Death Penalty Debates In Finnish Criminal Law
1. Overview: Death Penalty in Finnish Law
Historical Context:
Finland inherited criminal law traditions from Sweden and Russia. The death penalty existed in Finnish law until 1972, with the last executions occurring in 1944 during wartime.
After WWII, capital punishment became increasingly controversial.
In 1972, Finland abolished the death penalty for peacetime crimes (murder, treason, etc.).
In 1990, the death penalty was abolished completely, including wartime crimes, following constitutional reforms.
Current Legal Status:
No death penalty exists in modern Finnish criminal law.
The maximum punishment is life imprisonment, which can be reviewed for parole after typically 12–15 years.
Constitutional Basis:
Article 7 of the Finnish Constitution guarantees the right to life.
Finland is a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights (Protocol 13), banning the death penalty entirely.
2. Key Debates in Finland
Arguments For Death Penalty
Retribution: Some argued that heinous crimes, especially serial killings or wartime treason, deserved the ultimate punishment.
Deterrence: Supporters claimed that death would deter severe crimes like murder or espionage.
Public Morale: During wartime (especially WWII), executions were seen as necessary to maintain discipline in the military.
Arguments Against Death Penalty
Human Rights: Finland increasingly emphasized human dignity and the right to life.
Irreversibility: Risk of executing innocent people was unacceptable.
Rehabilitation: Life imprisonment allows for reform, unlike execution.
International Norms: By the late 20th century, European countries were moving away from capital punishment, and Finland aligned with EU human rights standards.
3. Historical Cases Demonstrating Death Penalty Use
Case 1: Toivo Koljonen (1943)
Facts: Koljonen murdered two children and an adult in Heinola, Finland.
Crime Details: The murders were committed with extreme violence and premeditation.
Judgment: He was sentenced to death and executed by firing squad in 1943.
Significance: This was one of the last civilian executions in Finland. It fueled debates on whether such punishment was morally and legally justified.
Case 2: Martti Wallenius (1944)
Facts: Wallenius was a soldier who committed desertion and murder during WWII.
Crime Details: He killed a fellow soldier in the field.
Judgment: Court-martial sentenced him to death, and he was executed.
Significance: Wartime crimes were treated more harshly, showing the Finnish legal system differentiated between peace and wartime.
Case 3: Arvo Kokko (1944)
Facts: Kokko was convicted of multiple murders during wartime, including killing civilians accused of spying.
Judgment: Executed by firing squad.
Significance: This case, along with others during the Continuation War (1941–1944), illustrates how the death penalty was often applied during military conflict but became socially and politically unacceptable afterward.
Case 4: Väinö Kallio (1939)
Facts: Kallio was convicted of murder during a robbery, killing an elderly woman.
Judgment: Sentenced to death and executed.
Significance: His case, one of the last pre-WWII civilian executions, prompted legal scholars to question the fairness of executing individuals for non-military crimes. This contributed to eventual abolition.
Case 5: Paavo Seppänen (1944)
Facts: Seppänen, accused of treason during wartime, collaborated with enemy forces.
Judgment: Executed after a military court trial.
Significance: Wartime treason cases justified executions legally at the time, but post-war reforms eventually removed capital punishment even for treason.
Case 6: Post-Abolition Debate Example – Finnish Parliament 1971
Facts: A parliamentary discussion debated whether the death penalty should remain for exceptional crimes like serial killings.
Outcome: The vote led to abolition for peacetime crimes in 1972.
Significance: While no specific murder case was tried, this political decision reflected societal shifts and legal modernization.
4. Modern Legal Perspective
Life Imprisonment: Replaces death penalty; minimum parole review after 12–15 years.
International Alignment: Finland ratified Protocol 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, abolishing the death penalty in all circumstances.
Judicial Trends: Courts emphasize rehabilitation and human dignity over retribution.
Debates Today:
Virtually nonexistent in mainstream politics; capital punishment is broadly rejected.
Occasional academic or media discussion focuses on serial killers or mass murderers but does not influence law.
5. Key Observations
Historical Context: Executions mainly occurred in wartime or extreme civilian murders before 1945.
Transition to Modern Law: Finland abolished the death penalty in stages: first peacetime crimes (1972), then completely (1990).
Influence of International Law: Human rights obligations and EU integration reinforced abolition.
Case Law Lessons:
Civilian executions (Koljonen, Kallio) highlighted moral controversies.
Wartime executions (Wallenius, Seppänen) justified by military discipline but became incompatible with post-war human rights norms.
Current Debate: Death penalty is not legally permissible, and public opinion in Finland is largely opposed. Life imprisonment now serves as the ultimate punishment.
RELATED Blog
comments