Nuorisorikosoikeus : Alaikäisten rikosten seuraamukset kriminaalipoliittisesta ja vertailevasta näkökulmasta

Abstract

Research questions and used data

The aim of my thesis is simple but extensive. In addition to exact research aims I have analysed how the Finnish juvenile justice system differs from systems in which there is a juvenile court institution. A detailed comparison is made between Finland, England and Wales, and Germany.

Research questions are as follows: Which typical questions arise when we are discussing juvenile crime? What are the special characteristics of juvenile criminal justice especially when compared with adult criminal justice? What are the main principles on which special arrangements concerning juvenile crime are based? How does offender’s young age and his characteristics influence the types of punishments and other form of sanctions? What is the division of labour between criminal law and child welfare? What role does diversion play in each system and what does it concretely mean? What is the distribution of punishment types given to juveniles?

The used data is extensive. It consists of legislation, official documents, and jurisprudential, criminological and comparative criminal policy literature. In empirical parts of the study statistics, enforcement documents, criminal records and court decisions (as well as empirical data from my previous research) are used. On comparative parts of the study I have been forced to settle for secondary sources.

Findings

At the beginning of the 21st century a heated parliament debate concerning the age of criminal responsibility took place in Finland. The claim was to lower it. The results of this study suggest (as has been claimed several times before by specialists) that there are practically no reasonable grounds to reform. Finnish juvenile criminal justice has little to offer to minor’s dysfunction and social problems on which childrens´ crime are mainly due to also since the child welfare authorities deal with these cases. Changes to age categories would only be reasonable if the orientation of juvenile criminal justice would be changed in favour of child welfare aspect. This would mean that a part of the tasks nowadays handled by the child welfare authorities would be reassigned to the juvenile criminal justice system. However, criminological research and experiences in other countries do not support this view either.

The vast majority of penalties imposed by courts for all age-groups consist of fines in Finland. The younger the offender the higher the share of fines (75 % in age-group 15–17, 60 % in 18–20 and 55 % for offenders over 20 years). This is a quite exceptional characteristic in international comparison. In Germany the corresponding percentage of fines for juveniles is 11 and in England and Wales 20. Among the use of different community sanctions (fines not included) are huge differences between compared countries. In Finland the share of community sanctions is 24 %, in Germany 78 % (leisure-time arrest and short-term arrest included) and in England and Wales 74 %. Respectively the share of imprisonment is in Finland 1 %, in Germany 11 % (prison and long-term detention) and 7 % in England and Wales.

However, the number of juveniles getting some kind of criminal sanction (diversion included) is somewhat higher in Finland than in England and Wales or in Germany. In England and Wales the relative figure (per 100 000, relevant population) of sanctioned juveniles is 7087 (2004), in Germany 8495 (2004) and in Finland 9311 (2004).

This analysis tried to figure out the number of children 10–17 years who are placed in child welfare institution against their own will and with a background of delinquent history in Finland. It was estimated that there are about 100 (10–14-years) and 150 (15–17-years) delinquents minor in child welfare institutions. At the same time there are only few (typically 2–7) juvenile prisoners.

In England and Wales and in Germany number of juvenile prisoner (aged 15–17, per 100 000 relevant population) is much higher than in Finland. In England and Wales the relative figure (per 100 000 relevant population, including remand) of juvenile prisoner is 124 (2006), in Germany 64 (2005) and in Finland 4 (2006). In Finland, overall prison rate is about 70 prisoner per 100 000 inhabitants. Difference between juvenile prison rate and overall prison rate is huge. In England and Wales and Germany there are no great differences on this matter.

However, these figures are misleading because of the differences between systems. There are much more (about 150) delinquent juveniles placed in child welfare institutions in Finland than there are juvenile prisoners. The child welfare institutions in Finland are very small and home-like in contrast to juvenile prisons in Finland but especially in England and Wales, or in Germany. When child welfare figures are added to juvenile prisoners figures, we find that there are about 77 juveniles (per 100 000, relevant population) placed outside their home because of their delinquent behaviour in Finland. The corresponding figures are about 150 in England and Wales, and 73 in Germany. The German figure would double if we took into account the juveniles placed in youth detention centres. The conclusion follows; taking into account child welfare side of Finnish system the differences are reasonable and comparable. In Finnish juvenile justice system the child welfare measures are far more commonly used way of control juveniles than utilising punishments.

