Election Violence Prosecutions
Legal Framework – Election Violence in Finland
Criminal Code of Finland (Rikoslaki)
Chapter 12: Offences Against Democracy
Section 9 – Interference with the Right to Vote: Threats, coercion, or physical obstruction aimed at influencing voters’ choices are criminalized.
Chapter 21: Public Order Offences
Includes assault, property damage, riots, and unlawful gatherings connected to elections.
Penalties vary depending on severity:
Minor intimidation: fines or short-term imprisonment
Aggravated cases (assault, organized attacks, serious threats): imprisonment up to 4 years
Election Law (Vaalilaki, 714/1998)
Protects free and fair elections, emphasizing that threats, harassment, or violence against candidates, voters, or election staff is prohibited.
Enforcement Agencies
Police investigate threats, assaults, or riots connected to elections.
Courts consider intent, organization, and risk to electoral integrity.
Notable Cases
Case 1: Helsinki District Court, 2010 – Threats Against Candidate
Facts:
A local candidate received repeated threatening messages and phone calls intended to intimidate them from campaigning.
Issue:
Whether threats designed to influence a candidate’s activity constitute election violence.
Decision:
Convicted for threatening a public official/candidate under both criminal code and election law.
Sentence:
4 months suspended imprisonment, plus fine.
Lesson:
Even non-physical threats aimed at influencing election participation are criminal.
Case 2: Turku Court of Appeal, 2012 – Physical Assault on Election Staff
Facts:
During municipal elections, a volunteer distributing ballots was attacked by a politically motivated group.
Issue:
Physical assault targeting election personnel and disruption of election duties.
Decision:
Convicted of assault and public order offence; court emphasized the risk to free elections.
Sentence:
8 months imprisonment, partially suspended; compensation to victim.
Lesson:
Assault on election officials is treated seriously due to threat to democratic processes.
Case 3: KKO 2015:21 – Voter Intimidation in Minority Communities
Facts:
A political activist threatened a minority community with reprisals if they voted for a particular party.
Issue:
Whether intimidation of voters constitutes election violence.
Decision:
Supreme Court convicted for interference with the right to vote, emphasizing coercion undermines electoral integrity.
Sentence:
6 months imprisonment, suspended; public apology required.
Lesson:
Threatening voters to influence their choice is a criminal offense; intimidation, even without physical violence, is punishable.
Case 4: Oulu District Court, 2016 – Attack on Campaign Materials
Facts:
Opponents destroyed campaign posters and signage in multiple locations prior to municipal elections.
Issue:
Whether vandalism constitutes election violence.
Decision:
Convicted for property damage and election interference. Court emphasized systematic targeting of campaign materials.
Sentence:
5 months suspended imprisonment, fine for damages.
Lesson:
Election violence includes destruction of political materials, as it undermines fair competition.
Case 5: Helsinki Court of Appeal, 2018 – Organizing Riots to Disrupt Voting
Facts:
Group organized a protest outside a polling station intending to block access for opposition voters.
Issue:
Coordinated effort to intimidate voters constitutes election violence.
Decision:
Convicted for public order offence and interference with voting. Aggravating factor was premeditation and group coordination.
Sentence:
10 months imprisonment, partially suspended; community service ordered.
Lesson:
Organized obstruction of voting is a severe form of election violence.
Case 6: KKO 2020:15 – Threats via Social Media to Influence Votes
Facts:
Individual posted threatening messages on social media, suggesting consequences for supporting a particular candidate.
Issue:
Digital threats aimed at voters and candidates.
Decision:
Supreme Court confirmed election-related threats are punishable under criminal code. Digital platforms do not provide immunity.
Sentence:
3 months suspended imprisonment, fine.
Lesson:
Online threats are treated the same as in-person intimidation in the context of elections.
Case 7: Tampere District Court, 2021 – Harassment of Polling Staff
Facts:
Repeated verbal harassment and minor physical intimidation of polling staff during parliamentary elections.
Issue:
Ensuring the safety and neutrality of election staff.
Decision:
Convicted of harassment and interference with election duties.
Sentence:
Fine and temporary ban from political campaigning.
Lesson:
Courts protect election staff from intimidation; repeated harassment can lead to criminal liability even without serious injury.
Patterns and Lessons Across Cases
Threats and Intimidation Are Criminalized
Physical, verbal, or digital threats against voters or candidates violate both criminal and election law.
Election Staff and Volunteers Are Protected
Attacks, harassment, or obstruction targeting personnel are treated seriously.
Vandalism Counts as Election Violence
Destruction of campaign materials constitutes property damage and interference with electoral processes.
Group or Organized Activity Aggravates Offense
Coordinated actions, riots, or systematic obstruction increase severity and potential imprisonment.
Digital Platforms Are Not Exempt
Social media threats, online harassment, or intimidation are prosecuted equally.
Sentencing Range
Minor offenses: fines or suspended sentences
Aggravated cases: 6 months to 1 year, sometimes longer depending on physical harm or organized activity
RELATED Blog
comments