Latest of law and punishment in Finland

Remove all ads!

http://kotisivu.dnainternet.net/tapiok/vakivalta3.jpg

It's a Finnish link, for the Finnish viewers.

Short description of what happened in English, follows:

Two young men broke into an 76-yearold elderly man's household to steal money and alcohol. They pulled the man from his bed and among the general beating and kicking, stood on his ankles with their full weight effectively incapacitating them, burned his hair, undressed him and stuck up a booze-bottle in his rectum with enough force to cause major blood-loss. He suffered massive injury and blood loss all over his body. Most notably his ribs were broken from both sides, shoulder dislocated, and his shoulderbone had buried deep into his chest muscle, and his limbs in general had suffered great damage. He had, of course, died as the result of this beating, and was found lying on the floor of his home the next morning. The 2 criminals who did this were caught soon after.

Sentence? The younger, 16-yearold, got sentenced for 2 years and 3 months. The older man, 18-yearold, was sentenced for 3 years and 6 months. Jail penalty.

Now I ask you, was justice served? Would you feel it was right to let such people walk among us other good and law-abiding citizens in 3 years of average? Even if this was their first life-crime, do you believe they can be trusted to live according to the laws in the future?

I don't. This is probably the most extreme example of how little you can really rely on law and punishment. I do not feel safe walking around when I know such people are there. And just knowing that such people are out there, legally, is what forces me to be able to commit the same deeds they do merely to be able to defend myself when the situation arises. Sick, I tell you.

 

*hides in a corner*

I feel ashamed of being a FInn right now.

 

Well on the base of that article I can say that the 18-year old should have gotten atleast five years in prison while the younger one's sentence is pretty much what it should be. The deed was indeed cruel but I really don't think a much higher sentence would serve any purpose.

 

I believe the man would get a longer term if he inflicted major injury in self-defence.

This crap happens here in Poland a lot. You are also barred from using more potent means in self-defence than the assailant uses on you. Fists to fists, even if your attacker has been spending whole his loot on gym and anabolics. Being it so, I carry a 10'' wrench with me and I fully intend to use it illegally whenever I am attacked. This wrench succeeded from my previous self-made accessory that I am not going to mention here in order not to corrupt minors

As for those two criminals, it's possible that they can be returned to the society, even if the probability of it is hardly significant. Still, they've got four times too short a term for my liking - even taking in consideration the rules of today's legal systems. From my own, very personal point of view, they are murderers as guilty as those who commit aforethought murder. This is because of their complete disregard for the victim. If it depended on me, each would spend ten years in a quarry or similar place and the older one would get a special bonus. For both life-long ban from alcohol, medical or religious use excepted. Complete ban so far as any weapons or dangerous tools are concerned. Strict observation and reporting to police officers life-long.

[ August 28, 2003, 19:44: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

What a nice country I find myself in...
As I still cannot read finnish I have to ask this: is there any sort of mitigating circumstance involved here ? And I mean from the point of view of the law, not mine. For me, what they did has no excuse, and they should get much more jail time than that.
Cannot really judge the system here, but I tend to believe the sentence has been so short because of a perceived chance of redemption.

I would like to add one more thing, although slightly off topic: I feel safe in this soon-to-be-frozen country. Let not this one episode lead you to believe that Finland is a dangerous place.
Just thought I owned this one to my country of adoption

 

The penalty does seem light. However, as Kralizek suggests, perhaps there were other factors. For example, they were looking for booze. Maybe they were already drunk or high on drugs. Not that I agree with it, but in Canada, that excuse would likely mean they could successfully argue that their judgement was impaired, and so they could get away with a lesser manslaughter charge. (Although personnaly I find it ridiculous to think that one's judgement could be so impaired that they wouldn't realise this kind of thing was wrong.)

