Organised Crime & Crime Prevention - what works? - Scandinavian ...

NSfK´s 40. forskerseminar, Espoo, Finland 1998
in the choise of sanction for the most serious type of violent crime is used on recidivist
(Lappi-Seppälä 1987, 668. See also Jareborg 1992, 108-110). 6 This might well be in harmony
with the general prevention idea, but vital intrest of the society are nowhere to bee seen. 7
Efficient, just and humane criminal justice...
The following movements or tendencies can be discerned in Finnish crimal policy since the
1960´s;
a) critisism of so called treatment ideology
b) emphasis on cost-bemefit thinking
c) so-called neo-classicim in criminal law
d) pragmatic reform work by utilizing modified ideas of the above-mentioned movements
(Lahti 1990, 57).
The important difference between Finland and the other countries is that the treatment
ideology never established itself as the main reform ideology. Finland more or less jumped
over the treatment stage in the historical developement of penal reform ideologies and went
directly towards a more modern ideology, emphasizing rationality in the form of general
prevention and classic principles of justice, rather than mechanism of e.g. deterrence or
individual prevention (Anttila & Törnudd 1992, 12-13).
From the mid 70´s the Finnish criminal justice system has been reformed in a “neo-classical
spirit”. The emhasis has been, as mentioned - instead of individualization and rehabilitation -
on legal security and the principles of proportionality, predictability and equality. A general
preventive oriented sentencing system emhasizes fairness and justness of sanctions and in
sentensing the central values are proportionality, predictability and equality (Lappi-Seppälä
1992, 7-8). 8
Efficient criminal justice shall be used for the prevention of unacceptable bahavior only to the
extent proved necessary in a cost-effiency comparison of criminal policy measures (Lahti
1985, 259). In other words; criminal provision must bring about more advantages than
disadvantages to the society as a whole. The advantages beeing, of course, the preventive
effects from the point of view of the protected intrest, and the disadvantages (a) suffering of
the victim, (b) financial disadvantages to the state and (c) restriction of the liberties of
individuals (see Nuutila 1996, 311-312).
6 According to ch. 6:2 n. 4 of the Penal Code of Finland the following is a ground for increasing the punishment:
“the criminal history of the offender, if the relation between it and the new offence on the basis of the
similarity between the offenses or otherwise shows that the offender is apparently heedless of the prohibitions
and commands of law”.
7 Here I can not go in detail to discuss the culpability of the reoffender; agreement on whether repeated crime
signifies increased culpability has not been reached. In my opinion recidivism does not necessarely make the
offender more culpable.
8 These ideas are also expressed in the basic norm of sentencing (Penal Code ch 6:1): ‘When meting out a
punishment, all the relevant grounds increasing and decreasing the punishment and the uniformness of
sentencing practice shall be taken into consideration. The punishment shall be meted out so that it is in just
proportion to the damage and danger caused by the offence and to the culpability of the offender manifest in
the offence .’
160