Towards a more efficient, fair and humane criminal justice system: Developments of criminal policy and criminal sanctions during the last 50 years in Finland

Abstract

This article provides an overview of the developments of criminal law and criminal sanctions during the last 50 years in Finland. It reflects the author’s experience as a criminal scientist and an expert in drafting criminal legislation during this period. The total reform if Penal Code in 1972–2003 was aimed at a more rational penal system, i.e. for efficient, just and humane criminal justice. An ambitious attempt was made to assess in a uniform and systematic way the goals, interests and values which the new Criminal Code should promote and protect. The existence of the criminal justice system was justified using utilitarian arguments. The structure and operation of the penal system cannot, however, be determined solely on the basis of its utility. The criteria of justice and humanness must also be taking into account. The penal system must be both rational as to its goals (utility) and rational as to its values (justice, humaneness). The latest developments since the 1990s are characterized by the influence of the human and basic rights on criminal and procedural law as well as the effects of internationalization and Europeanization of criminal justice system. Criminal scientists in Finland and elsewhere in Scandinavia should strive more actively to influence European and global criminal policy. It is typical of “Nordic model” that the role of crime prevention is particularly accentuated, specific criteria of rationality such as legitimacy and humaneness are widely applied, and the value of repression in criminal sanctions is relatively low.

Keywords:

• criminal justice system
• criminal policy
• criminal sanctions
• Penal Code reform
• Finland

Public Interest Statement

The article examines the developments of criminal policy and criminal sanctions in Finland, a small Scandinavian country, during the last 50 years. It describes a Nordic model for dealing with crime and criminal justice issues. The main findings can be summarized into three points. Firstly, a coherent and consistent legislative strategy, which is based on research and rational reasoning, has proved to be successful in striving for a more efficient, fair and humane criminal justice system. Secondly, the development of criminal policy must be assessed in the light of simultaneous structural (social, political and economic) and cultural changes. Thirdly, a strengthened interaction between different criminal policy models in the European and global level is to be recognized when addressing transnational crime. Positive experiences from a sub-regional, Nordic model should be accessible for consideration regionally and globally; therefore, it is advisable that this model would have an influence on the development of European Union’s and United Nations’ criminal policy.

Notes

1. As to the comprehensive reform of Finnish criminal law, see generally Lahti and Nuotio (1992) and Lahti (1993). An unofficial translation of the Finnish Penal Code, as amended up to 766/2015, is available from the website of the Ministry of Justice: http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1889/en18890039.pdf.

2. See also more detailed reviews: Lahti (1985a, 1998, 2000, 2012, 2013, 2016). Two comprehensive accounts of the Finnish and Scandinavian criminal justice systems are Tonry and Lappi-Seppälä (2011) and Bondeson (2005). As to the Finnish legal system in particular, see Nuotio, Melander, and Huomo-Kettunen (2012).

3. As to this distinction originally, see Lahti (1985a, pp. 63–69, 1985b, pp. 884–885).

4. See also generally Anttila (2001), passim, and Törnudd (1996), passim.

5. On mediation in criminal cases in Finland, see Iivari (1992, 2010).

6. The Act is replaced by a new Act on the Determination of Fine and Penal Fee, 754/2010.

7. The Act is replaced by a new Competition Act, 948/2011.

8. At first, the sanction was introduced on an experimental basis, Act 1058/1996. For a general review of youth justice in Finland and other Nordic countries, see Lappi-Seppälä (2011b).

9. In more detail, see Lappi-Seppälä (2010).

10. As to the situation in the Nordic countries, see von Hofer, Lappi-Seppälä, and Westfelt (2012).

11. As to the public’s views on punishment in Scandinavia, see Balvig, Gunnlaugsson, Jerre, Tham, and Kinnunen (2015).

12. As to the role of the UN in criminal policy, see especially Redo (2012).

13. In more detail, see Lahti (2016) and, generally, Melander and Suominen (2014) (the special issue of the Effectiveness of EU Criminal Law).

Additional information

Funding

Funding. The author received no direct funding for this research.

Notes on contributors

Raimo Lahti

Raimo Lahti is professor of Criminal Law at the University of Helsinki, Finland, chair in 1979–2014, emeritus since 2014. He received his LL.M. (1966), LL.Lic. (1967), M.Soc.Sc. (1971) and LL.D. (1974) from the University of Helsinki. He was professor of Criminal Law, University of Turku, in 1976–1979, and he was Visiting Scholar, University of Wisconsin-Madison (USA) in 1983, and Kansai University, Osaka (Japan) in 2014. Professor Lahti was a member of the Task Force on the Finnish Criminal Code Reform in 1980–1999. He was Member of the Scandinavian Research Council for Criminology in 1983–2000. He is vice-president of the Board of Directors of the International Association of Penal Law (AIDP) since 1994. Professor Lahti was elected as ad litem Judge to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) by the United Nations General Assembly, for 2005–2009. His recent research and publications have focused on comparative, Europeanised and internationalised criminal law and criminal policy.