RB 54

172 Qualified Confessions In a significant number of cases, the accused will admit to having committed the deed he faces charges for, but claims to have acted unintentionally or under duress. As in the rest of the cases of imperfect confession, even a qualified confession seems to have sufficed to warrant conviction, unless the accused himself or herself has been able to show that his qualification is well grounded. As in the cases of limited confessions, whenever the accused presents a qualified confession, the burden of proof is reversed: the accused himself or herself has to show that he or she acted in legitimate defense or unintentionally. The existence of a legitimate defense or a lack of intentionality, if considered proven, has usually been taken into consideration as a sentencing criterion. Jonas Farm, a former soldier, was accused in the Hundred Court of Mustasaari of the killing of Adolph Isaacsson Fort. The accused admitted having hit the vietimabove the left ear with an axe, but claimed to have acted in self-defense. All instances, however, convicted the accused to the maximum penalty. (Hundred Court of Mustasaari, April 14, 1830; High Court of Vaasa, May 19, 1830; the JDS, February 8, 1831 The Färm case of 1830 allows for two general conclusions. First, as mentioned above, it was up to the accused to showthat he had been forced to act in self-defense. Second, the existence of lawful defense was a matter of the court’s free evaluation. In the Färm case, the self-defense was turned down because, according to the Hundred Court, Farm had had a chance to escape his supposed attacker. Moreover, no weapon with which he would have attacked Farmwas found close to the body. The wounds on the body showed, furthermore, that the victim had not been in such a position that he could have assaulted Färmthe way the latter claimed. Finally, although Färmhad told several witnesses about the incident, he had mentioned the self-defensive character of his actions to no one; the defense only appeared at the court stage. Recanted Confessions Relatively often, a confession given formally correctly before a court was recanted. In some cases, the confession was cancelled before the lower court pronounced its decision; in others, the confession was recanted in an appeals letter to either a high court or the JDS. In the nineteenth century, confession was clearly understood as something that the accused was not entitled to dispose of: once given, the confession now “belonged” to the court. As for the reP.ig. 223/1830; see also Tupp pag. 19/1819; Häggroth, pag. 83/1824; Rashnen, pag. 50/185; Lindström, pag. 173/1831; Hakalahti, pag. 136/1830; Andersson, pag. 252/1839; Sillanpää, pag. 395/1850; Joronen, pag. 304/1845; Ella, pag. 442/1845; Borg, pag. 43/1845; and Lamia pag. 387/1850.

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=