Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:09:35.304Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Penal Policy and Sentencing Theory in Finland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2015

Tapio Lappi-Seppälä
Get access

Extract

The ideology of treatment, as well as confidence in the special preventive effects of punishment, was severely attacked in the late 1960’s. In Scandinavia, this criticism quickly led to a series of legislative reforms. The first target was the system of preventive detention. The lack of legal security was considered to be most obvious flaw here. After the reforms concerning the use of preventive measures—for example, for dangerous offenders—were implemented, attention shifted to the structure of the whole penal system. From the mid 70’s on, the Finnish criminal justice system was reformed in a “neo-classical” spirit. Instead of individualization and rehabilitation, the emphasis is now placed on legal security and the principles of proportionality, predictability, and equality. These ideas and principles received their most manifest expression in the 1976 reform of sentencing provisions (Chapter 6 in the Finnish penal code).

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence , Volume 5 , Issue 1: Reflections on Sentencing and Corrections , January 1992 , pp. 95 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES:

Andenaes, Johs: Punishment and Deterrence. (Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1974).Google Scholar
Anttila, Inkeri: “Conservative and radical criminal policy in the Nordic countries” in Scandinavian Studies in Criminology 3, 1971. (Norwich: Universitetsforlaget, 1971).Google Scholar
Anttila, Inkeri & Patrik, Törnudd: “Reasons for Punishment” in Bishop, N. ed., Crime and Crime Control in Scandinavia 1976-1980. (Stockholm: Scandinavian Research Council for Criminology, 1980).Google Scholar
Ashworth, Andrew: Sentencing and Penal Policy. (London: Oxford Press, 1983).Google Scholar
Ashworth, Andrew: “Techniques for reducing subjective disparity” in Council of Europe Disparities in Sentencing.Google Scholar
Beyleveld, Deryck: A Bibliography on General Deterrence Research. (Farnabourgh: Saxon House, 1980).Google Scholar
Bishop, Norman: Non-Custodial Alternatives in Europe. (Helsinki: Helsinki Institute for Crime Prevention and Control Affiliated with the United Nationsreport No. 14, 1988).Google Scholar
Bondeson, Ulla: Prisoners in Prison Societies. (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1989).Google Scholar
Christie, Nils: Limits to Pain. (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1981).Google Scholar
Council of Europe: Disparities in Sentencing: Causes and solutions, Reports presented to the eighth Criminological Colloquium (1987). Collected Studies in Criminological Research vol. 26. (Strasbourg: European Committee on Crime Problems, 1989).Google Scholar
Cross, Rupert: The English Sentencing System (Oxford: Butterworths, 1981).Google Scholar
Hart, H.L.A.: Punishment and Responsibility (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968).Google Scholar
Hirsch, Andrew von: “Desert and Previous Convictions in Sentencing”, 1981 65 Minn. L. R. 591.Google Scholar
Hirsch, Andrew von: “Numeric Grids or Guiding Principles” in von Hirsch, A., Knapp, K., & Tonry, M. eds, The Sentencing Commission and its Guidelines. (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1987).Google Scholar
Hirsch, Andrew von: Non-Custodial Penalties and the Principles of Desert, (1988) Criminal Law Review 555.Google Scholar
Jareborg, Nils: Essays in Criminal Law (Uppsala: Iustus, 1988).Google Scholar
Jareborg, Nils: “Disparity in Sentencing: Some General Observations” in Essays in Criminal Law. Printed also in Council of Europe, Disparities in Sentencing (Strasbourg: European Committee on Crime Problems, 1989).Google Scholar
Joutsen, Matti: The Criminal Justice System of Finland. A General Introduction. (Helsinki: Ministry of Justice, 1989).Google Scholar
Lacey, Nicola: “Punishment, Justice and Consequentialism: A Reply to Professor Eckhoff” (1984) ARSP (Beiheft 19; 28).Google Scholar
Lahti, Raimo: “Current Trends in Criminal policy in the Scandinavian Countries” in Bishop, N. ed., Scandinavian Criminal Policy and Criminology 1980-1985. (Copenhagen: Scandinavian Research Council for Criminology, 1985).Google Scholar
Lappi-Seppälä, Tapio: Rangaistuksen määräämisestä I—Teoría ja yleinen osa (Sentencing I—Theory and general part). (Helsinki: Suomalainen Lakimiesyhdistys, 1987).Google Scholar
Mathiesen, Thomas: Prison on Trial. (London: Sage, 1990).Google Scholar
Murphy, Jeffrie: “Retributivism, Moral Education, and the Liberal State” (1985) 4 Criminal Justice Ethics 3.Google Scholar
Murphy, Jeffrie: “Mercy and Legal Justice” in Coleman, J. & Paul, E.F. eds, Philosophy and Law. (New York: Basil Blackwell, 1987).Google Scholar
Nordisk Strafferettskomité: Straffutmáling, NU 1984 Google Scholar
Ross, Alf: On Guilt, Responsibility and Punishment. (London: Stevens, 1975).Google Scholar
Sadurski, Wojciech: Giving Desert its Due. Social Justice and Legal Theory. (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1985).Google Scholar
Sentencing Reform: A Canadian Approach. Report of The Canadian Sentencing Commission. (Ottawa, 1987).Google Scholar
Wasserstrom, Richard: The Judicial Decision. (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1961).Google Scholar
Wasserstrom, Richard: “Retributivism, Moral Education, and the Liberal State” (1985) 4 Criminal Justice Ethics 3.Google Scholar
Wasserstrom, Richard: “Retributivism, Moral Education, and the Liberal State”, in Cederblom, J. & Blizek, W. eds, Justice and Punishment. (Cambridge, Mass: Ballinger, 1977).Google Scholar