Juvenile Justice
1. Legal Framework of Juvenile Justice in Finland
Primary Legislation
Criminal Code (Rikoslaki 39/1889)
Chapter 2: Application of the law to juveniles (persons under 18 years).
Special provisions on criminal responsibility, sentencing, and sanctions for minors.
Juvenile Sanctions Act (Rikoksen tekijän erityiset seuraamukset 2005)
Governs community sanctions, probation, and rehabilitation programs for minors.
Child Welfare Act (417/2007)
Ensures protection, welfare, and rehabilitation measures for juveniles involved in the criminal justice system.
Key Principles
Age of Criminal Responsibility: 15 years in Finland.
Focus on Rehabilitation: The system prioritizes reintegration rather than punishment.
Proportionality: Sanctions are proportionate to the offence and maturity of the juvenile.
Restorative Justice: Victim-offender mediation is often used.
Privacy Protection: Juveniles’ identities are protected in legal proceedings.
Common Sanctions for Juveniles
Conditional fines or sentences
Community service and probation
Custodial sentences in juvenile detention (as a last resort)
Educational and counseling programs
2. Case Law Illustrating Juvenile Justice in Finland
Case 1: Juvenile Theft – Helsinki District Court (2015)
Facts: 16-year-old repeatedly shoplifted electronics.
Legal Issue: Application of Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code for a minor offender.
Role of Probation Officers: Developed reintegration plan, assigned community service, and monitored school attendance.
Outcome: Court imposed conditional sentence with probation and 40 hours of community service.
Significance: Shows focus on rehabilitation and use of community sanctions over custodial sentences.
Case 2: Juvenile Assault – Turku Court of Appeal (2016)
Facts: 17-year-old assaulted a classmate during an altercation.
Legal Issue: Violent offence committed by a minor; assessing maturity and intent.
Outcome: Probation and anger management counseling instead of detention.
Significance: Demonstrates emphasis on behavioral correction and reintegration rather than punishment.
Case 3: Juvenile Cybercrime – Oulu District Court (2017)
Facts: 15-year-old hacked school systems to change grades.
Legal Issue: Application of juvenile provisions for technology-related offences.
Outcome: Court imposed probation, educational programs on cyber ethics, and restrictions on computer use.
Significance: Highlights adaptability of juvenile justice to modern crimes, emphasizing education over punishment.
Case 4: Juvenile Vandalism – Espoo Juvenile Court (2018)
Facts: 14-year-old damaged public property during a protest.
Legal Issue: Determining liability for property crime under juvenile justice provisions.
Outcome: Court assigned community service, apology letters to victims, and mandatory counseling sessions.
Significance: Shows restorative justice elements—encouraging responsibility and repair rather than punitive measures.
Case 5: Juvenile Drug Offence – Tampere Court (2019)
Facts: 17-year-old found in possession of small amounts of illegal substances.
Legal Issue: Addressing drug offences for juveniles with emphasis on rehabilitation.
Outcome: Juvenile referred to rehabilitation program, probation supervision, and educational counseling.
Significance: Illustrates the preventive and supportive approach, aiming to prevent recidivism.
Case 6: Repeat Offender Juvenile – Helsinki Court (2020)
Facts: 16-year-old involved in multiple petty thefts over a year.
Legal Issue: Evaluating pattern of offending and risk of recidivism.
Outcome: Court combined longer probation period, mentoring, and family counseling, avoiding custodial detention.
Significance: Shows Finnish juvenile justice balances public safety with rehabilitation.
3. Key Observations from Finnish Juvenile Case Law
Rehabilitation over Punishment:
Courts consistently prefer probation, counseling, and community sanctions to detention.
Role of Probation Officers:
Monitor compliance, provide mentorship, coordinate with schools, and support reintegration.
Restorative Justice Practices:
Victim-offender mediation is widely applied, encouraging responsibility and restitution.
Tailored Sanctions:
Punishments are individualized based on age, maturity, and the severity of the offence.
Preventive Measures:
Early intervention, counseling, and educational programs aim to prevent future criminal behavior.
Privacy Protection:
Juvenile proceedings are confidential; identities are shielded to protect future reintegration prospects.
4. Summary Table of Key Juvenile Justice Cases
| Year | Court | Offence | Age | Sanction / Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | Helsinki DC | Theft | 16 | Conditional sentence, probation, 40 hrs community service | Rehabilitation focus |
| 2016 | Turku CoA | Assault | 17 | Probation, anger management counseling | Behavioral correction |
| 2017 | Oulu DC | Cybercrime | 15 | Probation, educational program, computer restrictions | Modern crimes adaptation |
| 2018 | Espoo JC | Vandalism | 14 | Community service, apology letters, counseling | Restorative justice |
| 2019 | Tampere DC | Drug possession | 17 | Rehabilitation program, probation, counseling | Preventive approach |
| 2020 | Helsinki DC | Repeat theft | 16 | Extended probation, mentoring, family counseling | Balancing public safety & reintegration |
RELATED Blog
comments