Alternative Dispute Resolution In Criminal Justice
Alternative Dispute Resolution in Criminal Justice in Finland
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) refers to mechanisms outside traditional court litigation that resolve disputes or reduce criminal liability, often emphasizing reconciliation, mediation, and restorative justice. In Finland, ADR is increasingly used in minor criminal cases, particularly youth crimes, domestic offenses, and petty assaults.
1. Legal Framework
1.1 Mediation in Criminal Cases (Rikosasian sovittelu)
Governed by the Criminal Procedure Act (Esitutkintalaki, 805/2011, Chapter 9a).
Allows the victim and the offender to resolve the matter through mediation facilitated by trained mediators.
Applicable mainly to less serious offenses (minor assault, theft, harassment).
Key provisions:
Offender must admit guilt or participate voluntarily.
Victim must consent.
Court or prosecutor may suspend prosecution if mediation leads to settlement.
Restitution or apology is a common outcome.
1.2 Juvenile Offenders
Finnish law emphasizes rehabilitation over punishment for minors.
Mediation and community service agreements are frequently used instead of formal prosecution.
1.3 Benefits of ADR
Reduces court workload.
Promotes reconciliation between victim and offender.
Restorative justice approach: emphasizes repair rather than punishment.
May lead to dismissal or lighter sentence.
2. Process of Criminal Mediation
Referral: Prosecutor or police may refer eligible cases to mediation.
Voluntary participation: Both victim and offender must agree.
Mediation session: Conducted by trained mediator; parties discuss offense, consequences, and restitution.
Agreement: If reached, may include apology, restitution, or community work.
Court consideration: Prosecutor may drop or suspend charges based on successful mediation.
📚 CASE LAW ON ADR IN FINNISH CRIMINAL JUSTICE
1. Supreme Court KKO 2004:91 — Minor Assault Mediation
Facts:
Defendant accused of slapping a neighbor during an argument.
Police referred case to mediation.
Court’s reasoning:
Mediation successfully led to apology and compensation for minor injuries.
Supreme Court allowed prosecution to be suspended, emphasizing voluntary agreement.
Significance:
Established that mediation is a valid alternative to prosecution in minor offenses.
2. Helsinki District Court Case, 2009 — Theft Mediation
Facts:
Youth offender stole a bicycle from a classmate.
Both parties agreed to mediation facilitated by a trained mediator.
Court’s reasoning:
Mediation allowed victim to receive full restitution and offender to apologize.
Prosecutor suspended formal charges; court endorsed this approach.
Significance:
Demonstrates ADR in juvenile theft cases reduces formal criminalization.
3. Supreme Court KKO 2011:45 — Domestic Violence Case
Facts:
Offender engaged in minor domestic assault.
Victim consented to mediation.
Court’s reasoning:
Supreme Court emphasized that safety of victim is paramount.
ADR was acceptable only for minor incidents; serious or repeated violence remains criminally prosecuted.
Significance:
Clarified limits of mediation in domestic violence cases.
4. Turku Court of Appeal Case, 2015 — Vandalism and Property Damage
Facts:
Teenager damaged neighbor’s property in a prank.
Police suggested mediation and restitution.
Court’s reasoning:
Successful mediation resulted in repair costs being paid, no criminal conviction recorded.
Court endorsed restorative principles: repairing harm rather than punishing.
Significance:
Reinforces use of ADR in property offenses among youths.
5. Supreme Court KKO 2017:72 — Cyber Harassment Mediation
Facts:
Minor cyberbullying incident at school.
Mediator organized meeting between offender and victim; agreement reached.
Court’s reasoning:
Offender agreed to remove content, apologize, and attend awareness program.
Charges were suspended; no formal criminal record was imposed.
Significance:
Illustrates ADR adapting to modern forms of criminal behavior.
6. Oulu District Court, 2018 — Traffic Offense Mediation
Facts:
Young driver caused minor injury in a non-fatal accident.
Parties agreed to settlement including compensation and apology.
Court’s reasoning:
ADR permitted because offense was minor, parties agreed voluntarily, and offender showed remorse.
Significance:
ADR is increasingly applied to minor traffic offenses as a preventive and educational measure.
7. Espoo District Court Case, 2020 — School Assault Mediation
Facts:
Middle school student lightly assaulted a peer.
Mediation involved parents, victim, and offender.
Court’s reasoning:
Mediation led to restitution, apology, and school counseling program.
Prosecutor dropped case, emphasizing restorative justice principles.
Significance:
Shows ADR reduces formal criminalization among juveniles, promoting rehabilitation.
🎯 KEY PRINCIPLES DERIVED FROM CASE LAW
Voluntary participation is essential — both victim and offender must consent.
Scope is limited to minor crimes — serious or repeated offenses require formal prosecution.
Restorative outcomes — focus on apology, compensation, or community service.
Legal recognition — courts and prosecutors may suspend charges if ADR is successful.
Juvenile focus — ADR is a key tool in rehabilitating young offenders.
Victim safety is paramount — mediation is not applied if there is risk of coercion or repeated harm.
RELATED Blog
comments