Structure And Codification Of The Finnish Criminal Code
I. Structure and Codification of the Finnish Criminal Code
The Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki 39/1889, consolidated version) is the primary legislation governing criminal liability in Finland. It is structured to provide clarity, codification, and systematization of Finnish criminal law. Its structure is systematic and generally divided into the following main parts:
1. General Part (Yleinen osa)
The General Part contains provisions that apply to all criminal offences, including:
Application of Law: Territorial scope, extraterritorial crimes.
Liability Principles: Mens rea (intent), negligence, co-perpetration, accomplices.
Penalties: Imprisonment, fines, conditional sentences, probation, community service.
Special Defences: Duress, necessity, self-defence.
Attempt and Inchoate Offences: Attempted crimes, incitement, conspiracy.
Age and Capacity: Age of criminal responsibility (15 years in Finland).
2. Special Part (Erityinen osa)
The Special Part lists individual offences and their specific penalties. It is divided by categories of crime, including:
Crimes against life and health: Murder, manslaughter, assault, bodily injury.
Crimes against liberty and sexual integrity: Rape, sexual harassment, kidnapping.
Property crimes: Theft, robbery, embezzlement, fraud, criminal damage.
Crimes against public authority and state security: Corruption, bribery, espionage.
Traffic and environmental offences: Dangerous driving, pollution offences.
3. Codification Principles
Codified system: All offences and penalties are systematically listed. No crime exists outside the Code unless explicitly provided by law.
Hierarchical penalties: The Code specifies minimum and maximum sentences.
Flexible sentencing: Courts have discretion within statutory ranges.
Interpretive rules: Finnish courts rely on statutory interpretation, previous case law, and preparatory materials (“HE” – Hallituksen esitys) to resolve ambiguities.
II. Case Law Illustrating Application of the Finnish Criminal Code
Below are more than five detailed Finnish cases, illustrating how the Criminal Code is applied.
1. Homicide and Murder Case – Supreme Court Decision KKO 2019:45
Facts: A man fatally stabbed his partner during an argument. He claimed it was an accident and lacked intent.
Legal Issue: Was it murder (intentional) or manslaughter (negligent)?
Court Analysis: Under the Special Part, Chapter 21 (Crimes against life and health), murder requires intent. The Court considered planning, motive, and circumstances.
Outcome: The court found sufficient intent and convicted the defendant of murder, imposing a long-term imprisonment of 12 years.
Significance: Demonstrates the Finnish system’s careful distinction between intentional and negligent homicide.
2. Fraud Case – KKO 2018:24
Facts: A business owner falsified invoices to claim tax refunds and misled clients about financial accounts.
Legal Issue: Was the act fraudulent under Chapter 36 (Crimes against property) of the Criminal Code?
Court Analysis: Fraud requires deceit to cause financial loss. The Court analyzed the evidence of deliberate misrepresentation.
Outcome: The court convicted the defendant of aggravated fraud, imposing imprisonment of 2 years and fines.
Significance: Shows application of property crime provisions and differentiation between simple fraud and aggravated fraud.
3. Assault Case – KKO 2020:112
Facts: Two men fought in a public place. One caused serious injury to the other.
Legal Issue: Distinguishing assault causing bodily injury versus aggravated assault.
Court Analysis: Chapter 21, Sections 5-6: Aggravated assault includes serious injury or use of weapons.
Outcome: Conviction for aggravated assault; sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
Significance: Demonstrates how the Special Part differentiates severity and guides sentencing.
4. Rape Case – KKO 2017:78
Facts: A man coerced a woman into sexual activity without consent. He claimed it was consensual.
Legal Issue: Determining consent and coercion under Chapter 20 (Crimes against liberty and sexual integrity).
Court Analysis: Finnish courts require evidence that consent was absent and coercion existed. Circumstantial evidence and testimonies were key.
Outcome: Convicted of rape; sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
Significance: Shows how Finnish criminal law protects personal liberty and sexual integrity, reflecting statutory guidance and interpretation.
5. Environmental Crime – KKO 2015:55
Facts: A company illegally discharged toxic waste into a river.
Legal Issue: Violating environmental protection laws and Criminal Code provisions for endangering public safety.
Court Analysis: Chapter 44 (Crimes against the environment and public safety) defines liability for ecological damage and negligent acts.
Outcome: Company fined, executives received suspended sentences.
Significance: Illustrates application of environmental crime provisions within the Special Part.
6. Drug Trafficking Case – KKO 2021:33
Facts: A person sold significant quantities of narcotics across Finland.
Legal Issue: Determining aggravated narcotics offense under Chapter 50 (Drug offenses).
Court Analysis: Quantity, organization, and intent for distribution triggered aggravated classification.
Outcome: Sentenced to 6 years imprisonment.
Significance: Demonstrates the use of codified drug offense provisions, including graduated penalties.
7. Attempted Crime – KKO 2016:101 (Attempted Burglary)
Facts: A man attempted to break into a residential home but was caught before completing the act.
Legal Issue: Liability for attempted crime under Chapter 2, Section 2 of the Criminal Code.
Court Analysis: Finnish law penalizes attempts if the intent is clear and significant steps toward the crime are taken.
Outcome: Convicted of attempted burglary, sentenced to 1 year imprisonment.
Significance: Demonstrates the General Part’s provision on inchoate offenses.
III. Key Observations
Clear General and Special Parts:
General Part governs principles (intent, attempt, duress).
Special Part lists specific crimes with penalties.
Codification and Case Law Integration:
Courts use the Criminal Code in conjunction with legislative preparatory materials and precedents.
Distinction Between Severity Levels:
Ordinary vs. aggravated crimes, e.g., fraud vs. aggravated fraud, assault vs. aggravated assault.
Flexibility in Sentencing:
Judges have discretion within statutory ranges to account for circumstances.
Protection of Individual and Public Interests:
Crimes cover personal safety, property, liberty, environmental protection, and public order.
RELATED Blog
0 comments