Rights Of Mentally Ill Offenders In Finland
Rights of Mentally Ill Offenders in Finland: Case Law
1. X v. Finland (European Court of Human Rights, 2012)
Facts:
A woman (“X”) was detained for criminal proceedings and transferred to a psychiatric institution for evaluation.
Doctors diagnosed her with a delusional disorder and she was placed under involuntary psychiatric care, including forced medication.
She challenged her detention and forced treatment under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Legal Reasoning:
Article 5 (Right to liberty) protects against arbitrary detention.
Article 8 (Right to private life) includes protection against forced medical treatment.
The European Court of Human Rights held that while her detention was lawful, the forced administration of medication lacked sufficient legal safeguards.
Rights Implications:
Mentally ill offenders have the right not only to challenge detention but also to judicial oversight over treatment.
Involuntary treatment must be prescribed by law and include procedural protections.
2. Ernst Tandefelt Case (1922)
Facts:
Ernst Tandefelt assassinated Finnish Minister Heikki Ritavuori.
Initial sentence: life imprisonment with hard labor.
Legal Reasoning:
Forensic evaluation determined he was partially insane at the time of the act.
Sentence reduced to 12 years to account for diminished responsibility.
Rights Implications:
Demonstrates early recognition of mental disorder affecting criminal responsibility.
Establishes the principle of proportionate sentencing based on mental state.
3. Imatra Shooting – Jori Juhani Lasonen (2016)
Facts:
Lasonen shot and killed three women in Imatra.
Psychiatric evaluation concluded he was not criminally responsible due to severe mental illness.
Legal Reasoning:
Under Finnish Criminal Code, persons lacking criminal responsibility are not imprisoned but placed in involuntary psychiatric care.
Compensation to victims’ families was still ordered.
Rights Implications:
Highlights that even serious violent offenders are treated with a medical, not punitive, approach.
Ensures protection of society while respecting the offender’s rights to treatment rather than prison.
4. Oulu Child Murders – Kaisa Vornanen-Karaduman
Facts:
Charged with murdering several of her infants.
Psychiatric evaluation diagnosed a mixed personality disorder.
Legal Reasoning:
Found criminally responsible, though mental disorder was considered.
Initial sentence: life imprisonment; reduced on appeal to 13 years.
Rights Implications:
Not all mental disorders absolve responsibility; partial impairment may influence sentencing.
Balances offender rights with public safety and justice for victims.
5. Mentally Ill Intellectual Disability Case (Register Study 1990–2015)
Facts:
178 offenders with intellectual disability underwent forensic psychiatric examination.
Assessment determined: 40% had no criminal responsibility, 49% diminished, 11% full.
Legal Reasoning:
Courts committed those with no responsibility to involuntary psychiatric care.
Decisions were individualized based on diagnosis and risk.
Rights Implications:
Shows Finland respects individualized assessment, protecting rights of vulnerable offenders.
Reinforces principle: mental disorder + diminished capacity = alternative to incarceration.
6. Historical Case – Forensic Commitment of a Psychotic Offender (1970s)
Facts:
A man committed arson while in a psychotic state.
Psychiatric assessment determined no criminal responsibility.
Legal Reasoning:
Court ordered long-term forensic psychiatric care instead of prison.
Periodic review of treatment and risk required by law.
Rights Implications:
Emphasizes the right to treatment instead of punitive detention.
Demonstrates Finnish system’s early adoption of periodic judicial review to protect patient rights.
7. Case of Repeat Violent Offender with Schizophrenia (2005)
Facts:
Male offender with schizophrenia assaulted multiple people over several years.
Psychiatric evaluation assessed diminished responsibility.
Legal Reasoning:
Sentence reduced; offender placed under long-term involuntary psychiatric care.
Court balanced need for public safety with rehabilitative approach.
Rights Implications:
Highlights procedural rights: the offender’s diagnosis directly impacted sentencing and type of confinement.
Shows commitment to rehabilitation and treatment rather than mere punishment.
Summary of Key Principles from Cases
| Principle | How Applied in Cases |
|---|---|
| Criminal Responsibility | No responsibility → involuntary care; partial → reduced sentence; full → regular sentencing |
| Right to Treatment | Involuntary psychiatric care provided instead of prison for those lacking responsibility |
| Judicial Oversight | Periodic review required; offenders can appeal detention or treatment |
| Procedural Protections | Multidisciplinary assessment ensures fair determination of responsibility and treatment needs |
| Balancing Rights and Public Safety | Serious crimes still trigger risk assessment and protective measures, but offender rights remain central |
RELATED Blog
comments