Comparison Of Finnish And Swedish Criminal Codes
1. Legal Frameworks
Finland
Primary legislation: Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki 39/1889, revised 1889–present)
Structure:
General provisions (Chapter 1–2)
Crimes against persons (Ch. 21–23)
Property crimes (Ch. 28–36)
Crimes against public order, authority, and state (Ch. 17–19)
Computer crimes, environmental crimes, terrorism, etc.
Focus: Rehabilitation-oriented sentencing, preventive measures, and restorative justice.
Sweden
Primary legislation: Swedish Penal Code (Brottsbalken 1962:700)
Structure:
General provisions (Ch. 1–2)
Crimes against persons (Ch. 3–6)
Property crimes (Ch. 8–12)
Public order, authority, and state crimes (Ch. 16–17)
Modern crimes like cybercrime and environmental offenses integrated in later chapters.
Focus: Emphasis on individual responsibility, proportionality of punishment, and victim compensation.
Key Difference: Finnish law emphasizes restorative justice and rehabilitation, especially for juveniles, while Swedish law is slightly more formalistic and structured around proportionality and individual culpability.
2. Comparison of Key Offences with Case Law
A. Homicide / Manslaughter
Finland
Criminal Code: Chapter 21, Sections 1–3
Case: Helsinki District Court (2015) –
Facts: Defendant killed another during a domestic dispute.
Outcome: Convicted of manslaughter, not murder, due to lack of premeditation.
Sentence: 8 years imprisonment.
Significance: Finnish courts distinguish murder (tappo) from manslaughter (surma) primarily based on intent and planning.
Sweden
Penal Code: Ch. 3, Sections 1–2
Case: Svea Court of Appeal (2016) –
Facts: A fatal assault outside a nightclub.
Outcome: Convicted of murder; life imprisonment.
Significance: Swedish courts focus heavily on intent and severity; mitigating circumstances considered but sentencing often stricter for lethal assaults.
B. Theft and Property Crimes
Finland
Criminal Code: Chapter 28–30
Case: Turku Court (2017) –
Facts: Repeat offender stole electronic goods from stores.
Outcome: Convicted of aggravated theft; conditional imprisonment with restitution.
Significance: Finnish courts weigh rehabilitation and restitution, especially for repeat minor offenders.
Sweden
Penal Code: Ch. 8, Sections 1–4
Case: Malmö District Court (2018) –
Facts: Organized shoplifting ring targeting electronics stores.
Outcome: Convicted of theft; sentenced to 1.5–3 years imprisonment per offender.
Significance: Swedish courts emphasize proportionality and deterrence, particularly for organized crime.
C. Cybercrime and Online Fraud
Finland
Criminal Code: Chapter 38, Sections 1–3
Case: Helsinki Court of Appeal (2019) –
Facts: Offender conducted phishing attacks on multiple victims.
Outcome: Convicted of fraud and computer sabotage; conditional imprisonment and full restitution.
Significance: Courts combine computer crimes and fraud provisions, with strong victim compensation.
Sweden
Penal Code: Ch. 9, Section 1 + 4
Case: Stockholm District Court (2020) –
Facts: Hacking and fraudulent transfers via social engineering.
Outcome: Convicted of computer fraud; 2 years imprisonment.
Significance: Swedish law separates computer-specific offenses from general fraud but applies cumulative penalties for multiple crimes.
D. Environmental Crimes
Finland
Criminal Code: Chapter 48
Case: Oulu District Court (2018) –
Facts: Industrial pollution exceeding permitted limits.
Outcome: Convicted of environmental crime; fines and remediation orders imposed.
Significance: Finnish law uses fines, remediation, and corporate accountability rather than only imprisonment.
Sweden
Penal Code / Environmental Code: Ch. 29, Environmental Offences
Case: Gothenburg Court (2019) –
Facts: Illegal dumping of chemical waste.
Outcome: Convicted; heavy fines and corporate directors held personally liable.
Significance: Swedish courts also impose financial and corporate responsibility, but prosecution is stricter for intentional violations.
E. Terrorism and Terror Financing
Finland
Criminal Code: Chapter 34, Sections 1a–1c
Case: Helsinki District Court (2016) –
Facts: Finnish national recruited individuals for foreign terrorist organization.
Outcome: 5 years imprisonment.
Significance: Focus on prevention and online recruitment, strong preventive measures.
Sweden
Penal Code / Terrorist Financing Act: 2003:148
Case: Stockholm Court of Appeal (2017) –
Facts: Financing terrorist activities abroad.
Outcome: Convicted; 4 years imprisonment.
Significance: Sweden criminalizes funding and material support, with slightly heavier emphasis on financial monitoring.
3. Key Comparative Observations
| Aspect | Finland | Sweden |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | Rehabilitation, restorative justice, victim mediation | Proportionality, deterrence, formalistic approach |
| Juvenile Offenders | Strong mediation, diversion programs | Emphasis on proportionality, still punitive but with social services |
| Cybercrime | Combines fraud + computer offences, restitution important | Separates computer crimes and fraud, cumulative sentencing |
| Environmental Law | Remediation + fines, corporate accountability | Fines + personal liability for directors, strong enforcement |
| Terrorism | Preventive measures, prosecuting planning, recruitment | Funding-focused, preventive and deterrent, strong surveillance emphasis |
4. Takeaways from Case Law Comparison
Intent and Severity: Both codes distinguish premeditated vs. unintentional offences but Sweden tends to impose slightly stricter sentences for serious crimes.
Restorative vs. Punitive: Finland emphasizes rehabilitation and victim-focused justice; Sweden emphasizes deterrence and proportionality.
Modern Crimes: Both countries integrate cybercrime and terrorism provisions, but Finland’s approach often combines multiple offences under one charge.
Corporate Accountability: Environmental and corporate crimes are enforced in both countries, with Sweden sometimes extending personal liability.
RELATED Blog
comments