97 of the criminal justice systemand the realization of its goals. As to the emerging corps of legal professionals serving on the high courts, the statutory theory of proof, especially in its early modern version to which ways of coping flexibly with cases short of full proof {poena extraordinaria, absolutio ab instantia, confessional imprisonment) were incorporated, provided a chance to showand utilize their legal learnedness. Moreover, the new hierarchical system put the high courts in charge of overseeing and controlling the lower courts; the new theorv of proof offered practical tools to pursue this end. At the third level, the local courts and the people, difficulties arose with the reception of the Romancanon law of proof. As local courts were gradually deprived of their traditional, kin-group-based ways of problem solving, and although local courts were simultaneously and repeatedly requested to stick to the letter of the law instead of being allowed to take recourse to absolutio ab instantia, confessional imprisonment, and poena extraordinaria, the statutory theory of proof faced problems in breaking through completely at the local level. Those difficulties persisted up to the nineteenth century. 6. The Lawof Proof in the Swedish Legislation and Juristic Writing fromthe Lawof 1734 to the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century Among the post-1734 writers on criminal procedure, two figures are worth a closer look: Matthias Calonius* (1738-1817) and David Nehrman^ (16951769). Of these two, Nehrman was considerably more influential as far as procedural law is concerned, and not the least because he wrote in Swedish and not in Latin, as Calonius did. An active writer,-^ Nehrman’s most important ' C.ilonius made a large part of his career at the Academy of Turku; he has, thus, often been considered the first truly Finnish legal scientist. He studied law at Turku and became professor there in 1778. Calonius served as a member of the Swedish Supreme Court in 1793-1800, and after Finland’s annexation to Russia in 1809 he was appointed to the highest legal office in the Autonomy, that of Procurator. Nevertheless, Calonius continued as professor until his death. Wrede 1917 pp. 9-15, 47, 241-278, 345-354; Almquist 1946 pp. 37-40. - For over thirty years, Nehrman was Professor of Lawat Lund University. He studied in Germany for a lengthy period (1714-1717), a trip that undoubtedly produced a lasting effect on his thinking. Thomasius’s importance for Nchrman has been underlined - like Thomasius, Nehrman emphasized the importance of legal science as a practical discipline. Instead of Latin, Nehrman preferred using his mother tongue, Swedish, in his literary works. Nehrman has been classified as part of late natural law thinking and Enlightenment. Almquist 1946 pp. 30-33; Björne 1987 pp. 26-27. Besides the four textbooks mentioned below and certain other writings, Nehrman published commentaries on the law of marriage and inheritance in the Law of 1734. See Björne 1987 p. 26. Nchrman was b)’ far the most productive of all the eighteenth-century Swetfish legal treatise writers.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=