188 for confessional imprisonment^’; in addition to that, both a lower court and a high court convicted in ten cases which the JDS changed to confessional imprisonment.^^ Clearly, confessional imprisonment was conceived of as the central remedy to the problems caused by the difficulty in obtaining full legal proof that the statutory theory of proof required. Whereas conditional acquittal, and also to certain extent absolutio ab instantia, seem to have functioned as alternatives to acquittal, confessional imprisonment was used, in the period of full proof, in strong cases in which full proof was lacking. Contrary to the cases of conditional acquittal and absolutio ab instantia, the cases of confessional imprisonment were often, as far as material truth is concerned, “clear.” Confessional imprisonment, then, was the way for the upper courts to proceed in cases in which circumstantial evidence was strong and that were according to common sense rather clear but in which, for one reason or another, legal full proof was lacking. For the lower courts, on the contrary, the only way of incapacitating the accused in these cases was to convict them. Matts Mattsson’s case of 1830 represents the ideal-type: Farmer Matts Mattsson was charged, in the Hundred Court of litti, of the killing of farmer Matts Alexandersson Staffanila; the victimhad been killed in a mill on the October 27th 1828. According to two witnesses, the accused was the only one who could have been in the mill at the moment, in addition to which the victimand the accused were well-known enemies. The accused had fled the mill immediately after the victimhad been hit; furthermore, before his death the victim had denounced the accused for the assault. The lower court sentenced Mattsson to death, and the High Court of Turku to ahsolutio ah instantia, recommendingconfessional imprisonment (vote 4-4, minority for death sentence). TheJDS settled for confessional imprisonment. Convictions Confessional imprisonment was not, however, the only instrument which helped the courts to cope with cases in which guilt seemed proven to them. Above I already pointed to the fact that it was extremely common for a low^er court to have convicted in a case that later, either in high court of the JDS, ended up with confessional imprisonment. Sometimes a high court convicted in these cases as well, so that it remained for the highest judicial instance to ensure that the letter of the statute was followed. However, the letter of the law See e.g. Rengo, pag. 241/1820; Björk, pag. 238/1823; Levan, pag. 117/1825; Siiroin, pag. 18/ 1830; Määttänen, pag. 195/1830; Isomaa, pag. 139/1835; Petelius, pag. 391/1835; Ivarsson, pag. 234/1840; Eriksson, pag. 570/1840; Crop, pag. 535/1844; Samuelsson, pag. 82/1845; Selenius, pag. 449/1849; and Paunonen-Pöyhönen, pag. 113/1850. See e.g. Sundblom, pag. 271/1824; Smidt, pag. 398/1830; and Lång, pag. 336/1845. Mattsson, pag. 66/1830; as to the degree of convincing evidence, a comparable case is Smidt, pag.398/1830.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=