 

The article doesn't mention anything about them being under the effect of any sort of mind-affecting drugs. Which of course doesn't mean that it wasn't the case, but usually such things get mentioned. The only two alleviating factors that I can think of, is the fact that it was their first life-crime (if any, as there is no mention of previous crime record whatsoever), and that they claimed they didn't mean to kill him. The latter goes beyond me, and even though in their defence they claimed the ribs were broken because they tried to keep him alive with recusciation (now I know I didn't spell that right), the court decided against them on that, saying that their beating was what led to his death anyway so the possible recusciation wouldn't change much.

Chev: Precisely. Although the physical power is relative so that if the other is obviously bigger and stronger than you (or more capable, which you can use against them if you know they've experience of combat sports or suchlike), you may use compensating means to bring your own offensive capabilities on level with his. Still, I've some experience with such cases and I can say it really is true that the laws are made for the society, not for the individual. So I agree wholeheartedly with you about making sure you're not walking around emptyhanded. If ever you get attacked by a criminal, you're in crap no matter which way you look at it. Either he's gonna beat you to pulp in which case the consequences to you are obvious. Or you're doing the same to him, and end up suffering anyway thanks to the law. Personally, I choose the latter option.

 

Depends in what law, depends on the judge, depends on his lawyer.

Anyway, while I believe that vengeance she be prevented strictly so far as self-defence goes, the idea of the assault party keeping his capabilities on level with the assailant is just wrong. Anything less than life or limb loss on the part of the assailant doesn't count at all if opposed to any good or interest of the attacked party, no matter if lower in rank, IMHO. That is, it's better for the attacker to have both his hands broken that for the victim to bleed, feel pain and have bruises. The bandit knows what he's doing when he unlawfully attacks an innocent person in the first place. Of course, I wouldn't massacre the idiot too much if it were at all avoidable, but I'd rather make a bloody pulp of him than have a woman even touched by him. Same to kids, old people, etc. More even: the attacked party's winning of the fight is more important than anything less than the attacker's life or limb preservation, even if he's going to live with a lesser mutilation just because the attacked won't lose the fight. And now, they bandits get ridiculously short prison terms for homicide that in fact is murder (not that the law necessarily agrees here). And what if they 'only' mutilate you? Self-defence abuse charges are far more serious. Especially here in Poland. I know of people who just undergo the beating without a word and come back with friends the next day. Far safer for you.

 

That's horrible!

Just a couple years for that crime! Just remember the old American belief: "if the state fails to uphold justice, the duty falls to the people."

When these guys get out of prison, make their lifes end very quickly!

 

Blackhawk I really hope you aren't serious... You suggest that someone ruins his own life just to kill someone who was sentenced too lightly? People should never ever take justice in to their own hands. That is called anarchy and anarchy in every form is bad.

 

It only ruins someone's life if the prosecutors can find a jury to convict. I know I would never be able to convict.

 

I'm in agreement with Chevalier. Although they were probably redeemable, they should have had a much stronger life sentence. And I also agree about the self-defence of the victim -- wholeheartedly. (Just as an American who has nothing to do with this)

Oh yeah, and I don't believe they should be killed when they get out just because their sentence was too light (hello, fault of the judge and law, not them. Their crime was murder)

But to Morgoroth, it's called being a vigilante (taking the law into one's own hands isn't considered anarchy but being a vigilante) And I actually don't believe vigilantes are completely in the wrong, provided that they don't go overboard. Killing the boys when they got out of prison would be overboard. But if for example, someone had walked in while they were beating the old man up and prevented them from killing him but in doing so "hurt them"; that would be vigilante-ism and the person would probably still get in trouble for it. Which is sick and pathetic of society. --Needs to be fixed, people should be able to do that without getting in trouble.

 

@Chevalier:

You should use only the necessary means to disable the attacker (that's to say, no beating him to pulp if he's disarmed and disabled before that, even if he did it to another just before you). While that might come as obvious, the most common example of the relative strength is that if you have a situation where a typical man attacks a typical woman, the woman could and in fact should use more than her hands to defend herself, as in a common brawn to brawn fight she'd be at a clear disadvantage. This is not the case when a man is attacked by another man, unless the other is significantly stronger than the other.