One could characterize Finnish juvenile justice system compared to England and Wales and Germany as follows: there are no juvenile courts, the use of monetary penalties is high, the significance of prior sanction in sentencing is quite low, community penalties are not very intensive, sanctions concerning violation of the conditions of community sentences are quite lenient and the parents are not held responsible for their child’s crimes. Maybe the most important feature is to react on juvenile crimes more in the context of child welfare instead of criminal justice. The comparison of juvenile justice systems without taking into consideration both criminal justice and child welfare systems is misleading.

Väitöskirjassa tarkastellaan nuorten rikosten käsittelyä ja seuraamuksia Suomessa, Saksassa ja Englannissa.

Teoksessa käsitellään nuorisorikosoikeudellisen sääntelyn kehityskaaria (luku II) sekä eritellään nuoriin sovellettavan rangaistusjärjestelmän perusteita ja tavoitteita (luku III). Luvussa IV esitetään vertailumaiden nuorten rikosten käsittelyjärjestelmien perusteiden kuvaukset, arvioidaan Suomen 15 vuoden rangaistusvastuuikärajan tarkoituksenmukaisuutta sekä tarkastellaan eri maiden nuorisorikollisuuden tasoja ja rangaistusten jakaumia. Teoksen laajimmassa luvussa V kartoitetaan nuoriin sovellettavien seuraamusten sääntelyratkaisut ja soveltamiskäytännöt vertailumaissa, sekä arvioidaan eri järjestelmien soveltamisesta saatuja kokemuksia pääosin tilastollisen materiaalin valossa. Luvussa VI pohditaan lastensuojelun ja rikosoikeuden rajapintaa.

Aineistona on käytetty kotimaisia ja ulkomaisia virallisasiakirjoja ja oikeuskirjallisuutta, kriminologista, vertailevaa ja kriminaalipoliittista kirjallisuutta, tilastoja sekä useita empiirisiä aineistoja. Vertailun osalta on tyydytty sekundaarilähteisiin.

Suomessa voimassa oleva 15 vuoden rangaistusvastuuikäraja on perusteltu. Sen muuttamiseen ei ole ilmennyt pitäviä perusteita. Sakkorangaistuksella on Suomessa poikkeuksellisen suuri asema nuorten rikosseuraamuksena. Nuorten avoseuraamuksia on Suomessa vähän ja niitä myös käytetään vähän. Ehdollisen vankeuden valvonnan ja nuorisorangaistuksen väljä sisältö paikkaavat osittain avoseuraamusten vähäistä määrää. Suomen avoseuraamukset eivät ole kansainvälisessä katsannossa kovin intensiivisiä.

Vankilan käyttö nuorten rangaistuksena on Suomessa kriminaalipoliittisesti tarkoituksenmukaisella tavalla harvinaista. Jos alaikäiseen on välttämättä kohdistettava vapaudenrajoitustoimia, hänet tulee sijoittaa lastensuojeluun erikoistuneeseen laitokseen, ei vankilaan. Käytännössä Suomessa tapahtuu juuri näin. Alaikäisten lainrikkojien paikka ei ole vankilassa vaan lastensuojelun huollollisten toimien piirissä.

Väitöskirjan keskeinen tulos on se, ettei pelkkien rikosoikeudellisten käytäntöjen vertailu ole mielekästä. Jotta Suomessa omaksuttu nuorisorikosoikeudellinen järjestelmä tulee oikein ymmärretyksi, rikosoikeuden ohella tulee huomioida lastensuojelun toimet, jotka ovat viime vuosina yleistyneet melko paljon. Suomessa on alaikäisiä vankeja vain muutamia, mutta ainakin osaksi rikosperusteella laitoksiin sijoitettuja nuoria on tutkimuksessa esitetyn arvion mukaan moninkertainen määrä, noin 150. Lastensuojelulain mukaiset toimet ovat rangaistusjärjestelmää merkittävästi laajemmin käytetty nuorisorikollisuuden tuki- ja kontrollimuoto. Tämä on väittelijän käsityksen mukaan linjassa pohjoismaisen hyvinvointivaltion arvojen varaan rakentuvan kriminaalipolitiikan kanssa.