Rikoksentekijän pyrkimys edistää rikoksensa selvittämistä – syyllisyys ja tarkoituksenmukaisuusargumentti
Avainsanat:
rikosoikeus, rangaistuksen määrääminen, lieventämisperusteet, pyrkimys edistää rikoksen selvittämistäAbstrakti
An offender’s attempt to further the clearing up of the offence – issues of culpability and expediency
According to the Criminal Code of Finland, punishments can be reduced if the offender attempts to further the clearing up of the offence (chapter 6, section 6(3)). This reason for reducing the punishment can be justified and by both the principles of appropriateness and expediency, even though the currently prevailing view tends towards the latter. The article asks whether an offender’s attempt to contribute to the investigation should be seen solely as a pragmatic issue, or should it be seen also as an issue of culpability.
The author notes that a court ought to be able to base its judgment explicitly on culpability argumentation, instead of resorting solely to pragmatic reasons. This is because the fulfilment of the provision’s objective (process economy) requires that the provision has an effect on the offender’s will to contribute and on their concrete actions. The author notes further that offenders will most probably confess in a situation where they can be certain that the confession will be taken into consideration regardless of whether they have actually resulted in process-economic benefits. This type of reasoning in the sentencing process requires reliance on deontological culpability argumentation. This is because if the sentencing consideration is based solely on expediency instead of culpability argumentation, the will and efforts of the offender will not be taken into account reliably and credibly. In other words, the offender’s will and concrete endeavours ought to be sufficient grounds for reducing the punishment, but this cannot be fully guaranteed by relying only on pragmatic expediency argumentation. Apart from the goal-oriented and pragmatic aspects of the provision, the author justifies the argument also by examining the foundations of the sentencing system (principles of proportionality and equality).