"I know of people who just undergo the beating without a word and come back with friends the next day. Far safer for you."

As I said at #sorcerers, there was a case a few years back here in Finland where a bypasser noticed a man trying to rape a woman in an alley off somewhere. He interrupted and hit the rapist in the face. Later when the case was judged, the preliminary decision was to accuse the savior of assaulting the rapist. When this information reached the media, the confusion and anger that spread to the Finnish created an incredible outburst. People asked, rightfully so, how anyone could be expected to help anyone anymore if the law that was there protect you would in fact make you suffer for doing the right thing. How the law itself encouraged you to overlook crimes instead of doing your duty and trying to help prevent them. In the end, the man who saved the woman was freed of charges (or at least his verdict was changed to nothing more than a minor inconvenience, don't remember which).

When it gets to the point where you can't protect yourself, or those around you, then it's obvious that the law is no longer to be respected.

@ Morgoroth:

Precisely, to ruin one's life for a criminal. That's a sacrifice, a noble one. To me it speaks of dedication that is to be admired.

As I've said before, I consider myself Chaotic Good. The way of law and society is not always good, and not always right. There are certain boundaries in life that do not know compromises. They are away, hidden, and make no appearance in normal life whatsoever. But when these boundaries are crossed, everything else in life loses its meaning. If ever someone whom I truly loved were killed, raped, or otherwise offended in a manner that required justice, and the law would be unable to touch the offender, then the duty of doing so would fall to me. I am quite ready and capable of killing a person when I know that it's the only right thing to do. It's the least I would owe those people.

If light punishments such as the one in the topic were to be continuously given here in Finland, there would become a day when someone would gather every piece of information of every such criminal, and wait until they got out of their jails to exact true justice upon them. Each and every one, one by one, until he got caught. And he'd be doing so with my consent, for he would be doing the right thing. The only thing he could have done to make the world a better place to live in.

 

Comes as obvious and is just what I said

According to the law, at least in theory, that is so. However, I disagree with putting my capabilities on equal level with the attacker before defending myself. If I engage in the defence of anyone or anything, I want to win in the first place and my aim is good, right, just and lawful and the other guy's is not, in the first place. While taking a crowbar and rushing on an adolescent thug falls under unnecessary violence, I see no problem in taking it for intimidation and safeguarding purposes (no idea what he has in his pockets or how close his friends are, you know) in this case, or in taking and using it against a man of roughly equal strength. I don't want a tie or a 50/50 random outcome. I want to defend the victim, the good in danger, or myself. Maybe I study law at the university and maybe I'm going to work as a lawyer in future, but the first idiot to hit me will kiss Mother Earth and the first unrestrained idiot to touch my girl will eat my punch.

Evil meet wrench, wrench meet evil!


As to the man who defended a woman from rape: wouldn't he face a charge if he hadn't helped her? IMHO even if the case be allowed in the court if the rapist sued the man (though never initiated ex officio, for goodness's sake!), the man should be acquitted and not just set free without punishment for what essentially was a crime. The court should also officially and beyond any doubt support his conduct. He deserves a medal. The rapist deserves an additional libel charge if he claimed downright assault.

Heh, perhaps I should never become a lawyer. My ideas are apprently quite different to those of the legislators.

While what he says sounds a bit like lynching, you must understand that in American system, the state is the emanation of people. Politicans and state clerks are public workers, their employers being the citizens of the state. So if an American court issues a sentence, justices is in a way served by American people. While foregoing courts leads to anarchy and, sooner or later, outright witchhunt, the idea isn't as odd as it seems. The matter is that the people have the right to administer justice, not a particular citizen. This is because in democracy there's no private jurisdiction and thus no citizen has any jurisdiction over another. However, if the group in question is representative for the people of a region, then that's a different matter. Even though still illegal, that's almost exactly the same way legal, lawful authorities work.

