180 of the decisions was usually phrased so as to include the terminology of the legal theory of proof. The formulas used did not differ essentially fromthose used in homicide crimes. Convictions were based on a “voluntary confession,”"^^ “the concurring statements of two witnesses heard under oath,”-'’^ or “regardless of [the accused’s] denial to confess, on the statements of witnesses heard under oath.”5i Second, it is difficult to find cases ending in conviction where two eyewitnesses or a confession were not present,^- although, as in homicide crimes, the concurrence of witness statements was a matter of wide interpretation.Inadultery cases, written confessions were widely used.^-* Besides, it seems that it was often enough for the court to hear two witnesses or to receive a confession; after this much was caught in the records, the investigation could be concluded. All in all, it emerges clearly from the court records of Tampere and Salo that the lower courts in the first half of the century made sure of having the legal full proof established before convicting. Athird factor that seems to confirma rather strict following of the statutory theory of proof in the lower courts is the use of the middle categories of decision. There are cases decided where a purgatory oath has been ordered.5=* In some cases of the sample, conditional acquittal has been used for a half proof.^^ In the limited sample, no cases of absolutio ab instantia were found; understandably, since the decisional category was reserved for (the quite rare) serious crimes. The use of middle categories of decisions goes to show, nevertheless, that the legal theory of proof was followed. My data- although too limited to allow excessively wide conclusions - seem to demonstrate, thus, that the lower court practice as far as lesser crime was 49 « ... frivilligt erkänt ...,” see Karittala (Pyhäjoki; Fall 1850; 61 §); also Koivu (Pyhajoki; Fall 1850; 62 §); and Kesti (Tampere; January 18, 1850; 1 §). ... genomde i målet edelige afhörde vittnens sammanstämmiga berättelser ...,” Matts Ryty (Pvhäjoki; February 16, 1920; 83 §). See also, for example, Aitokoski and Rauha (Pyhäjoki; February 19, 1820; 91§); Törmäkangas, Honga, and Raudaskoski (Pyhäjoki; February 24, 1820; 157§); Nurkkala (Pyhäjoki; Fall 1850; 60§); Helin (Tampere; January IS, 1850; 1 §); Hällström(Tampere; January 28, 1850; 8 §); Walin (Tampere; March 4, 1850; 2 §); and Kivistö and Jussila (Tampere; March 25, 1850; 1 §). Honga (Pyhäjoki; February 24, 1820; 158§). In Saloinen (January 25, 1820; 43 §) Caisa Mickelä and Johan Johansson were charged for illicit intercourse. Caisa had given birth to a baby girl; she confessed and was convicted, whereas the other accused denied to the charges. Johan had been seen spending time together with Caisa, but since no direct eve-witness evidence could be produced, Johan was acquitted. 53 See Palmén (Tampere; January 28 and February 18, 1850; l-2§§), where there are two eyewitnesses, but they testify to differents parts of the alleged crime. 5'' See Väärälä (Pyhäjoki; February 16, 1820; 73 §); and Pyhälä (Pyhäjoki; February 16, 1829; so “ 75§). Pfaler (Tampere; March 4 and May 27, 1850; 1-2 §§); and Lundgren (Tampere; May 27, 55 von 1850; 13§). 5^ Mikkola, Rautio, and Heikkilä (Pvhäjoki; Fall 1850; 66§); and Gummerus (Pyhäjoki; Fall 1850; 74§).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=