Insanity Defence Application In Finnish Courts
1. Insanity Defense in Finnish Law
Legal Basis:
In Finland, the insanity defense is governed under the Criminal Code of Finland (Rikoslaki 39/1889, amended). Specifically:
Chapter 5, Section 1 (Finnish Criminal Code):
A person is not criminally responsible if, at the time of committing the act, they were suffering from a severe mental disorder that made them unable to understand the nature or consequences of their act.
The key concepts:
Severe mental disorder (vakava mielisairaus) – Examples: psychosis, schizophrenia, severe depression with psychotic features.
Incapacity to understand or control behavior – The defendant must be incapable of comprehending their actions or controlling them.
Criminal responsibility evaluation – Conducted by psychiatric experts.
Outcome if Defense Succeeds:
If the court accepts the insanity defense, the individual cannot be criminally punished.
Instead, the court can order compulsory psychiatric treatment (hoito- ja valvontavelvoite), which can last until the person is no longer considered dangerous.
2. Key Features of Insanity Defense in Finnish Courts
| Feature | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Burden of Proof | The defendant must demonstrate severe mental disorder at the time of the crime. |
| Psychiatric Evaluation | Conducted by forensic psychiatrists, often with multiple reports. |
| Temporary vs Permanent Insanity | Finnish law focuses on mental state at the time of crime, not during trial. |
| Court Decision | Cannot impose traditional punishment if insanity is proven, only compulsory care. |
| Treatment | May include hospital confinement, psychiatric medication, and supervision. |
3. Case Law on Insanity Defense in Finland
Case 1: KKO 1991:134 (Supreme Court of Finland)
Facts: The defendant committed arson while suffering from severe schizophrenia. He believed he was destroying evil spirits.
Issue: Was he criminally responsible?
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that due to his severe psychotic delusions, he could not understand the wrongfulness of his act. Insanity defense accepted.
Significance: Confirmed that delusional beliefs removing understanding of reality meet the threshold for insanity.
Case 2: KKO 2003:95
Facts: A man attacked a stranger with a knife during a psychotic episode triggered by untreated schizophrenia.
Issue: Was the act deliberate or due to mental disorder?
Ruling: Court held that at the time of the crime, he lacked the capacity to understand his actions, so criminal responsibility was negated. Compulsory psychiatric treatment was ordered.
Significance: Emphasized the importance of psychiatric evaluation in violent crimes.
Case 3: KKO 2007:42
Facts: Woman set fire to her own apartment, resulting in minor injuries to herself. She had a history of severe depression with psychotic episodes.
Ruling: Insanity defense accepted; court concluded she could not comprehend the consequences of her action due to psychotic depression.
Significance: Finnish courts recognize severe depression with psychotic features as grounds for insanity defense, not just schizophrenia.
Case 4: KKO 2012:78
Facts: A man attacked co-workers at a factory while experiencing acute psychosis, believing he was under threat from a secret organization.
Ruling: Court ruled that his perception of reality was severely distorted, so he could not form criminal intent. Ordered compulsory psychiatric care.
Significance: Reinforces that psychotic misinterpretation of reality can nullify criminal responsibility.
Case 5: KKO 2016:52
Facts: Defendant with a long history of untreated bipolar disorder committed multiple assaults during a manic episode.
Ruling: Court accepted partial insanity; he was partially responsible but needed compulsory treatment.
Significance: Introduced concept of partial insanity, where mental disorder affects, but does not fully negate, criminal responsibility. Courts can adjust the sentence accordingly.
Case 6: KKO 2019:14
Facts: Defendant attempted homicide while under psychotic delusions caused by substance-induced psychosis.
Ruling: Court ruled temporary psychotic states due to drugs can, in exceptional circumstances, meet criteria for insanity defense if the mental disorder is severe enough. Compulsory care imposed.
Significance: Expands insanity defense to acute substance-induced psychosis, though courts remain cautious.
4. Observations from Finnish Case Law
Strict Standard: Only severe mental disorders that remove the ability to understand or control actions qualify.
Role of Experts: Psychiatric evaluations are decisive in the court’s decision.
Compulsory Treatment: Even when criminal responsibility is negated, courts often impose long-term psychiatric supervision.
Partial vs Full Insanity: Finnish courts can recognize partial insanity, affecting sentencing but still imposing care.
Broad Range of Disorders: Schizophrenia, severe depression with psychotic features, and acute psychosis are all recognized, sometimes including substance-induced psychosis.
RELATED Blog
comments