We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 July 2014
Finland, along with the other Nordic or Scandinavian countries, belongs to the so-called civil law tradition. Countries following this tradition include Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. All of these nations are advanced, industrialized welfare states. The Nordic countries have pursued economic, social and cultural development along similar lines, and have cooperated intensively in legal and political matters.
Various means of Nordic cooperation have been developed since the Second World War, and these interstate activities have become even more diversified since the 1960s. The objectives and organs of cooperation between the States were laid down in a special treaty signed in 1962. The treaty covers cooperation in the legal, cultural, social and economic spheres as well as in traffic and environmental matters. Efficient cooperation in criminal law is based on a variety of sources, consisting primarily of the treaties between the Nordic countries, multilateral European conventions, common basic approaches in crime control and human rights policies, uniform legislation in relevant areas, and established practice between state authorities.
1 See Lahti, R., “Sub-Regional Cooperation in Criminal Matters: The Experience of the Nordic Countries”, in Bser, A., Lagodny, O., eds., Principles and Procedures far a New Transnational Criminal Law (Freiburg i.Br., 1992) 306.Google Scholar
2 See, e.g., Lahti, R., “Current Trends in Criminal Policy in the Scandinavian Countries”, in Bishop, N., ed., Scandinavian Criminal Policy and Criminology 1980–85 (Copenhagen, 1985) 59.Google Scholar
3 See generally, Stangeland, P., ed., Drugs and Drug Control, Scandinavian Studies in Criminology (Oslo, 1987) vol. 8.Google Scholar
4 See, e.g., Sveri, K., “Criminal Law and Penal Sanctions”, in Snare, A., ed., Scandinavian Studies in Criminology (Oslo, 1990) vol. 11, p. 11.Google Scholar
5 For a fuller account, see Lahti, R., “On Finnish and Scandinavian Criminal Policy”, (1989) Cahiers de Défense Sociale 64.Google Scholar
6 See also Lahti, R., “Zur Entwicklung der Kriminalpolitik in Finnland”, in Festschrift für Hans-Heinrich Jescheck (Berlin, 1986) vol. II, p. 871, at 884.Google Scholar
7 Cf., i.e., Lacey, N., “Justice and Efficiency in Criminal Justice”, in Butler, W.E., ed., Justice and Comparative Law (Dordrecht, 1987) 91, at 98Google Scholar, and Ashworth, A., “Towards a Theory of Criminal Legislation”, (1989) 1 Criminal L. Forum 41, at 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 See, e.g., Lappi-Seppälä, T., “Penal Policy and Sentencing Theory in Finland”, in Lahti, R. et al. , eds., Criminal Policy and Sentencing in Transition (Helsinki, 1992) 3, at 7.Google Scholar
9 See Amendments to the Penal Code and to the Decree on the Enforcement of the Penal Code (Department of Legislation, Ministry of Justice, Helsinki, 1991). The publication is a supplement to the Penal Code of Finland and the Decree on the Enforcement of the Penal Code (Research Institute of Legal Policy, Helsinki, 1983).
10 See Lahti, R., “Diversion from Criminal Justice — Some Experiences from Finland”, in Hungarian-Finnish Penal Law Seminary on Petty Offences (Budapest, 1984) 119.Google Scholar
11 For a follow-up study concerning this sanction, see Takala, J.-P., “Finland's Experiment with Community Service”, in Rapport fra kontaktseminar om samfunnstjeneste (Scandinavian Research Council for Criminology, Oslo, 1993) 32.Google Scholar
12 Regarding the latter group of offences, see Pihlajamäki, A., “Computer Crimes and Other Crimes against Information Technology in Finland”, (1993) 64 Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal 275.Google Scholar
13 See generally, Pellinen, T., “The Finnish System of Penal Sanctions and Its Reform”, in Lahti, R., Nuotio, K., eds., Towards a Total Reform of Finnish Criminal Law (Helsinki, 1990) 159Google Scholar, and Part 1 (the papers of T. Lappi-Seppälä, A. Hirvonen, H. Kiuru and T. Pellinen) in Criminal Policy and Sentencing in Transition, supra n. 8.
14 See generally, Lahti, R., Nuotio, K., eds., Criminal Law Theory in Transition (Finnish Lawyers' Publishing Co., Helsinki, 1992)Google Scholarpassim.
15 For a more detailed analysis, see R. Lahti, “Die Gesamtreform des finnischen Strafgesetzes: Zielsetzung und Stand der Reformarbeit bis 1991: insbesondere im Blick auf die erste Phase der Gesamtreform”, in Criminal Law Theory in Transition, ibid., at 27.
