OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL
FINLAND 27 August, 2007 Dnro 26/53/07
ALTERNATIVES TO PROSECUTION IN COUNCIL OF EUROPE MEMBER STATES
Replies from Finland
IV. QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Concerning the legal framework: does your country follow a system of mandatory or discretionary prosecution? Has the situation changed during the last two years or is a change envisaged? In your country, what is the percentage of criminal law responses to offences perpetrated by identified offenders in the years 2005 and 2006? Amongst those, what is the proportion of alternative to prosecution responses?
ANSWER
In principle in Finland the mandatory prosecution system is applied, but there are several exceptions that give discretionary powers to the prosecutor. No changes have been made in legislation during two last years.
Prosecutor's decisions according to the outcome 2005-2006 were following:
2005 2006
Charge 81% 78,5%
Fine (decided by prosecutor) 3% 3%
Not prosecuted 12,5% 13,5%
Restricted pre trial investigation 2% 3%
Other decision 1,5% 2%
Category “not prosecuted” includes here both a) cases where there is no evidence to be found and b) such cases where the perpetrator is identified but alternative measures to prosecution are used. The proportions inside this category were following: 78% no evidence and 22% alternative measures (2005), 76% no evidence and 24% alternative measures (2006).
2. In the event of an offence, are your judicial authorities able to choose between criminal law measures and other responses? If so, please specify which. Is that choice definitive or can it be challenged?
ANSWER
Prosecutors or courts are not allowed to use other than criminal law / criminal procedure measures and methods concerning criminal offences.
3. Who decides on this choice? What is the specific role of the prosecutor?
ANSWER
See question 2.
4. Are there criteria for abandoning the criminal prosecution approach?
ANSWER
A prosecutor may decide not to prosecute on the following grounds (according to the Law of Criminal Procedure):
ROL 1:7
The prosecutor can decide not to prosecute an offence:
1) if the most severe expected punishment is fine and the offence is assessed to be minor considered its harmfulness and the degree of guilt and judged as wholeness
2) which is committed by an offender aged 15-18 years, if the most severe expected punishment is fine or six months imprisonment and the reason for committing a crime is assessed to be more lack of understanding than indifference of orders and prohibitions of law.
ROL 1:8
If an important public or private interest does not demand prosecution, the prosecutor can decide not to prosecute besides in the cases mentioned in ROL 1:7 also when
1) the trial and punishment is to be assessed unreasonable or purposeless considered a conciliation between the offender and the victim or offender's other actions to restrict or eliminate the effects of his/her crime, his/her personal conditions, the other effects of the crime to the offender, the activities of the social- and healthcare and other matters
2) the offence wouldn't essentially influence to total punishment by the regulations of combined punishment or considering the preceding verdict
5. Could it happen that a serious offence escapes any prosecution because of alternative measures?
ANSWER
Principally yes, the discretionary powers are not limited according to the seriousness of the offence when decided by ROL 1:8.
6. Are victims informed beforehand, consulted, and can they challenge the decision in the case when criminal prosecution was dropped, and how are their rights preserved?
ANSWER
The victims are not informed beforehand or consulted, but they can freely prosecute for an offence by themselves after the prosecutor has made a decision not to prosecute. If the victim presents new evidence, the prosecutor can consider his or her decision over again.
7. Given that the response chosen gives rise to obligations in respect of the persons subjected to it - such as the reparation of damage - are they able to lodge an appeal with an impartial authority (for example, for validation by a judge of a restraining order or an obligation to undergo training proposed by way of settlement)?
ANSWER
In Finland no obligations such as the reparation of damage, can be set to offenders by decisions made by public prosecutor. Confiscation up to 1000 euros can be decided by a prosecutor within the system of penal order.
8. Can you give specific examples of alternatives to prosecution which you see as particularly well suited to the prevention of reoffending by the perpetrator and consideration of victims' interests?
ANSWER
It is difficult to give any such specific examples. In some cases, e.g. young offenders, cases where settlement has been done, the decision not to prosecute might be quite adequate when it comes the prevention of reoffending. But also in those cases prosecution could be as efficient as non-prosecution or even more efficient (if only the preventive effect is considered and the other possible benefits are not counted).
9. Is there a method in your country for assessing the effectiveness of alternatives to prosecution and what is it?
ANSWER
In Finland there is no such a specific and permanent method which could be used by the prosecution service or other authorities. Certain studies can be made by universities and research institutes.
10. Can you provide the contact details (with their consent) of someone clearly identified as a specialist on these questions and supply examples of their work to back up your choice?
11. Other comments