[ August 29, 2003, 14:04: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Agreed. If someone attacks me with a needle (possible AIDS, or possibly nothing of danger), I will treat that someone as the worts threat possible. Meaning, if I had a gun, I would shoot him rather than go close quarters. No matter what the consequences. Of course I'd aim for the legs but at least in Finland it wouldn't make much difference, using a firearm here is very much a crime in any circumstances.

And if someone tries to get into a fistfight with me and I see a baseball cap right next to me, there's no doubt as to wether I wouldn't use the baseball cap or not.

 

The judgment of the masses may be wrong, in fact it has a bigger chance of being wrong than the sentence of a court. IMO people do not have any right to judge other people outside of national law

Here in Finland we do not have any death penalty so if anyone here is murderd in any form and for any reason it is wrong and the one responsible should be punished. Indeed the sentences here are low, but the crimerates are not very high either. I see no reason in punishing criminals too severly just to make them suffer, it simply doesn't seem ethically right to me.

 

Baseball cap? Perhaps you mean baseball bat? Here a cap is a type of hat and I can't imagine that it would be very helpful in a fist fight.

Oh and you can sometimes make a citizen's arrest in America, the problem is doing it without major use of force. For instance, I have a friend who's a third degree blackbelt in Tae Kwon Do, he has to carry around a license with him at all times and if he sees a robbery taking place he's not technically supposed to rush up and use any TKD to stop them. If he can stop them without TKD, that's fine then but if he uses any martial arts then the robber could sue him. And I'd like to say that a jury would never allow the lawsuit to follow through but given the nature of American lawsuits.... (Coffee woman anyone?)

Edit: Taw Kwon Do to Tae Kwon Do, thanks for pointing that out Forasdathar, I made a typo

[ August 30, 2003, 16:22: Message edited by: Silverwolf86 ]

 

(coffee and woman for me )

I believe the possibility of the culprit sueing anyone for anything done to stop him (vengeance or 'punishment' excluded) should be disabled. It's a disgrace to everything law stands for that a robber might sue you for using martial techniques to stop him. Does no one care what he was doing there in the first place? I feel sick when I read or hear of such suits being accepted in a court. Isn't it a citizen's duty to defend a fellow citizen from unlawful assault whenever possible?

 

I just don't understand how anyone can think such people are redeemable. When you've indulged a desire to be so physically cruel to another human being, you demonstrate that you are totally unfit to live in human society. If anything a prison term would make them worse, not better, because of the kinds of company they'll keep in prison. I would not want these people on the streets ever again.

I don't think vigilantism is a good idea because it eliminates the blindness of justice, but it makes me very angry that governments systematically eliminate citizens' rights to defend themselves through the kinds of anti-self-defence judgements spoken of here (as well as through overly stringent gun control) and then fail their citizens this badly. If the government wants no one but the police force to be equipped and empowered to fight crime, then there had bloody well be a beat cop patrolling every street in the city so that ordinary citizens don't have to shoot housebreakers or punch would-be rapists.

 

Sorry Silverwolf86, but I just have to say this: *Taw* Kwon Do? It's Tae Kwon Do.

As far as baseball whatever goes, it's hard for me as a Finn to say which fits better after "baseball", a hat, or a flying leathery rodent. In this case you're right, it was the flying leathery rodent.

Personally I think that as soon as anyone commits a crime, they make themselves open for any sort of attack against them. Wether that was to defend against the crime, or just simply because the crime gave another the opportunity, makes no difference to me. The only reason I don't think that's a good idea to be used nation-wide, is because there are people who would abuse it. "Legalized crimes", if you know what I mean. Basically, because I know I can trust myself, I also know that I in fact *can* do just that and take the justice into my own hands. But I still have enough brainmass left to tell me that the rest of the society might not agree. Anyone, who ever even as much as hits someone without a reason (and yes, mental pain and torture on the other's part is definitely a reason), should be shot on sight. I don't do that, none of my good friends whom I know to be good people don't do that. So the only people who do, are things that shouldn't exist anyway.

But, that's just my own very personal opinion that has no place in the world.