or the social harm of an offence.
Mitigating circumstances (lieventävät seikat) – factors that reduce culpability or lessen moral blame.
Relevant Provisions:
Criminal Code (Rikoslaki 39/1889, Chapter 6 §5–§7) outlines that judges must consider the nature of the act, intent, personal circumstances, and consequences.
Sentencing Principles:
Aggravation can result in higher penalties within statutory limits.
Mitigation can lead to reduced penalties, fines instead of imprisonment, conditional sentences, or probation.
Common Aggravating Factors:
Premeditation or planning
Multiple victims or repeated offences
Vulnerable victims (children, elderly, disabled)
Abuse of authority or trust
Use of weapons or excessive violence
Common Mitigating Factors:
Spontaneous act without planning
Provocation or self-defense (partial)
Minor role in crime
First-time offender with good prospects of rehabilitation
Cooperation with authorities
II. Case Law Illustrating Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances
1. KKO 1979:89 – Aggravation in Homicide
Facts:
Defendant killed a business partner after a long-standing dispute. The killing was planned and executed with a knife.
Court Findings:
Premeditation and personal motive were aggravating factors.
Defendant showed no remorse.
Outcome:
Supreme Court imposed life imprisonment, emphasizing aggravation.
Significance:
Established that planning and motive significantly influence sentencing in homicide cases.
2. KKO 1985:45 – Mitigation in Assault
Facts:
Defendant assaulted a co-worker after a heated argument. The injury was minor.
Court Findings:
Act occurred in sudden provocation.
Defendant had a clean criminal record and expressed remorse.
Outcome:
Court reduced sentence from conditional imprisonment to fine and probation.
Significance:
Provocation and good character can significantly mitigate sentences for violent offences.
3. KKO 1992:77 – Aggravation in Theft from Vulnerable Victims
Facts:
Defendant stole money from elderly residents in a care facility.
Court Findings:
Victim vulnerability and repeated offences were aggravating.
Defendant attempted to conceal crime, reducing mitigating effect.
Outcome:
Court imposed a two-year prison sentence.
Significance:
Emphasized that targeting vulnerable populations enhances punishment.
4. KKO 2001:12 – Mitigation for First-Time Offender in Drug Offence
Facts:
Young adult caught possessing small amounts of narcotics.
Court Findings:
First offence, minor quantity, full cooperation with police.
No prior criminal history.
Outcome:
Conditional imprisonment with probation.
Significance:
Mitigation applies strongly for first-time, minor offenders, reflecting rehabilitative focus.
5. KKO 2008:54 – Aggravation in Sexual Offences
Facts:
Defendant committed sexual assault against a minor. Offence involved planning and deception.
Court Findings:
Victim age and exploitation were aggravating factors.
Defendant had prior warnings for related misconduct.
Outcome:
Court imposed long-term imprisonment, maximum within statutory limits.
Significance:
Confirmed that child victim and abuse of trust are major aggravators.
6. KKO 2012:19 – Partial Mitigation in Fraud
Facts:
Defendant falsified documents to obtain financial gain. Losses were minor.
Court Findings:
Act was opportunistic, without premeditation.
Defendant voluntarily returned part of stolen funds.
Outcome:
Sentence reduced from standard 18 months to 12 months suspended imprisonment.
Significance:
Restitution and voluntary correction can mitigate punishment.
7. KKO 2018:101 – Combined Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances in Assault
Facts:
Defendant assaulted a neighbor after being provoked verbally but used a knife.
Court Findings:
Provocation → mitigating
Use of knife → aggravating
Resulting injury was moderate
Outcome:
Court imposed conditional imprisonment with supervision, balancing aggravating and mitigating factors.
Significance:
Shows courts weigh all factors to reach proportionate sentences.
III. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Offence | Aggravating Factors | Mitigating Factors | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KKO 1979:89 | Homicide | Premeditation, motive | None | Life imprisonment |
| KKO 1985:45 | Assault | None | Provocation, remorse | Fine & probation |
| KKO 1992:77 | Theft | Vulnerable victims, repeat | None | 2-year prison |
| KKO 2001:12 | Drug possession | None | First-time, cooperation | Conditional sentence |
| KKO 2008:54 | Sexual assault | Minor victim, deception | None | Long-term imprisonment |
| KKO 2012:19 | Fraud | Opportunistic | Restitution, voluntary | Suspended sentence |
| KKO 2018:101 | Assault | Knife use | Provocation | Conditional imprisonment |
IV. Key Takeaways
Aggravating circumstances increase culpability and can push sentences toward maximum statutory limits.
Mitigating circumstances reduce culpability and can lead to suspended sentences, fines, or probation.
Courts balance both in every case to ensure proportionate punishment.
Victim characteristics (age, vulnerability) often play a crucial role in aggravation.
Offender characteristics (first-time, remorse, cooperation) often mitigate.
RELATED Blog
comments