Latest of law and punishment in Finland

Remove all ads!

Gods. I would have already shot them.

Oh well.

That's why I want to learn to protect myself, even if I have no intentions of walking around at midnight in dark places (heh). But you'll never know.

And I think that age shouldn't matter. Under eightteen and kill a man, you get the same penalty, as your were over eightteen and killed a man.

Sad to see something like that happening in a country, what I thought to be one of the safest I've ever known.

 

Out of interest, what are the maximum sentences in FInland for Murder and Manslaughter?

I assume they were charged with manslaughter in this case, though for me I think murder would have been more appropriate. I assume murder carries some sort of minimum sentence, which again I would have thought was longer than 2 1/2 years.

In Norway manslaughter would be 6-15 years depending, with a maximum of 21 years for murder.

Now there IS a third category wich is effectively negligence, where there was no intention to kill and it could not be seen as a logical outcome of one's actions. for that 3 years is the standard maximum sentence, though in certain circumstances this can be increased to 6 years. Gross negligence presumably.

For anyone under 18 though, I'm sure the courts take a more lenient view, though the 18 year old should most certainly have been jailed for longer in my view.

Compare this to the UK..... They would almost certainly have been charged with murder, though aggravated manslaughter may have been an option. Murder is mandatory life in the UK, though life does not mean for the rest of your life. Avg would be something like 12-15 years inside.

Weird that in a country where life is the only sentence available in a murder case, the following is available in the case of manslaughter:

The 1997 act mentioned does make life mandatory for offenders who have previously been convicted of serious offences (no definition given), other than that any custodial sentence is completely at the court's discretion.

In any event, the Finnish law does appear lenient if the sentences are in line with what would normally be given in such cases. I can accept manslaughter rather than murder, but somewhere in the region of 5-10 years would seem more suitable.

 

From the base of the article I do not consider that as a murder and I think Fora's transelations is a bit one sided here. And yes the accusions were from manslaugther, the reason for the light sentence is that they had no criminal background.

Oh yeah, and the stories they tell in the newspapers never reveal everything that was handeled within the court and therefore it is difficult to know all the circumstances in this crime.

[ September 01, 2003, 17:25: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

 

How one-sided can it be when I said every single fact involved in it? Trying not to take this as offensive, but "one sided" has a "lying" ring to it, and that I did not do. Certainly my text was written in a negative state of mind but then I'm not a journalist so I can display my hatred of sadistic murderers as much as I want.

And yes, they were accused of manslaughter, not murder. Here murder is the same as systematically planning to kill another. No event that leads to the death of a human even if the killer did this on purpose at the time, that cannot be proven planned beforehand, is murder. I believe Finnish maximum sentence is still 12 years as it was before. Very, very few have ever had to stay inside that long. I also believe that's the maximum sentence for any amount of crimes combined, though I can't say for sure. I do know however that if you spend over 10 years in jail, you've a good chance to go to a mental facility afterwards. So in reality the time between being convicted and being set free again can of course be anything from those 12 years to eternity.

 

That is not true! If someone is believed to be dangerous for society when their sentence expires they can be kept in mental hospitals (didn't come up with a better word). Besides renewing crimes are extremely rare here especially in murder cases.

And yes you did lie a little bit in your transelation. For example you said that they kicked the man while the article clearly stated that no evidence of kicking was found. But for the most part I meant your negative way of transelating the article.

 

Such a crime getting such a sentence is abhorrent. I am in agreement with those who state that such people are not redeemable in this world. Perhaps God has a method for so doing in the next life, but as for here and now, a society that lets people who have done such things back onto the street is a sick one indeed. I say isolation for these creeps. Provide them a warm cell with a shower and toilet, slide some bread through a slot 3 times a day, and let them live out the rest of their lives completely alone.

 

Let me quote myself here:

But yes, you're right. Now that I read the article again it was indeed never proven wether they actually kicked him or not, it was just what the proscecutor said. What remains a fact though is everything else. And my quote above speaks of the courts decision where they found it irrelevant wether his ribs were broken because of kicking, or trying to revive him. But I do admit, actual kicking for what it's worth, was never proven to be a part of it. I'll not admit to lying though, instead I'll admit to misinterpretation, no matter how ashamed of it I might be. Be proud.

 

Indeed? Well here in Finland it has shown that they (surprise surprise) really are redeemable and get on with a new life without crime. Sure some renew their crimes, but those are very few and we can not condemn all the criminals if one criminal ain't redeemable.

But anyway in Canada and in the US and in other countries things might be done differently but here things are done like this and I completely agree how it is done because it works.

 

If I might step into the discussion, I would like to say that it seems to me that positions on this topic are getting crystallized; which IMHO is a very bad thing in this case, since there is no obviously true answer. I mean, I would be surprised if someone here would believe that each and any law made by man is perfect and deals the right amount of punishment.
Some folks believe that most people will redeem from their crimes (those people often use the word "mistakes" instead) and therefore advocate light punishment, mostly of the educative kind. Others believe that most criminals (in this particular case, guilty of the most atrocious acts) are beyond redemption and therefore are in favour of long, harsh sentences, which also have a (supposedly) deterrent effect. None of the two systems are foolproof, and each of them will be unfair in some cases.


...and I am not stating what I think on purpose.

 

I know that the deterrent effect is an iffy proposition -- increasing the severity of punishment often doesn't act as a detterent because criminals do not engage in crime expecting to get caught. But the prohibitive nature of severe punishment is not disputable -- a person in solitary confinement cannot attack people in their homes or on the street. And a dead criminal cannot ever hurt anyone again.