16 Weber, M., Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (Tübingen, 1985) 12.Google Scholar
17 Cf. the distinction between policy and principle considerations, Dworkin, R., Taking Rights Seriously (London, 1977) 22.Google Scholar
18 Foreman, J., “The New Proposal for a Swiss Criminal Code” (in Finnish), in: (1898) 34 Tidskrift utgifven af Juridiska Föreningen i Finland 177, at 180.Google Scholar
19 See, e.g., Joutsen, M., “Legitimation and the Limits of the Criminal Justice System” (1992) 1 European J. Criminal Policy and Research 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20 See also Lahti, R., “Finland: National Report” (Concept and Principles of Economic and Business Criminal Law), (1983) 54 Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal 249.Google Scholar
21 For a fuller account of the reasoning of the Criminal Law Committee, see Lahti, R., “The Utilization of Criminological Research in Finnish Criminal Law Reform”, in Towards a Total Reform of Finnish Criminal Law, supra n. 13, at 39.Google Scholar
22 For the explanation of this development, see Törnudd, P., “Fifteen Years of Decreasing Prisoner Rates in Finland” (National Research Institute of Legal Policy, unpublished paper, 29 June 1991).Google Scholar
23 See, e.g., Lahti, R., “Criminal Sanctions in Finland: A System in Transition” (1977) 21 Scandinavian Studies in Law 119, at 128.Google Scholar
24 See, in particular, the critique by Hassemer, W., “Symbolisches Strafrecht und Rechtsgüterschutz” (1989) Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 553.Google ScholarCf. also the “minimalistic approach” of the Israeli criminal law reform, Kremnitzer, M., “The Israeli Proposal for a New General Part of a Penal Code — An Introduction”, in Criminal Law Theory in Transition, supra n. 14, at 63.Google Scholar
25 See the appendices 1–2 in the work Criminal Law Theory in Transition, supra n. 14. The contributions to this book were devoted to the Finnish criminal law reform.
26 A. Ashworth, supra n. 7, at 41, regards these values as essentially formal virtues of codification.
27 On the draft proposals in this respect, see Lappi-Seppälä, T., “The Doctrine of Criminal Liability and the Draft Criminal Code for Finland”, in Criminal Law Theory in Transition, supra n. 14, at 228.Google Scholar For an Israeli reform plan, cf. M. Kremnitzer, supra n. 24, at 61.
28 See, in particular, Frände, D., “Die Gefahrdungsdelikte — Struktur und Begründung”, in Criminal Law Theory in Transition, supra n. 14, at 349.Google Scholar
29 On this discussion see, e.g., Sevón, K., “‘Legality, Efficiency and Legitimacy’: Some Comments on the Legitimacy Problems of Modern Criminal Law”, in Towards a Total Reform of Finnish Criminal Law, supra n. 13, at 181Google Scholar, and “The Concepts of ‘Rechtsgut’, ‘Handlung’ and ‘Schuld’”, in Criminal Law Theory in Transition, supra n. 14, at 126.
30 See Criminal Law Theory in Transition, supra n. 14, at 687, and T. Lappi-Seppälä, supra n. 27, at 214.
31 Cf. the detailed discussions on this topic in German, e.g., Kunz, K.-L., “Prevention und gerechte Zurechnung”, (1986) 98 Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32 Cf. generally, Eser, A., Fletcher, George P., eds., Rechtfertigung und Entschuldigung (Justification and Excuse) (Freiburg i.Br., 1987–1988), vols. I–IIGoogle Scholar, in particular the German-Anglo-American debate.
33 See also Lahti, R., “Neues in der finnischen Strafrechtswissenschaft und in den allgemeinen Lehren des finnischen Strafrechts” (1991) 103 Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 521, at 533.Google ScholarCf. generally T. Lappi-Seppälä, supra n. 27, at 215.
34 See, in particular, Roxin, C., Kriminalpolitik und Strafrechtssystem (München, 2nd ed., 1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Roxin, , Strafrecht. Allgemeiner Teil (München, 1992).Google Scholar See also, e.g., Schünemann, B., ed., Grundfragen des modernen Strafrechtssystems (Berlin, 1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35 Liszt, F. von, “Über den Einfluss der soziologischen und anthropologischen Forschungen auf die Grundbegriffe des Strafrechte”, in Strafrechtliche Aufsätze und Vorträge (Berlin, 1905), vol. II, p. 75.Google Scholar
36 For a more detailed analysis, see R. Lahti, supra n. 33, at 535.
37 See Lappi-Seppälä, T., On Sentencing (in Finnish with an English Summary) (Vammala, 1987), at 120, 252, 262 and 598.Google Scholar
38 See Frände, D., “The Dogmatics of Criminal Law and Criminal Policy” (in Swedish) (1985) 18 Oikeustiede — Jurisprudent 5, at 29, 37, 46 and 48.Google Scholar
39 In the sense used by R. Dworkin, supra n. 17.
40 See, e.g., Fletcher, G.P., “Utilitarismus und Prinzipiendenken im Strafrecht” (1989) 101 Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 803, at 813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41 On this kind of reasoning in general, see Alexy, R., “Rechtsregeln und Rechtsprinzipien” (1985) Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie (Beiheft 25) 13.Google Scholar
42 See chap. 3, sec. 4, para. 2 of the Penal Code.
