NCJ Number
80654
Date Published
1980
Length
9 pages
Annotation
The background of Finland's sentencing reform, specifically its adoption of sentencing guidelines, shows a struggle between theorists and practitioners influenced by changing ideologies on punishment.
Abstract
For years, Finland's sentencing regulations contained no form of sentencing guidelines. However, with the introduction of various alternative sentence types and greater refinement in classifying types of crimes, courts had greater choice and improved sentencing controls appeared necessary. In the 1960's, Finland passed regulations on minimum and maximum fines to be used in sentencing. In the mid-1970's, minimum sentences were set. In the 1970's, popular feeling was that sentences in general were too harsh. Courts tended to look for ways to skirt the law and pass lighter, more humanitarian sentences. About this same time, a new ideology -- individualized sentencing -- became popular. It prescribed tailoring the sentence to the individual and correcting problems in the offenders' upbringing to bring about rehabilitation. The law would set broad limits for sentencing, and courts would use discretion in handing out treatments or sentences. This new ideology was attacked by critics fearing its discriminatory tendencies. The current law reform resulting in sentencing guidelines was developed to bypass these undesirable effects of individualized sentencing. The guidelines prescribe a normal sentencing zone for particular crime types. Within these zones, courts have some discretion. However, courts must adhere to general stipulations when using discretion: (1) the sentence should correspond to the crime's gravity, (2) cumulative offenses must be considered, (3) and after these factors are taken into account, the least-severe appropriate sentence should be chosen.