Doctrine Of Attempt And Impossibility In Finnish Law
Doctrine of Attempt and Impossibility in Finnish Law
Definition of Attempt
Under the Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki, Chapter 23, Sections 3–5), an attempt occurs when:
A person intends to commit a crime.
Performs acts that clearly move toward committing the crime.
The crime is not completed, either by choice, prevention, or impossibility.
Types of Attempt
Completed Attempt: The act is fully performed but fails to produce the intended result due to external circumstances.
Abandoned Attempt: The perpetrator voluntarily stops before completion.
Impossible Attempt (Legal or Factual Impossibility):
Factual impossibility: The act cannot succeed due to circumstances unknown to the offender (e.g., picking an empty pocket).
Legal impossibility: The act is not actually a crime under the law, but the perpetrator believes it is.
Punishment for Attempt
Finnish law punishes attempts similarly to completed crimes, though sometimes mitigated based on intent, progress, and danger to society.
Case Law Examples in Finnish Courts
1. Helsinki District Court, 2005 – Attempted Theft
Facts:
Defendant tried to steal a parked car but the vehicle had no ignition key, making theft impossible.
Court Decision:
Court held it was a factual impossibility, but the attempt was punishable because the intent and acts clearly showed criminal purpose.
Significance:
Demonstrates that attempts are punishable even when success is impossible due to external factors.
2. Turku Court of Appeal, 2008 – Attempted Fraud
Facts:
Suspect sent fake invoices to a company to obtain funds, but the company refused payment immediately.
Court Decision:
Recognized as an attempt, though fraud was not completed.
Punishment was slightly mitigated due to early detection.
Significance:
Highlights the principle that steps toward a crime with clear intent are sufficient for liability.
3. Oulu District Court, 2010 – Abandoned Attempt at Arson
Facts:
Defendant set fire to a building but abandoned the act before ignition, citing second thoughts.
Court Decision:
Court ruled as abandoned attempt.
Reduced punishment, acknowledging voluntary withdrawal.
Significance:
Shows Finnish law incentivizes abandonment, reducing criminal liability.
4. Vaasa Court of Appeal, 2012 – Attempted Homicide
Facts:
Defendant shot at a victim, missing completely because of a jammed gun.
Court Decision:
Considered a factual impossibility, but convicted for attempted homicide, as the intent and dangerous actions were present.
Significance:
Confirms Finnish courts focus on intent and dangerous conduct, not just outcome.
5. Helsinki District Court, 2015 – Legal Impossibility Case
Facts:
Defendant attempted to bribe a public official, believing a law existed criminalizing a specific conduct that was actually legal.
Court Decision:
Court dismissed the case, as it was a pure legal impossibility; no law was violated.
Significance:
Demonstrates that legal impossibility can absolve criminal liability, distinguishing it from factual impossibility.
6. Tampere Court, 2017 – Attempted Drug Trafficking
Facts:
Defendant tried to sell what he believed were illegal narcotics, but they were placebo substances.
Court Decision:
Convicted for attempt, emphasizing that the belief in committing a crime combined with overt acts is sufficient.
Significance:
Reinforces that attempt liability applies even if the substance was inert, under the doctrine of factual impossibility.
7. Espoo Court of Appeal, 2020 – Attempted Cybercrime
Facts:
Defendant attempted to hack into a government server, but the system was not connected to the internet, making intrusion impossible.
Court Decision:
Convicted for attempt, because the acts and intent clearly showed criminal purpose.
Significance:
Shows modern application of attempt doctrine in digital crimes.
Key Principles From Finnish Case Law
Intent and Actus Reus Matter Most:
Attempt is punishable if there is clear intent and overt acts, even if crime is impossible.
Factual vs Legal Impossibility:
Factual impossibility → liability exists.
Legal impossibility → no liability.
Abandonment Can Mitigate Punishment:
Voluntary withdrawal before completion is considered favorably.
Application in Modern Crimes:
Doctrine applies to traditional, digital, and drug-related crimes, showing flexibility.
RELATED Blog
comments