Criminal policy and sanctions in the 2020s and onwards
Determinants of penal culture in Finland during the last 150 years
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11617674 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Raimo Lahti (0000-0003-1005-7652, University of Helsinki, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Issue | XLV/2 |
| Pages | 67–83-67–83 |
| Publication date | 2023-12-27 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Archiwum Kryminologii (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2719-4280 • E-ISSN: 0066-6890 |
| Publisher | Polish Scientific Publishers PWN (PUBLISHER • PL) |
| DOI | 10.7420/ak2023.06 |
| OpenAlex | W4401168545 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 18 |
This article provides a fragmentary overview of the developments of criminal law and criminal policy in Finland during the last 150 years. It reflects the author’s experiences as a criminal scientist and an expert in drafting criminal legislation over 50 years. This review uses the conclusions from Cesare Beccaria’s classic, centuries-old book as its starting point: a punishment may not be an act of violence, but should be public, immediate, necessary, as minimal as the case allows, proportional to the crime, and determined by law. The Finnish Penal Code of 1889 was originally thoroughly permeated by both the principles and the spirit of the classical school of penal law, wherein punishment was primarily regarded as retribution for an offence and the penal system was therefore tolerably harmonious with the demands of general deterrence. More weight was given to individual prevention when the Code was first drafted. Later on, the influence of the sociological school of penal law, which focused on the offender and individualized criminal sanctions, led to partial reforms of the penal system, such as the enactment of the Conditional Sentences Act of 1918, the Dangerous Recidivists Act of 1932, and the Young Offenders Act of 1940. The day fine system of 1921 and the fluctuations in the ideology regarding indeterminate penal sanctions are analyzed. The total reform of the Penal Code between 1972 and 2003 aimed to create a more rational penal system – one designed for efficient, just, and humane criminal justice. An ambitious attempt was made in as uniform and systematic a way as possible to assess the goals, interests, and values that the new Criminal Code should promote and protect. The existence of the criminal justice system was justified on utilitarian grounds. The structure and operation of a penal system, however, cannot be founded solely on the basis of utility; the criteria of justice and humaneness must also be applied. The penal system must be rational in regard to both its goals (utility) and its values (justice and humaneness). The developments since the 1990s have been characterized by the influence of human rights and basic rights on both criminal and procedural law, as well as by the effects of internationalizing and Europeanizing the criminal justice system. The latter tendencies have resulted in the diversification of criminal law
Criminal Code · Criminal justice · Criminal law · Criminal procedure · Criminology · Deterrence (psychology · Economic Justice · Ideology · Legislation · Political science · Politics · Punishment (psychology · Retributive justice · Sanctions · Sociology · Theory of criminal justice · Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis · Criminal Law and Evidence · Law · Psychology · Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
| Citations per year | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2026 - 2026 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |